be any distrusting of providence nor does it appear that the means in question are unlawful any further than supposing them so makes them so Obs Now you act the Whig to the life for demonstrate a thing never so plainly they 're so obstinate you shall ne'r convince them Herac. They 're very refractory fellows I must confess But have you not something somewhere concerning the Bill of Exclusion's reaching the King Obs Oh yes 't is N. 131. If the Exclusion should pass it would manifestly shew that the Government were outwitted for it would reach the King as well as the Duke Herac. Well I see the King and the Government are still convertible terms with you signifiying one and the same thing But methinks the King is in a fine case betwixt you and the Whigs for that may stand well enough for the House of Commons For they cry the King's person c. cannot be safe without the Exclusion and you that he cannot be safe with it But why do not you prove your assertion as they have pretended to do theirs Obs Why though I do it not in this very place yet look but in the page before and I have done it 'T is but drawing of one Stone out of the building many times that brings the whole fabrick upon your head Just so remove but the Duke and the King cannot stand Herac. But there 's an old rule That similitudes illustrate but do not prove And why should not the King stand though the House fall But now for my part I think the Whigs speak reason for seeing the King is reputed an Heretick by the Catholicks and when he is removed they have hopes of a Popish Successor He is apparently in double danger both as he 's taken for an Heretick and so it may be no sin to murther him and also because in their opinion he keeps a better man from the Crown and one that has more right to it And besides the Whigs still affirm and you dare not deny it that for these reasons there were several that actually undertook the Job and I know not that their designs or principles are yet changed But I care not for medling with these Edge-tools let 's pass to the power and priviledges of Parliament t is safe enough to speak freely there for mortui non mordent Obs As for the power of Parliaments The House of Commons are as much subjects to the King joyntly at severally N. 131. They are made choice of by subjects to represent as subjects Their Commission is Temporary and limited to the Ends for which they were call'd and chosen And those Ends and Powers must be circumscribed by the Qualifications and Capacities of those that chose them for the case is the same as betwixt a Trustee and his Principal N. 135. Herac. The summ of what you say is this That the House of Commons have no more power than those that chose them Now I am not of your mind Nor is there any correspondence between Free-holders and a House of Commons and a Principal and his Trustee For a Principal can both pitch upon the person and limit the Power of his Trustee but so cannot the Free-holders of their Representatives in Parliament For though they elect the Persons yet the Power is from the Law and can neither be enlarged nor abridged by the Electors You know no subject has power over the Life or Estate of his fellow-subject And yet when twelve are elected or nominated by the Sheriff they have a greater power than the King himself in depriving a man of either which they have not from their Elector but from the Law Obs No but they have their power from the King whose Minister the Sheriff is Herac. If we should grant that it would come still to the same thing for the King must owe it to the Law that he can give such a power For if he had it absolutely of himself he might himself adjudge any man to death that he thinks deserves it which you know he cannot do Obs Well but what 's this to the business Herac. 'T is only the very same case For as the King gives the Sheriff power to nominate the Jurors who after their Impannelling have a power which neither he that nominated them gave them nor themselves have singly and apart so by the several Writs directed to be proclaim'd by the Sheriffs Bailiffs c. the King gives the people a power to Elect Members for Parliament who being return'd and assembl'd in the House are by the Law and Constitution of the Government invested in a power which neither their Electors have nor themselves had before they were so assembled They have not such a power indeed as Jurors have but they have a power that is proper and peculiar to them AS they are one of the three Estates in Parliament Obs Well but with all this what kind of power is this these Commons have seeing the King is the SOLE Soveraign and they are only to do their part toward the furnishing of Materials for New Laws where they are Defective N. 135. Herac. The King indeed is a Monarch and that is as much as sole Governour not absolutely but in a limited sence and suo modo He 's sole Governour as to the Administration not sole in Legislation For I do not think the Lords and Commons to be only Labourers to serve up Materials to the King to build new Laws withal but to pursue your Metaphor they are Builders as well as He. Obs How can that be for let them Vote and Pass their Hearts out all signifies nothing without Le Roy le veult or Soit fait come il est desire Herac. 'T is true the King has a Negative Voice but consider it well and 't is no more than what either House have For let the Commons pass a Bill and the Lords can reject it and on the contrary though the rejecting House know that the King so much favour the Bill that he would most certainly pass it into an Act if they would but give their consent to it So that it is evident the consent of either House is as necessary in order to the making of an Act as the King 's is And indeed the usual preface to all Acts evidences this plainly viz. Be it Enacted by the King 's most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and CONSENT of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and of the Commons in Parliament Assembled and by the AVTHORITY of the same Here you have the Consent and Authority of the two Houses linked with the King 's Seeing therefore part of the power of Making Laws is in the Commons Assembled in Parliament and they have no such power out of Parliament but can then only Obey them 't is plain they are not in all respects as much subjects joyntly as severally unless to make Laws and obey them be the same thing Nor do I know to what purpose you should so much
