and Rights of Princes and the absolute obedience of Subjects when they saw even the Kings just and lawful Prerogatives in danger to be taken from him by force And altho' they may perhaps stretch several of these points too far yet this may be very excuseable since it is a hard matter to Write so exactly against any error as not to fall into the contrary Extream which nevertheless may sometimes prove useful enough As those who would set a stick straight are forced to bend it to the other side and so these Doctrines which might then be seasonable whilst the People carried on their animosities against the King farther than in Justice they ought have not now the same reason and cogency when this King hath so manifestly endeavoured to pull up the very foundations both of our Religion and Government So that I am perswaded could those good Bishops have lived by the course of Nature to our times and have seen the ill and fatal use hath been made of those Doctrines by those in Power they would either absolutely have renounc'd them or at least have been very cautious how they publish't such doubtful opinions to the World M. I must beg your pardon Sir if I am not of your Opinion for I look upon the absolute subjection of the subjects to the higher or supream Powers to be a thing of such constant and eternal Obligation that no change of times or circumstances can ever dispense with us in or discharge us from it and I am so far from believing that those good Bishops would ever have recanted their opinions in this particular that had thâ—y lived until this time I think they could not without the imputation of time servers have forborn publickly to declare and maintain them for sure we must not deny or lay aside true Principles because of some inconveniences or hardships that may thereby happen to our Religion Persons or Civil Liberties since that were the ready way to give a Licence to the rankest Rebellion and the highest disobedience to the Supream Powers for so the Primitive Christians might have claimed a right to Rebel against the Heathen Emperors pretending they were not bound to submit themselves unto them because they persecuted Gods Church and put the Christians to death for no other reason than that they were such Whereas we may plainly see St. Peter and St. Paul teach us another lesson and command absolute subjection without reserve to the higher Powers which were then the Tyrannical persecuting Emperours and that the Primitive Christians who immediately followed the Apostles understood them in this sense and altho' they had sufficient strength yet thought it unlawful to resist those â—eathen Emperor 's under which they liv'd I refer you to that vast Treasure of Quotations out of the Fathers and Antient Church Historians collected with such Learning and Industry by the Lord Primate Usher in the second Treatise F. It is not my intention Sir at present to fall into a severe examination of so many Texts of Scripture and Quotations of Fathers and other Authors as are made use of by those Learned Men you lately mentioned which require more consideration than our short time will now afford therefore the best method I can propose to you for the true stating and understanding this Noble Controversie were first to look into the Natural state of Mankind after the Fall of Adam and enquire First If God has appointed any kind of Government by Divine Institution before another Secondly If he has not how far Civil power may be lookt upon as from God and in what sense as deriv'd from the people Thirdly Whether Resistance by the Subjects in some Cases be incompatible and absolutely destructive to all Civil Government whatsoever Fourthly Whether such Resistance be absolutely contrary to the Doctrine of Christ contain'd in the Scriptures and that of the Primitive Church pursuant thereunto Fifthly Whether such Resistance be contrary to the Constitution of this Government and the express Laws of the Land Sixthly Whether what has been done by the Prince of Orange and those of the Nobility Gentry c. in pursuance of these Principles has been done according to the Law of Nature the Scriptures and Ancient Constitutions of this Kingdom which material Points if we can once suttle and discover where the Truth lyes it will prove the clearest Comment and best Interpretation of all those places of Scripture and Quotations of Fathers and other Authors which are Cited by Divines or other Writers for the Doctrines of the Divine Institution of Monarchy and the Absolute Subjection of Subjects without any Resistance For when we have once discovered what the Law of Nature or right Reason dictates I think we may rest satisfy'd that that is the true Sense of the Scripture God not having given us any Precept or Command in Moral or Practical things that can be contrary to the Law of Nature or Reason or incompatible with the happiness and welfare of Mankind in this Life as the Reveal'd Will of God does chiefly regard that which is to come M. I do very well approve of your Proposal and therefore pray give me first your Opinion on those Heads that I may see how far I may agree with you and wherein I must differ from you for I do assure you my Intention is not to argue with you meerly for disputes sake but that we may correct the Errors of each others understanding and discover if it be possible where the Truth lyes therefore pray Sir begin first with the Natural state of Mankind but remember to do it like a Christian and one that believes that we are all deriv'd from one first Parents and that we did not at first spring up out of the Earth like Mushrooms or as the Men whom Ovid â—eigns to have been produc'd of the Dragons Teeth Cadmus is feigned to have sown who as soon as they sprung out of the Earth immediately fell a Fighting and Killing each other F. I thank you Sir for your honest and kind advice and shall therefore in the first place suppose that the necessity as well as being of all Civil Government proceeded from the Fall of Adam since if that had not been we had still liv'd as the Poets fancy Men did under the Golden Age without any need of Kings or Common-wealths to make Laws against Oppression Theft Adultery Murder and those other Injuries which Men are now too apt in this lapsed corrupt state to commit against each other much less would there have been any need of Judges or Executioners either to sentence or punish Offenders for if Man had continued as free from Sin as he was in Paradise there could have been no need of a Supream Coercive Power since every Man would have perform'd his Duty towards God and his Neighbour without any punishment or constraint So that all the Authority that can be suppos'd could have been then necessary for the Good and Happiness of Mankind would
it were granted him by God F. I promise to give you full satisfaction to this question by and by but in the mean time pray let me make it a little more plain to you that this Power of Life and Death which may be exercised by Masters of separate Families over their Wives and Children in some cases is not by any Power they receive from God as Husbands or Fathers but only as Heads or Masters of such Families may by proved by this instance suppose a Master of a Family independant on any other as in the Indies hath neither Wife nor Children yet sure he hath notwithstanding the same Power of Life and Death over his Servants or Slaves for such great offences as you have mentioned in case there be no superiour Power over him to take Cognizance of such Crimes And to make this yet plainer suppose a Married Man having a Wife and Children will live together with them in the Family of such a Master as I have now described yet not aâ— a Servant but as an Inmate or Boarder and whilst he so continues his Wife Kills one of her Children or one of his Sons Murders his Brother who hath right to punish this offence but the Master in whose Family he is an Inmate And this follows from your own supposed for if every separate Family in the state of Nature be a distinct independant Government then all those that enter themselves as Members of such a Family must be subject to the Master or Governour of it Nor do you reduce me into any absurdity by your reply to my argument That if the Power of Life and Death were Originally in Fathers by the Law of Nature it could never be restrain'd nor taken from them without their consent that then this will make as much against the like Power of Masters of Families since I must grant this is taken away by Civil Laws And why not the other To this I reply that you do not observe the strength of these words Without their consent For I suppose that no Power whatever can take this out of the hands of such Fathers or Masters of Families in the state of Nature without they assign it to the Supream Powers of the Common-wealth upon its first Institution whereas you make this Power to be obtainable by Force as by Conquest or Usurpation not only over those that are not at their own disposal as Children and Servants but over their Fathers and Masters too without their consents which is contrary to the Law of Nature and Reason M. I see you take it for granted that I will admit your Instance of the Power of Life and Death to be in the Masters of Families and not as Fathers in the State of Nature But as plain as you think it since you question the Power of Life and Death which I suppose to be inherent in all Fathers I know not why I may not with more Reason question your allowing the like Power to Masters of separate Families since there is no reason in my Opinion which you can bring for such a Power in your Masters of Families which I cannot with like reason urge may be also exercised by Fathers and Husbands over their Wives and Children in case they deserve it For if it be for the good and preservation of mankind that great and enormous Crimes such as Murder and Adultery should be punished and that with Death Who is more fit to inflict these punishments or who can be supposed to judge more impartially of them than the Father or Husband himself Since he cannot put his Son or Wife to Death however they may deserve it without very great reluctancy since he aâ— it were thereby lops off a Limb from his own Body And therefore I cannot see any Reason why such a Married man as you describe should by coming under another Man's Rooâ— only as an Inmate or Boarder and not as a Slave which I grant would alter the Case should lose that Power of Life and Death which I suppose he hath by the Laws of God and Nature over his Wife and Children unless he had actually given it up to the Master of that Family with whom he came to Board And therefore as I do not deny but that a Master of a separate Family hath power of Life and Death and also of making Peace and War with other such Masters of Families nay with Princes themselves if there be occasion as we read in Genesis Chap. 14. That Abraham made War with the four Kings who had taken Lot Prisoner So likewise when Judah pronounced Sentence of Death against Thamar his Daughter-in-Law for playing the Harlot Bring her forth says he and let her be burnt Gen. 38. I own this was not done by the Authority of a Father alone she not being his own Daughter and his Son being then dead but as the Master of a separate Family who hath I grant power of Life and Death as he is Lord over the persons of his Children aâ— Servants and consequently over their Wives also for if he hath power over his Son he hath certainly the like over all that belong to him as long as they continue members of his Family and that he hath not thought fit to manumit or set them free But now I desire to know by what right these Patriarchâ— could exercise all these markâ— of Soveraignty especially this great Power of Life and Death unless it were derived from God at first since no Man hath any power to dispose of his own Life at his pleasure and therefore sure hath naturally no power over that of another man's So that not only this Power of the Patriarchs but also that of all Monarchs to this day must be derived from this Divine Original F. Well then I find you 're forced to quit the power of a Father as such by Generation since it plainly appears that this power of Life and Death which you affirm a Husband or Father may exercise over their Wives or Children in the state of Nature is not quatenus as a Father but Lord and Master over them which in the first place I cannot allow to be true in relation to the Wife nor that the submission of the Wife's Will to the Husband must imply a power of Life and Death over her for if she is not his Slave as certainly she is not for then a Man might sell his Wife when he pleased I cannot see how she her self could convey by force of the contract any such Power over her Life tho I grant indeed if she happen to commit Murder upon one of her Children or other Person of the Family he may proceed against her as an Enemy but not as a Subject and if it be for Adultery it self I cannot see that the Husband can by the Law of Nature punish her with Death for since that Crime doth really dissolve the bond of Matrimony Divorce or putting her away and deserting the Child born in Adultery
the Apostle to Sons but to Servants or Slaves whose lives and all that they had were at their Masters absolue disposal being those whom the Apostle Paul calls Servants under the yoke and unless you will make a Slave and a Son to be all one which you have already denyed this precept doth not at all concern them And as for Example of Isaac that will make as little for your advantage for first as to Abraham he could not but know that to kill his Son without any just cause was as much murder in him as in any other Man Now what could be a juster or a higher cause than Gods particular Command So that as this act of Abraham is not to be taken as an Example by other Fathers so neither doth the Example of Isaac oblige other Sons to the like Submission therefore it is most reasonable to suppose that Isaac being then as Chronologers make him to be about nineteen or twenty years of age and of years of discretion to ask where was the Lamb for the Burnt-offering was also instructed by his Father before he came to be offered of the reason of his dealing thus with him and then the Submission was not payed to his Fathers but to Gods will from whom he miraculously received his being But if any Man doubt wheter resistance in such a Case were Lawful I leave it to his own conscience to consider whether if his Father had him alone in a place where he could neither run away nor yet call for help he would suffer his Father to cut his Troat without any resistance only because he pretended Divine Revelation for it Not but that I so far agree with you likewise as to limit such a resistance only to the holding his Fathers Hands or warding off his blows but not to the taking away his life but of the two rather to lose his own than to kill him for the reasons you have given and which I will not deny but yet if the Father be mad I much doubt whether the Son is boâ—nd to let him kill him rather than take away his life since such a Father's life is no way useful to the good of the Family So that thô I should grant that Paternal Power is from God and consequently irresissible yet doth it not follow that all the unjust force or violence which a Father as a Man may use against his Sons life or fortune is such part of a Paternal Power as God hath commanded us not to resist since your self must grant that he doth not thus act in going about to kill his Son as a father but a violent and wicked Man So that where the father hath no Right to take away his Sons life I think in all such Cases the Right of the Son to resist him doth take place And if a Man may resist or bind his Father when he is Mad or Drunk and in such fits goeth about to kill him I can see nothing to the contrary why he may not do the same thing when his Father is transported by a sudden rage or unreasonable malice since both of them do take away the use of natural Reason as much the one as the other according to that saying of the Poet Ira furor brevis est Anger is but a short madness Fury and Malice being alike fatal and destructive to the Sons life and safety with Drunkenness and Madness nor doth such a Son resist his Paternal Power but only his Brutish force and violence So that if Sons when grown to years of discretion have not a right to defend their lives in the State of Nature against all Persons whatsoever who go about to take it away without any just Cause every Son ought to suffer his Father to kill him when ever being transported by madness drunkenness or sudden passion he hath will so to do which how it can consist with that great Law of Nature of propagating and preserving the species of Mankind if a Father should have any unreasonable unlimitted Power I 'll leave it to your self or any other reasonable Man to consider nor doth it follow that because a Son can in no wise be Superiour to his Father he ought not therefore to resist him since thô I grant punishment is a Right of Superiours over their Inferiours yet so is not resistance since every one knows that resistance is exercised between equals as I have already proved Sons are to their Fathers in all the Rights of life and self-preservation and conseqently to judge when their Lives and Estates are unjustly invaded M. I must confess I am in a great doubt which will most conduce to that great Law you mention which I grant to be the Sum of all