needless Obs This is damn'd close but however I could easily answer it if I durst own going to Prayers to the Queens Chapel and receiving the Body of Christ from my Confessor Herac. In the second place you are too Bare-fac'd in affirming That if the matter of a Law be Controvertible the Subject is not to dispute either the Authority of it or his Obedience Inf. Cl. Why Sir this is no more than we have been preaching these twenty years Herac. Pardon me Sir if I say you mistake For I never knew you affirm more than that a Law can make a thing that is indifferent in its own nature to become necessary as to practice But the Observator extends this to all things Controvertible which comprehends all the Articles of Faith owned by the Catholicks and rejected by the Church of England Worship of Images praying for the Dead c. In a word whatsoever is Controverted betwixt the Catholicks and Hereticks Obs Well but you know when I writ that I personated a Protestant and those have condemned such Tenets Herac. Ha ha he What are they therefore no longer Controvertible Why the Church has as well condemn'd the Protestant Tenets will the Protestants therefore under a Popish Government never controvert such Tenets more I wish you could persuade 'em to 't and then a Catholick Successor would make short work for as you say The King only is the Government Numb 131. You are likewise too open when you say That you can name at least a dozen Sets of Dissenters that are more Diabolical Hereticks than the Papists You know the most learned Doctors of the Reformed Religion have alwaies held the Pope to be Anti christ and the Church of Rome to be Idolatrous and the King-killing doctrine is avowed by none but our selves Obs Puh you would have me write to no purpose at all must not I train up my Charge to preferr Popery before Presbytery and how shall I do that if I do not give the Schismaticks a wipe now and then Herac. Well let that pass But when you come to speak against the Bill of Exclusion why took you no more pains to prove it unlawful Obs Why have I not done it sufficiently As to his Precedents I have told him N 131 That nothing is therefore well done because it has been done and it is to be suppos'd that none of his Precedents were justifiable Inf. Cl. Yes yes 't is best arguing ex concessis Obs And as to the point of Religion I do not read of any Bills of Exclusion among the Primitive Christians ibid. Herac. Admirable for it is to be supposed that the Emperours and Senate of Rome were Primitive Christians Obs And then I have prov'd it plainly unlawful by this That if any Parliament in Christendom shall preach any other Doctrine of Obedience to Magistrates than what our Saviour and his Apostles have taught us I am afraid that Parliament without repentance will go to the Devil ibid. Herac. I wish they send no body thither before them But where lies the Logick of this Argument Obs Why Sir you very well suppos'd for me before that the Emperour and Senate were primitive Christians and now give me leave to suppose for my self that first our Saviour and after him S. Peter were Emperours and the rest of the Apostles the Senate and we do not find that ever they attempted to exclude Tiberius or Nero or any other from the Throne because they were Heathens and those sure were as bad as Papists Herac. ' Pshaw but part of this Supposition is too gross For our Saviour sayes that his Kingdom was not of this world and that he came not to divide or dispose of Inheritances which implies rather than denies that such whose kingdom is of this world may dispose of Inheritances But as for S. Peter indeed if we may guess at his power and quality by the Pope's his Successour's he was Universal Monarch and if he had thought it lawful might not only have excluded an Heathen Successor but from his plenitude of power have deposed the present Heathen Possessor and given the Crown to a Christian Which because he did not do your Argument indeed is very cogent That no power on Earth can hinder any man from coming to the Crown in his course be he as bad as the Devil Obs Look you there now I see you conceive me Inf. Cl. Yes and as to the Apostles that made up the Senate you have their opinions plain in their writings Submit your selves to every ordinance of man whether it be to the King as supreme Obey them that have the rule over you Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and Powers to obey Magistrates And abundance of such like commands we have All which make it clear seeing the words are general that Emperour and Senate King and Parliament and all must obey submit and give way to the presumptive heir For seeing dispersed Jews and the meanest of the people are forewarned from rebelling against their lawful Soveraigns it follows a fortiori that the King and Parliament cannot exclude any man from the Succession Herac. Indeed Sir I think it is rather a debiliori and upon my soul if the Whigs argu'd at this rate we should call it perfect Cant and make sport enough with it But however such Arguing may do pretty well out of the pulpit for it looks like Atheism Schism and Irreligion to question or dispute any thing deliver'd there Well Mr. L. I see a word is enough to the wise you need but give the hint and your Charge have it presently Obs Yes yes my Observations are their Common places and I must leave them to improve them into Argument for I have no time for that nor does my talent much lye that way But to go on In the last place I prove the Bill of Exclusion unlawful because the King Lords and Commons can no more justifie an Unrighteous action than a private man ibid. Now Sir supposing the Bill unrighteous 't is plain they cannot pass it Herac. Well then your Argument lies thus If the passing the Bill of Exclusion be an unrighteous action the King Lords and Commons cannot pass it But such passing is an Unrighteous Action Therefore c. Obs Just so for look you get but the main point in question once granted and my life for it you win the cause Herac. Well these hypothetical syllogisms are almost as serviceable as the Doctrine of probable opinions the first to inform the reason the latter to guide the practice But what now if one should not grant you that the passing of such a Bill were an Vnrighteous action Obs If men will not believe the Apostles and primitive Christians I cannot help it But pray let 's hear what you can say in the case Herac. Faith I shall say little in the case seeing there 's more said already than I see well answer'd But this I will add You 'l grant me the