the Laws of Nature viz. of preserving or prosecuting the common good of Mankind that Fathers should have an absolute irreâ—istible Power over the Lives and Fortunes of their Children let them use it how they will or else that Children should have a Right to resist them in some cases when they go about to take away either of them without any just Cause for thô I own that if the former Principle be true Parents may be sometimes tempted to take away their Childrens Lives or Estates without any just Cause so on the other side if Children shall assume such a Power to themselves of judging when their Fathers do thus go about to invade either their Lives or Estates it will I doubt lay a foundation for horrid confusions and divisions in Families since if Children are under a constant subjection to their Fathers they ought then to be absolutely Subject to them in the State of Nature and therefore ought not to be resisted For if all Fathers and Masters of Families are trusted by God with an absolute Power of Life and Death over the Wife Children and Servants of the Family as your self cannot deny then no resistance of this absolute Power can subsist with the peace and tranquility of that Family without the diminution or total destruction of that absolute Power with which they are intrusted And thô I admit that Parents ought neither to use nor sell their Children for Slaves not to take away either their Lives or Goods without great and sufficient Cause yet of these Causes Fathers in the state of Nature must be the only and uncontrolable Judges since if Children whom I still consider as Subjects thô not as Slaves in the State as long as they continue members of their Fathers Family should once have a Right to resist when they thought their Lives or Estates were unjustly invaded they might also oftentimes through undutifulness or false suggestions pretend or suppose that their Fathers were mad drunk or in a passion and went about to take away their Lives when really they intend no such thing but only to give them due correction Which would give Children an unnatural power of resisting or perhaps of killing their Fathers upon false surmises or flight occasions And as
this point without better consideration but methinks you have not yet fully answered one of my main Arguments to prove the Power of Life and Death to proceed from God alone and therefore must have been conferred as first on Adam since no Man hath a Power over his own life as I said before and therefore cannot have it over that of others F. I thought I had already as good as answered this doughty objection when I had yielded to you that neither private Men nor Masters of Families have any Right to defend their own lives much less to take away those of others but as it is granted them by God in the Law of Nature in order to the procuring the great end of it viz. the happiness and propagation of Mankind which I own could not in this lapsed and depraved State of Nature we now are in long subsist without such a Power Yet I think I have already sufficiently proved that we have no need to recur to I know not what divine Charter granted by God to Adam or Noah and from them derived to all Civil Magistrates that ever have been or shall be in the World the consequence of which would be that no Sentence of Death could be justly given against any Man but in such Kingdoms or Common-wealths who own this Authority as conferred on them by God in Adam or Noah from which they must deride their Title to it Now I desire you would shew me how many Kingdoms or Common-wealths there are in the World who ever heard of much less owned this Divine Charter this fine notion yea scarce reaching farther than some few Divines and high Royalists of our own Island But be it as it will the Antecedent or first Proposition is not true that no Man in any case whatsoever hath power over his own life and therefore neither is your consequence for I suppose that for the same End for which the Civil Powers may take away another Man's life viz. in order to the greater good of Mankind of which my Religion or Countrey is a part I am likewise Master of my own and may lay it down or expose it when I think it can conduce to a greater good than my single life can amount to And therefore the Example of Codrus the Athenian King is highly celebrated by all ancient Authors and is not condemned by any Christian Writer that I know of for Exposing himself to certain death to gain his Citizens the Victory the loss of which would have been the ruin of the State And in the first Book of Maccabees Chap. 6.43 which thâ— it be not Canonical Scripture yet is allowed to be Read in our Churches as containing Examples of good manners you may Read that Eleazar the younger Brother of Iudas Maccabeus is there highly commended for his valour in killing the Elephant on which the supposed King Antiochus was mounted that he might thereby destroy him likewise tho he might be assured of his own death by the Elephants falling upon him And the zeal for the Christian Religion amongst the Primitive Christians was so great that we may read in Tertullian and divers Ecclesiastical Historians of whole Troops of Martyrs who tho unaccused yet offered up their lives at the Heathen Tribunals to a voluntary Martyrdom and farther Eusebius himself doth not condemn but rather commends some Primitive Christians that being like to be taken by their Heathen Persecutors cast themselves down head long from the top of their Houses esteeming as he their tells us a certain Death as an advantage because they thereby avoided the cruelty and malice of their Persecutors I could likewise give you if it were not two tedious several other Examples of Ancient Martyrs who have given up themselves to certain Death to save the Lives of some of their friends or else of Christian Bishops whom they lookt upon as more useful to the Church than themselves and which St. Paul himself does likewise suppose to be Lawful when he tells the Romans That the scarcely for a Righteous Man would one dye yet per adventure for a good Man somâ— would even dare to dye that is a Man highly beneficial to others And the same Apostle in the last Chapter of this Epistle returns thanks to Priscilla and Aquila not only on his own behalf but also for all the Churches of the Gentiles because they had for his Life laid down their own Necks that is hazarded their lives to save his and where ever they might have thus exposed them surely they might have lost them too And therefore I think I may with reason affirm that in most Cases where a Prince or Commonwealth may command a Man to expose his Life to certain destruction for the publick good of his Religion or Countrey he hath power likewise to do it of his own accord without any such command the Obligation proceeding not only from the orders of his Superiour but from that zeal and affection which by the Laws of God and Nature he ought to have for his Religion and Country even beyond the preservation of his own Life M. Well I confess that this that you have now said carries some colour of reason with it and is more than I had considered before But pray resolve me one difficulty more which still lies upon my mind By what Authority less than a Divine Commission from God himself revealed in Scripture do Supream Powers take upon them to make Lawâ— And that under no less penalty than Death it self against such offences as by the Laws of Nature do no ways deserve Death such as Theft Counterfiting the publick Coyn with divers other offences needless here to be reckoned up And if a Father as you will not allow him hath no Right over the Lives or Persons of his Wife and Children I cannot see how a Master of a separate Family can have any such Power more than his Wife or any other of the Family and the Scripture seems to countenance this Power of punishing for Murder to be in any that will take it upon them and therefore you see Cain said whoever meets me will slay me And God tells Noah whoever sheddeth Mans Blood by Man shall his Blood be shed without restraining it to any Man particularly who is to do it F. This Objection is easily answered if you please to consider what you your self did a good whâ—â—â— since urge to me that God endowed Adam with so much Authority as should enable him to govern his own Family and Children as long as he lived which I readily granted you and I only differed in the manner of its derivation you affirming it to proceed from a Divine Charter or Grant by Revelation conferred upon him by God and I maintaining that both he and every other Master of a separate Family derive it only from Gods Natural and not Revealed Law which if it be well proved such Masters of Families as also all Civil Powers whom I suppose to be endued
not only Kingly Power in General but also the succession to it by the Eldest Son or his next Brother is of Divine Right or Institution or else all that you urged concerning the Natural right of Dominion of Cain over Abel was to no purpose But now you insist that succession by a Testament or Will of the Father is also as much by the Law of Nature as the other in which I think you are very much mistaken since the right of bequeathing Kingdoms or any thing else by Testament is neither prescribed by the Revealed Will of God nor the Laws of Nature since all setled Property in Lands or Goods before the institution of a Civil Government proceeding only from occupancy or possession must cease in the State of Nature with the life of the occupant or possessor Therefore in that state a Testament cannot take place by the Testators Death since as soon as he Dyeth his right in the thing bequeathed is quite lost and extinguished so that the Dead not having an interest in any thing the Legatee cannot sustain the person of the Testator whose Right ceases before that of the Legate can take place And therefore the Testament or Disposition of such things may then without any Crime be neglected or altered by the Survivors unless all those who pretend an interest in it do agree to it or swear to see it fulfilled during the Testators Life time And for this cause we find Abraham binding his Servant that ruled over his House with an Oath not to take a Wife for his Son of the Daughters of the Land And Iacob taking an Oath of Ioseph not to bury him in Egypt because they doubted whether they could oblige their Sons or Servants to do it by their Testaments So that it appears evident to me that the Power of making Testaments and bequeathing Lands or Goods is but a consequence of that Propriety in Lands Goods or Dominions which arises from compact or common consent in a Kingdom or Common-wealth after it is instituted as I think I am able to prove whenever you please to discourse with me farther about it But as for the Right of bequeathing Crowns or Kingdoms by Testament as I will not deny but that some Kingdoms may have been bequeathable by their Original Constitution and others become so by Custom yet I cannot grant that this Right belonged to the Prince or Monarch by the Laws of God or Nature but proceeded pâ—rely from the received Law or continued Custom of that Kingdom so that you must either confess that there is no such thing as a Divine Right of Succession or else it is such a one as signifies as much as nothing since humane Laws or Constitutions can alter it or take it away So that after all this Pother about this Divine Right it is not so good as an old Estate Tayle which formerly no fine could bar And I must farther tell you that I cannot assent to your opinion that succession by a Will or a Testament is so certain as that by Inheritance since all such Testaments must depend upon the Credit of the Witnesses whose Credit may often be questioned by the Subjects and who may very well for their own ends make a Younger Son to have the whole or at least a share in the Kingdom to whom his Father never intended any and which was likewise more easie to be done before such time as Written Wills or Testaments solemnly published according to forms of Law came in use But because you suppose that the Natural Laws of Succession to Kingdoms are so plain and certain that I may a little convince you of your mistake in this matter I shall for the present suppose that the Succession of an Elder Son or Brother is sufficiently easie to be known Yet I doubt it will not prove so in many other Instances And therefore to let you see I do not make this Scruple without cause suppose Abel for example to have left a Son or a Daughter behind him when his Brother murdered him pray tell me who was to succeed after the Death of Adam this Son or Daughter of Abel or Seth their Uncle M. We do not read of any Children that Abel had and therefore I cannot tell what to say to it F. Well but since it is probable he might have had Children pray tell me supposing he had whether this Child were it Son or Daughter or Seth the Uncle was to succeed M. Since you will needs have me speak my opinion in a thing so uncertain I think this Child were it Son or Daughter ought to have succeeded before the Uncle F. Pray Sir tell me by what Law or Rule you thus Judge Whether by the Law of God or Nature M. I must confess God hath prescribed nothing expresly concerning it more than what he says Numb 27. that if a man dies leaving no Sons ye shall cause his Inheritance to pass unto his Daughter with diverse other Rules of Succession to Inheritances there specified and besides it is more suitable to the Laws of Nature that the Children of the Elder Brother should inherit before their Uncle there being no reason that they should be punished for their Misfortune in having their Father Dye before he could succeed to the Government F. I doubt the place of Scripture you have cited doth not reach this Case of Kingdoms for first this being a Municipal Law of the Iews could only concern that Common-Wealth and secondly it only relates to Private Inheritances and that this is so may be proved from the next verse where it is said that a Mans Brethren shall be his Heirs that is all of them were to be Heirs alike only the Eldest was to have a double portion And if this Law concerning Daughters were to reach the Succession of Kingdoms at this day the Laws of France and other Countries where Women are barred from succeeding to the Crown would be against the Laws of God and Nature And the like may also be said concerning the Succession of the Nephews before their Uncles or of Uncles rather than the Nephews whose Fathers never injoyed the Crown diverse Nations having different Customs and that with a like appearance of reason concerning it For on the one hand if the Son of Abel might have pleaded that he was the first born of the Eldest Son of Adam and so ought to represent his Father Seth the Uncle might likewise with as good reason urge that he was more nearly related in Bloud to Adam as being his Son than the Son of Abel who was but his Grandson and besides being older than he was endued with more Wisdom and Experience and consequently was â—itter to Govern But if Abel left only one Daughter or more I doubt not but the question would have been harder to be decided since if Women are not permitted to Govern in Private Families they will not especially amongst Warlike Nations be admitted to Govern Kingdoms especially since
the only Iudges of all Disputes about the Succession of the Crown D. 2. p. 891 to 892. D. 12. p. 893. D. 13. p. 917 to 919 921. Eve W. by being subject to Adam all her Posterity became so likewise D. 1. p. 14. to 25. F Fathers W. by right of generation or of education Lords over their Children in the state of Nature D. 1 p. 13 14. W. Any such power was given by Divine Grant to Adam and in him to all other Fathers Ib. p. 26 30 to 36. W. Fathers of Families have power of life and death over their Children by the Law of Nature Ib. 19. to 26. W. They may sell their Children Ib. 26. to 31. W. They may be resisted by their Children in case of any violent assaults upon their lives Ib. p. 41. W. Perpetual Masters over their Children as long as they live Ib p. 45. to 51. Fideles the signification of the word before the Conquest D. 6. p. 390 391. D. 7. p. 448. to 451. Sir R. Filmers Principles W. they do not rather encourage Tyranny than Fatherly affection in Princes towards their Subjects D. 2. p. 118. W. They do not also favour Vsurpers Ib. 125. to 128. G Common Good of Mankind the main design of all Government D. 1. p. 55. to 61. Civil Government the end of its Institution D. 1. p. 11. 19. 