King can do no wrong Obs Yes that I will Herac. Then I say I canot see how his having the advice and consent of Lords and Commons should make him do wrong For to me it seems indifferent as to that whether the King do a thing from his own meer motion and science or by the advice of his Privy Council or of his Parliament Now Sir to do wrong or to do an unrighteous action as you term it are all one Obs Hang 't my mistake was to bring the King into the Argument for if I had only said Lords and Commons I had hit it But now I think on 't 't is not the Pope and Council but the Pope alone that is infallible and if I durst own my self a Papist this would help me to make it out Herac. It would so but the necessity of your dissembling that hinders you from making the best of your Argument However I am sure you are right in that which you instance in That it would be an unrighteous action for the King Lords and Commons to put a Man to death for refusing to swallow forty Thousand Black Bills For no Power in Heaven or Earth can oblige a man to that which is impossible But then what 's this to the Bill of Exclusion or where lies the parallel Obs Now I see you are dull Id possums quod jure possumus The first is naturally impossible and the latter morally The first cannot be done because it cannot and the latter because it ought not Herac. Here are two faults in Logick first transitus a genere ad genus and then petitio principii For you first pass from a moral to a natural action and then you are at your old way of supposing the thing in question But besides this is nothing to the purpose for the dispute was about what the King Lords and Commons could do and now you come to what a man can or can not do For I see nothing to the contrary but the King and Parliament may pass the Bill of Exclusion though a man cannot swallow 40000 black Bills Obs Come I warrant you would tye me up to the Pedantry of the Schools I hate insisting too long upon one thing for that does but confound a man I love a touch and away Herac. Yes Sir you are excellent at that And thus you prove notably That Parliaments are no essential part of the Government for if that were so in the Intervalls of Parliament there were no longer a Government N. 131 And I 'll give you such another The Common Council are no essential part of the Government of the City for if that were so in the Intervalls of Common Councils there would be no longer a Government Now Sir this Argument will not down with Citizens nor yours with any man else For hey'l be apt to distinguish between the Government and the administration of it Now the Government or more properly the Governours are the King and Parliament without whose joynt Authority no Law can be established But the putting these Laws in execution or administration of the Government that indeed is in the Kings hand or such as he will commit it to And till an Order of the King in Council shall be as valid as an Act of Parliament I doubt we shall not get it believed that the King alone is the Government But enough of this In the next place I do not well like your fastning the faults of the King's Ministers upon the King N. 130. Obs Why do you not know the mystery of that I have a double end in it First to get the Libellers punish'd and then to cast the odium of all Male-administration upon the King For you know well enough we care not what scandals and suspicious we draw upon the King so we can but preserve the Duke's esteem And hence I say that the pretended devolution of an ill thing done from the King to his Ministers is as ridiculous as to excuse a man that commits a Murder by crying he was set on ibid. Herac. So then you will have the King responsible both for his own faults and for theirs also that advised him to them This will do the King's business I 'll warrant him And yet it may be very serviceable Doctrine for a Successour as thus All the faults of his Ministers will lye upon him and seeing he cannot be called to account the greatest faults shall pass unpunisht and so no man will be afraid of serving his pleasure and then hey for arbitrary Government However since you are the Champion for the present Government it seeems but a quaint way of maintaining the King's reputation by devolving those faults upon Him that the Whigs are content to fasten upon his Ministers only but you have told me of the policy of it and I am satisfied Obs Well is there any thing else you can object against Herac. How do you make it out that Protestants may not as well exclude a Papist from the Crown as Papists a Protestant Obs Thus Either the Papists do Well in 't or Ill If the former they are not to be blam'd if the latter they are not to be imitated ibid And this Dilemma I defie any Whig of 'em all to Answer Herac. Soft â— little For I think it not hard to make out though the Papists are to be blam'd yet the Protestants may law fully do the same thing Obs Pray let 's hear you for methinks that sounds somewhat odd Herac. My enemy assaults me and endeavours to Murther me that 's ill done in him I kill him in my own defence that 's well or lawfully done by me Obs That 's true but how can you apply this to the Case in question Herac. Thus The Papists are the Assailants who if they can help it will neither let a Protestant King enjoy his Crown nor Protestant Subjects their Estates or Lives Such King and Subjects may therefore lawfully unite and combine for their mutual defence and preservation and make sure of him or them whose prevailing is sure to be their overthrow For if it be lawful for the Subjects to defend the King and Government establish'd and for the King to secure the Estates and Lives of his Subjects I do not see how it should be unlawful to disable or prevent any man from destroying them Inf. Cl. But we must not do ill that good may come of it Herac. Nor we must not do well that ill may come of it if indeed it be doing well to let one cut my King 's mine own and my Neighbours throat when I can hinder it Inf. Cl. Well but we should trust Providence Herac. We should trust providence indeed with a witness if we should believe it would protect us whether we would or no. 'T is as bad to tempt providence as to distrust it For my part I think Miracles are too rare now adayes to be depended on and therefore making use of lawful means I do not take to