21. W. There had been any necessity of it if Man had never sinned Ib. p. 11. What it is and its Prerogative D. 3. p. 173. W. it can be setled without liberty and property in Estates Ib. 174. Government of Families and Kingdoms its Original and Necessity D. 1. p. 10. to 12. Supream Governours in what cases they cease to be Gods Ordinance D. 1. p. 41. Government among the ancient Germans and Saxons always by Common Councils D. 5. p. 365. to 369. Grands or Grants in Parliaments what those words signifie in ancient Statutes and Records W. The Lords alone or the Commons also D. 6. p. 369. vid. Append. Guards of the King when when first set up D. 9. p. 639. H K. Harold W. William of Normandy had a just cause of making War upon him D. 10 p. 718. What Title he had to the Crown Ib. p. 720. Haereditamentum its derivation Ib. p. 721. Hengist and all the rest of the Kings who founded the Saxon Heptarchy W. so by Election or Conquest D. 5. p. 357. to 362. King Henry the IVth W. his Title to the Crown were by right of blood or Election of the Estates in Parliament D. 12. p. 861. to 863. King Henry the VI. W. his Son were not unjustly disinherited by the Duke of York and himself unjustly deposed by Edward the IVth Ib. p. 863. to 867. King Henry the VIIth W. he had any Title to the Crown by right of Inheritance Ib. p. 868. to 870. King Henry the VIIIth W. the several alterations he made as to the the Succession were legal D. 12. p. 871 872. Homage W. it rendred the Prince or Lord irresistible D. 10. p. 727.728 Homines Liberi its signification in English Histories D. 6. p. 428. to 430. Homilies of our Church the the chief passages therein against all manner of Resistance of Governours considered D. 4. p. 287.288 W. It be Heresie or Schism to deny their Authority in any point there laid down Ib. 289.290 vid. Append. Mr. Hookers Opinion concerning the Original of Civil Government D. 12. p. 129.130 W. The two Houses of Parliament or the whole People of England have any coercive Power ove the King D. 9. p. 634. W. The Two Houses have on the behalf of the whole People renounced all right of self-defence in any case whatsoever Ib. p. 636. to 658. I King James the Firsts Speech in Parliament against Tyranny D. 3. p. 148. The Act of Recognition of K. James's Hereditary Right how far it obliges Posterity D. 12. p. 871 to 874. King James II. W. he violatid the fundamental constitution of the Government before his desertion D. 9. p. 673. to 685. Or W. he had amended all those violations before his departure p. 685. to 689. W. His setting up a standing Army and puting in Popish Officers and Souldiers were an actual making War upon the Nation Ib. p. 683.687 W. He abdicated the Government by his breach of the Original contract or else by his deserting it D. 11. p. 790. to 799. W. He might have been again safely restored to the Government upon reasonable terms Ib. p. 801. to 807. W. He really intended to redress all the violations he had made upon it p. 805. to 807. W. He resumed the Government upon his return to London from Feversham Ib. 802. to 806. Iesus Christ did not alter Civil Government neither by taking away the Prerogative of Princes nor yet by abridging the Civil Liberties of Subjects D. 4. p. 216. to 220. Jews often rebelled and sometimes killed their Kings D. 3. p. 203 to 205. Their resistance of Antiochus considered Ibid. p. 208. to the end Jewish Government before Saul W. Aristocratical or Monarchical D. p. 93. to 101. Judah and Thamar the History considered D. 1. p. 33. Iudges over Israel their Power W. Monarchical D. 2. p. 95 96. W. Some of them were not Iudges of some particular Tribes p. 96 97. Iudgements Divine W. they may be removed by humane means or force D. 4. p. 259 260. K Kings W. to be reputed Fathers of their People as the Heirs or Representatives of those who were once so D. 2. p. 65. W. They derive their Power from God or from the People and Laws D. 11. p. 773. to 780. D. 12. p. 936 to 938. Saxon Kings of England W. absolute or limited Princes D. 5. p. 349. W. They were endued with the sole Legislative Power Ib. p. 338 to 345. Kings of the English Saxons Elected and often deposed by the Great Council Ibid. p. 365. The same done also in other Kingdoms of the Gothic Model Ib. p. 365. Kings of England ever since King William I. W. they derive their Title to the Crown from Conquest or some other Title D. 10. p. 713. Their Concessions to Subjects do no ways derogate from Royal Prerogative D. 10. p. 715.716 Kings of the Roman Catholick Religion W. many of them have not observed Magna Charta and their Coronation Oath D. 12.882.888 King by Sir R. Filmer's Principles above all Laws and alone makes them D. 2. p. 123.124 In what sence he is head of the Politick Body of the Common-wealth D. 11. p. 803. to 805. W. He could have anciently by his Prerogative Taxed all the Tenants in Capite at his discretion D. 7. p. 495. to 499. W. He could call or omit to summon to Parliament what Earls Lords and Tenants he pleased Ibid. p. 505 to 511.523 W. He could also summon those Knights of Shires who served befere without any new Election Ib. 537. W. He could by his Prerogative discharge what Knights of Shires he pleased after they were chosen Ibid.
ADVERTISEMENT THE Author hath thought fit for the Reasons he hath given you to alter the Method he laid down in his Preface to the First Dialogue and to propose the Subjects he treats of in this following Method Bibliotheca Politica OR AN ENQUIRY INTO The Ancient Constitution OF THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT Both in respect to the just extent of Regal Power and the Rights and Liberties of the Subject Wherein all the Chief Arguments as well against as for the late Revolution are impartially Represented and considered in Thirteen Dialogues Collected out of the Best Authors as well Antient as Modern To which is added an Alphabetical INDEX to the whole Work LONDON Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane near the Oxford-Arms where may be had the First Second Tâ—ird Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth Ninth Tenth Eleventh Twelvth and Thirteenth Dialogues 1694. THE QUESTIONS Debated in the Ensuing Dialogues WHETHER Monarchy be Iure Divino Dialogue the First Whether there can be made out from the Natural or revealed Law of God any Succession to Crowns by Divine Right Dialogue the Second Whether Resistances of the SVPREAM POWER by a whole Nation or People in cases of the last extremity can be justified by the Law of Nature or Rules of the Gospel Dialogue the Third Whether Absolute Non Resistances of the SVPREAM POWERS be enjoyned by the Doctrine of the Gospel and was the Ancient Practice of the Primitive Church and the constant Doctrine of our Regormed Church of England Dialogue the Fourth Whether the King be the Sole Supream Legislative Power of the Kingdom and whether our Great Councils or Parliaments be a Fundamental Part of the Government or else proceeded from the Favour and Concessions of former Kings Dialogue the Fifth Whether the Commons of England represented by Knights Citizens and Burgesses in Parliament were one of the Three Estates in Parliament before the 49th of Henry III. or 18th of Edw. I. Dialogue the Sixth Whether the Commons of England represented by Knights Citizens and Burgesses in Parliament were one of the Three Estates in Parliament before the 49th of Henry III. or 18th of Edw. I. Thâ— Second Parâ—â— Dialogue the Sevenâ—h A Continuation â—f tâ—e former Discourse concâ—rnâ—ng the Antiquity of the Commons in Parliament wherein the best Authorities for it are proposed and examined With an Entrance upon the Question of Non Resistance The Third Part Dialogue the Eighth Whether by the Ancient Laws and Constitutions of this Kingdom as well as by the Statutes of the 13th and 14th of King Charles the II. all Resistance of the King or of those Commissioned by him are expresly forbid upon any pretence whatsoever And also whether all those who assisted his present Majesty King William either before or after his coming over are guilty of the breach of this Law Dialogue the Ninth I. Whether a King of England can ever fall from or forfeit his Royal Dignity for any breach of an Original Contract or wilful violation of the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom II. Whether King William commonly stiled the Conquerour did by the Conquest acquire such an absolute unconditioned Right to the Crown of this Realm for Himself and his Heirs as can never be lawfully resisted or forfeited for any Male-Administration or Tyranny whatever Dialogue the Tenth I. In what Sense all Civil Power is derived from God and in what Sense may be also from the People II. Whether His Present Majesty King William when Prince of Orange had a just Cause of War against King Iames the II. III. Whether the Proceedings of His Present Majesty before he was King as also of the late Convention in respect of the said King Iames is justifiable by the Law of Nations and the Constitution of our Government Dialogue the Eleventh I. Whether the Vote of the late Convention wherein they declared the Throne to be vacant can be justified from the Ancient Constitution and Customs of this Kingdom II. Whether the said Convention declaring King William and Queen Mary to be Lawful and Rightful King and Queen of England may be justified by the said Constitution III. Whether the Act passed in the said Convention after it became a Parliament whereby Roman Catholick Princes are debarred from succeeding to the Crown was according to Law Dialogue the Twelfth I. Whether an Oath of Allegiance may be taken to a King or Queen de facto or for the time being II. What is the Obligation of such an Oath whether to an actual defence of their Title against all Persons whatsoever or else to a bare submission to their Power III. Whether the Bishops who refused to take the Oath of Allegiance to their present Majesties could be lawfully deprived of their Bishopricks Dialogue the Thirteenth ADVERTISEMENT THE Author writing these Dialogue purely for the discovery of Truth and for giving a full and impartial account of all the considerable Arguments and Authorities that have been urged on either side in the Controversies discussed in the foregoing Dialogues if therefore any Person who having perused them is dissatisfied with any of the Arguments Answers or Authorities there made use of and supposes he could confute them or else put better in their stead if such Persons do not think it worth while to write a Treatise on purpose on this Subject they may if they please send their Animadversions to the Publisher of these Dialogues who will undertake to communicate them to the Author who hereby also engages to Publish them fairly without any Alterations or Additions together with his Answers or Replys to them if the Subject will admit it the Persons concerned may follow the Method used in the foregoing Appendix of Additions but are desired to send in their Animadversions by the beginning of next Michaelmas Term when if sent they shall be Publish'd Bibliotheca Politica Or A DISCOURSE By way of DIALOGUE WHETHER MONARCHY BE IVRE DIVINO Collected out of the most Approved Authors both Antient and Modern Dialogue the First LONDON Printed for Richard Baldwin in Warwick-Lane near the Oxford-Arms 1694. The Epistle Dedicatory To all Impartial and unprejudiced Readers especially those of our Hopeful and Ingenious Nobility and Gentry HAving out of Curiosity for some years before the late wonderful happy Revolution as well aâ— since for the satisfaction of my own Conscience carefully perused all Treatises of any value that have been published of late years concerning the Original and Rights of Civil Government aâ— well of Monarchy aâ— the other kinds thereof as also of the Antient Government and Fundamental Constitutions of this Kingdom I have found it necessary in order to my better retaining of what I had read and making a more certain Iudgment thereupon to commit to writing the most considerable Arguments on both sides as well of those who have Monarchy to be Jure Devino as of those who only allow it to Government in general of those who hold an Absolute Subjection or Passive Obedience as their Phrase is as well as
of those who hold Resistance in some Cases necessary of those that maintain our Monarchy to have been limitted by the very constitution it self of those that suppose all our rights and Liberties 〈◊〉 the very Being of Parliaments themselves to owe their Original wholly to the gracious Concession and Favour of our former Kings Having made some impartial Collections of this Nature I showed them to some Friends who told me they thought they might prove of great use for the satisfying of some mens doubts and scruples concerning Lawful Obedience to the Government of their present Majesties as looking upon it as the best and most ingenious way of Conviction to propose the Arguments fairly on both sides without interposing my own Iudgment but to leave it to the intelligent and impartial Reader to embrace that side on which he found the most rational and convincing Arguments This task tho' troublesome enough I was prevail'd with to undertake not for Fame's sake since I do not desire to be known but meerly for the puplick good and happiness of my Country but being also satisfied that a Subject of this great important deserved more pains than what I had yet bestowed upon it and to be handled in a more Artificial Method than the old dry Schâ—lastick way of Objection and Solution I therefore thought that it would prove more pleasant as well as profitable for the Readers especially those of our young Nobility and Gentry for whom I principally design this undertaking to digest all that I had written on these Subjects into so many distinct Dialogues or Conversations supposed to be held between two intimate Friends who notwithstanding their different Principles and Opinions in Politicks had always maintained a strict and generous correspondency but I was the more inclined to this way of writing not only because I have observed that Controversial matters written by way of Dialogue according to the true Rules thereof have very well obtained among all intelligent Readers but also since the Subjects I treat of are of a nice nature and that the Collections I had made contained strict Inquiries into the Principles and Tenâ—â—s in the Writings of diverse persons of Reputation for Learning and Ingenuity I was sensible how invidicus a Tâ—â—k it must be to write on purpose against so many great men as also how troublesom and â—edious is would prove to my self as well as the Readers to pursue and confute the Opinions of any Author page by page since it must be chiefly imputed to that mannar of managing of Controversies that answers to Books prove so unacceptable to the World And though I grant that this way of writing hath also its difficulties and objections as being more diffuâ—ive and so taking up more time both to write and read Discourses Dialogue-wise where either one or other of the Disputants 〈◊〉 often apt to rove from the Subject yeâ— I must also affirm that this may be in great part prevented by the Writer who may if he pleaâ—â—â— take care to keep close to the Question and not start afresh Har◠〈◊〉 the old one is run down and aâ— for the diffusiveness of Dialogues above Polemical Discourses that is no considerable Objection since a man may either make or answer Objections in almost as few words this way as the other And thô it be granted that matter of â—een form in Dialogues the more tedious yet the Reader as well as Traveller will find that the 〈◊〉 of the Road often 〈…〉 for its 〈◊〉 somewhat 〈◊〉 But whether I have truly put 〈◊〉 the Rules of Dialogue in that 〈◊〉 the â—â—suing Discourses I intend to publish on these Subjects Tiâ—â—st 〈◊〉 to the Readers Iudgment but this much I think I may safely affirm that I have carefuly avoided all bitter reflecting language on either side since I designe these Discourses for common places of Arâ—giâ—â—â—â—ntâ—â— noâ— forms of 〈◊〉 And I have also declined showing my self a Party or giving my own opinion in any Question proposed and therefore I have 〈…〉 either 〈◊〉 my Disputants converting each other to his own Opinion since I know nothing is more easie in writing of Dialogues well as Romances than to make the Knight Efrane always beat the Gyant But it is fit I give you some account of this present Discourse as also of the rest that may follow it This first Dialogue then 〈◊〉 chiefly on this 〈◊〉 Whether any particular Specâ—es of Government is of Divine Right or Institution â— The next shall be Whether there can be made out from the natural or revealed Law of God any Succession to Crowns by Divine Right The third and fourth Whether Passive Obedience as it is called or an absolute Nonresistance of the Supream Powers in any case whatsoever be enjoyed by the Law of Nature and the holy Scriptures As also Whether this hath always been the Doctrine of our Reformed Church of England The fifth concerns the Original of Civil Authority in what sense it is derived from God and in what form the People and whether their Consent be always necessary to make any Government to be obeyed for Conscience sake The sixth shall treat of the Original and Fundamental Constitution of our English Government whether it was an absolute or limited Monarchy in its first Institution and whether the King is and hath been the sole Legislative Power of the Nation The seventh Whether the Parliament or great Counsel owe its Orignal to the meer Grace and Favour of our Kings or whether it is not as Antient as the Constitution it self The eighth and last Whether our late Revolution and the Conventions and present Parliament's Declaration and Recognition of their present Majesties K. William and Q. Mary be not Legal and according to the Antient Constitution and Fundamental Govâ—rnment of this Kingdom and consequently Whether the Oath of Allegiance may not be taken to them not only as King and Q. de facto but de Iure In all which Discourses I have considered and contracted the best Arguments that I could find made use of by the most considerable both Antient and Modern Authors either in Latine or English especially the Pamphlets that have been writ on either side since the late Revolution But as for those in our own Language when-ever any Author speaks so well and argues so closely that to put it into other words would make it worse I have still put the Arguments of either one or other of the Disputants in his own word thô because I would not be thought guilty of Plagiary I have truly quoted the book and page from whence I took it and I hope no Author will take it ill if I have made bold sometimes to contract their Arguments without altering their sense or words farther than by putting in or out a word or expression to make the style run the more smoothly and I desire they would not think I write on purpose to confute them since I freely declare my design is not to
was even among the Romans look'd upon as a sufficient punishment But as for the Power of Parents over their Children I do not deny but that a Father may have the like power over his Children whilst they are part of his Family as over his Slaves or Servants in Case of such great and enormous Crimes as you have already mentioned but that this is not as a Father but Master of a Family your self have already granted in your Instances of Abraham and Judah tho if you will consider the last a little better you will find that Judah did not proceed thus against Thamar as her Father or Master but by some other Right For if you please to look upon the 11th Verse of that Chap. of Genesis from whence you cite this Example you will find that Thamar after the Death of Onan her Husband went with Judah's leave and dwelt in her own Father's House and she was then a Member of his Family and consequently according to your Hypothesis not under Judah's Power when she was thus got with Child by him and therefore not he but her own Father ought to have condemned her if this Judgment had belonged to him as to the Master of the Family And therefore some of the Rabbins suppose that when Judah gave this Judgment against Thamar he did not act either as a Father or Master of the Family for he was then under the Power of the Cananites who certainly had some Civil Government among them at that time and therefore they suppose that he acted thus as a Civil Judge appointed by the supreme Magistrate of that Nation But to defend the Instance I have given you of a Father of a Family losing his power of Life and Death upon his becoming a part or Member of another Family you your self have already yielded me as much as I can reasonably desire for the defence of my Assertion since you allow this power of Life and Death to Fathers not as such but as Lords and Masters over their Children as over their Slaves and if so I desire to know who can challenge this Power but the Master of the Family with whom he â—ives unless you can suppose two distinct Heads or Masters in the same House and then they will not be one Family but two under distinct Heads each of them still retaining their distinct Rights But you will say that this Boarder or Inmate is not a Servant or Slave to the Master with whom he lives and therefore hath not forfeited or given up his Right or Power of Life and Death over his own Children to him but it is no matter whether he did or not since by making himself a Member of the others Family he ceased to be Master of his own and concequently must lose all the Natural Rights or Prerogatives belonging to it of which I grant this of Life and Death to be the chief for if Families in the state of Nature are like so many distin Commonweatâ—â— independant upon each other it will likewise follow that the Heads of those Families must be in all things necessary for the Good and Preservation of the Family like so many distinct Civil Soveraigns and consequently must have a power of Life and Death and also of making Laws with Punishments annexed to them in all Cases where the good and peace of the Family require it If therefore in a Civil State or Monarchy and aâ—solute Prince come into the Dominions or Teritories of another it is acknowledg'd by all Writets on this Subject That such a Prince loses that power of Life and Death which he had before and cannot exercise it as long as he is in the other Princes Dominions So by the same Reason if the Masters of Families in the State of Nature are like so many Civil Soveraigns it will follow that they must cease to be such when they become members of anothers Family unless you will fall into the absurdity of supposing to absolute independant Heads or Masters in one and the same House which what a confusion it would bring I leave to your self to judge M. I shall not much dispute this Power of Life and Death with you as belonging to Masters of seperate Families But pray shew me how they can exercise this Power over the Lives of those that are under their Jurisdiction unless it were granted them by God by virtue of that Original Power given to Adam not only as a Father but Prince of his Posterity F I do not doubt but I shall give you a satisfactory Answer to this important Demand without supposing any extraordinary Divine Commission from God to Adam For as for your Instance of Abraham's making War Leagues or Covemants with other Princes it iâ— no more than what any Master of a seperatâ— Family may do for his own and their defence and what if you or I were Masters of a Family in the Inâ—ies where their is no Power above us we might do as well as Abraham and all this without any other Commission from God than the great Right of Nature Self-preservation and the Well performance of that trust which God hath put into our hands of defending and providing for our selves and our Families since if God hath ordained the End he hath likewise ordained all means necessary thereunto and therefore there is no such great Mystery in this as you suppose M. If there were no more in it than a meer Right of Self defence for which I grant Reâ—aliation or Revenge may be also necessary you would have a great dâ—â—l of Reason on your side But pray shew me how a Father or Master of a Family can Condâ—mn either his Wife Child or Servant to Death as a Punishment for any enormous Crime such as I have mentioned and you agreed to without such a Divine Commâ—ssion as I suppose Adam had Since I own Revenge or Reâ—allaâ—ion may â—e used by private men in the State of Nature by the Right of Self defence 〈…〉 grant may be exercised between equals But since all punishments properly taken are the Acts of Superiors towards their Inferiors I cannot conceive how any Father or Master of a Family can inflict so great a Punishment as Death upon any Member of it unless he derived this Power immediately from God by virtue of the Divine Charter committed by him to Adam and and from thence to be derived to all Masters of Families or civil Soveraigns who could never derive this Power from the Joynt Compacts or consent of Fathers of Masters of Families since no man could convey that to another which he had not himself And I have already I think with a great deal of Truth Asserted That no man hath power over his own Life to take it away when he pleases and therefore cannot have it over another man's much less can convey any such Right to others except it were granted at first by God in the manner I have supposed which I conceive may easily be made out
by several places in Genesis by which it plainly appears that Adam and after him Noah were supernaturally endued with this Divine Power F. Tho â— am satisfied that this Hypothesis is extreamly absurd since if it were so only Christian or Jewish Soveraigns or Magistrates who acknowledg the Scriptures could lay any claim to or exercise this Divine Power whereas we find it practised by all those Nations with whom the memory of Adam and Noah is quite lost and therefore must claim this Prerogative not from any Revealed but Natural Law of God yet however since you think you have such clear Texts of Scripture on your side I desire you to produce them tho if they should make out what you say they would only serve to confirm by Divine Revelation that Prerogative of Life and Death which all Masters of Families as well as Civil Soveraigns enjoyed by the Law of Nature before ever the Bible was written M. As for my own part I am so well satisfied of this Supream Power of life and death granted at first by God to Adam and after to Noah that I cannot see that without the supposal of this any Supream power could lawfully be exercised by civil Soveraigns at this day And therefore I am of Mr. Selden 's opinion who in his most learned Treatise De Iure gentium apud Hebraeos maintains with the Iewish Rabbins That the Law of Nature can never be planly proved and made out by Reason without a Tradition of its Preceps as given by God to Adam and thence conveyed to Noah and his posterity Which Divine Laws or Commands are called by the Iews the Seven precepts of Noah which whatsoever Nation or People would observe they permitted them to live as Inhabitans among them though they did not embrace Circumcision or those other Rights and Ceremonies commanded by the Law of Moses Now amongst these Precepts that of instituting publick Judgments for capital Crimes is one of the first in pursuance of that Command which God gave Noah immediately after the Flood Gen. 9. v. 6. Whosoever sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed for in the image of God made he man By which Text almost all Commentators understand that it is not any common man but the person of the civil Magistrate or Soveraign that is to be meant Since it would be both impracticable and also breed great confusion in civil Societies if by this word man every common person not endued by God with this Supream Power of Life and Death should be understood and therefore I do suppose with the most Learned Iews that this Power was first exercised by vertue of that Divine Charter that was given of it by God to Adam and then renewed again to Noah by the Text abovementioned Now that Adam had by Divine grant an absolute Dominion over the whole World and all Creatures therein contained will appear from Gen. 1. v. 27 28. here is the Bible I desire you would read it with me So God created man in his own image in the image of God created he him male and female created he them And God blessed them and God said unto them Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth and subdue it and have dominion over the Fish of the Sea and over the Fowl of the Air and over every living thing that moveth upon the Earth By which Grant or Donation from God of subduing the Earth and having dominion over the Creatures Adam was made the general Lord of all things with such a particular propriety to himself as did exclude his Children from having any share in it So that if Cain had his Fields for Corn or Abel his Flocks and Pasture for them it was only by Adam's Grant or Assignation none of his Children or Descendents having any property in Lands or Goods without his particular Grant or Permission F. You must pardon me Sir if I cannot be of your Opinion that all the Preceps of the Law of Nature must depend upon no firmer foundation than a Tradition of the Seven Preceps supposed by the Jewish Rabbins to be given to Adam and Noah and from them conveyed to all their Posterity since we find not the least mention of any such Precepts in the Scripture or in Josephus Philo Judaeus or any other ancient Writer but only in the Tâ—lmud Which though it pretends to a great Antiquity in its Traditions yet any judicious man that will but peruse it may easily see the falshood as well as absurdity of the pretended Tradition of these Precepts one of which is against eaâ—ing the Members of any living Creature which savours so strongly of a Jewish Superstition that if that were a true Precept or Law of Nature no man could eat a Dish of Lambstones or a Black pudding without sinning against the Law of Nature And it is very improâ—â—â— to suppose that all mankind except Jews Christians and Mahometans should be obliged to live or act by those Laws or Preceps they never heard of For it as you your self must grant the memory or tradition of these Precepts be quite lost amongst all Nations except the Jews it is all one as if they had acted without any Law at all and consequently if they have not some better grounds for their observation of the Law of Nature than these Preceps of Noah I doubt whether according to your Hypothesis all Civil Soveraigns that do not own the original of their Power of life and death to this Divine Charter granted to Adam and Noah must be no better than Murtherers since they take upon them to exercise this great Prerogative without any Divine Authority for so doing But I hope to shew you before we have concluded this conversation that not only the Power of Life and Death but also other Laws of Nature may easily be deduced by Reason to have been given by God to Mankind by the ordinary Course of his Providence without recurring to Divine Revelation which can only oblige those that have heard of it But since you lay so much stress upon those Texts of Scripture you have now cited I pray give me leave to examine whether they will bear that sense you put upon them As for the first of those Texts you quote Whosoever sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed c. Suppose I should take it in that sense you put upon it only to extend to Civil Soveraigns or Magistrates it will be so far from proving a Power of Life and Death to have been granted by God to Adam and from him conveyed to Noah that this place seems to imply the contrary for if it was a known Law before that Murther was to be punished with death by a Father or other Magistrate to what purpose was this Command now given to Noah Since if it were a Divine Law before the Flood wherefore is it here repeated And therefore all Expositors agree that this is the first Precept enjoyning Murther to
his Death but should have his Portion presently and be gone And Farther we read Gen. 25.5 6. That Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac but unto the Sons of the Concubines which Abraham had Abraham gave Gifts and sent them away from Isaac his Son while he yet lived that is Abraham having given Portions to all his other Sons and sent them away that which he had reserved being the greatest part of his Substance Isaac as Heir possessed after his Death but by being Heir he had no Right to be Lord over his Brethren For if he had why should Sarah desire to rob him of one of his Subjects or Slaves by desiring to have him sent away So likewise if you look into the first of Chron. chap. 5. v. 12. you will find a place that plainly confirms this Interpretation where it is said Reuben was the First-born but for as much as he defiled his Fathers Bed his Birth-right was given unto the Sons of Joseph the Son of Israel and the Genealogy is not to be reckoned after the Birth-right for Judah prevailed above his Brethren and of him came the Chief Ruler but the Birth-right was Joseph's tho' he was the Youngest Son and that this Birth right was Iacob's Blessing on Ioseph Gen. 58.28 tells us in these words Moreover I have given thee one Portion above thy Brethren which I took out of the hand of the Amorites with my Sword ' and with my Bow Whereby it is not only plain that the Birth-right was nothing but a double Portion but the Text in Chronicles is expresly against your Opinion and shews that Dominion was no part of the Birth-right for it tells us That Joseph had the Birth-right but Judah the Dominion So that unless you were very fond of this word Birth-right without considering in what sense it is to be taken you would never bring this Instance of Iacob and Esau to prove that Dominion belongs to the Eldest Son over his Brethren For if this Blessing of Isaac upon Iacob signifies any thing more than this it could not relate to his own Person who never Ruled over his Brother at all and therefore it is at most no more than a Prophecy shewing that the Jews as being descended from Iacob should in after-times Rule over the Edomites or Posterity of Esau according to what Rebekah had been foretold from God Two Nations are in thy Womb and two manner of People shall be separated from thy Bowels and the one People shaâ—l be stronger than the other People and the Elder shall serve the Younger And so Iacob blessed Iudah and gave him tho' not in his own Person but in his Posterity the Scepter and Dominion From whence you might have argued as well that the Dominion belonged to the Third Son over his Brethren as well as from this Blessing of Isaac that it belonged to Iacob they being both but Predictions of what should long after happen to their Posterities and not declaring any Hereditary Right of Dominion in either Iacob or Iudah M. I will not rigorously insist that Primogeniture is such a Divine Right as cannot be altered by any Humane Act or Constitution but yet I take it to be such a Right that without the Father orders it otherwise in his life-time or that the Elder Brother doth of his own accord depart from his Right he will have a good Title to his Fathers Government or Kingdom and consequently to Command over the rest of his Brethren and therefore Grotius makes a great deal of difference between Hereditary and Patrimonial Kingdoms the former being to descend to the Eldest Son only but the latter are divisible amongst all the Sons if the Father please And hence I suppose it was that as Mankind encreased one petty Kingdom grew out of another Thus the Land of Canaan which was Peopled by six Sons of Canaan and Philistim the Son of Mizraim had eight or nine Kings in the time of Abraham and above thirty Kings in Ioshua's time which could proceed from no other Cause but the Fathers dividing their Kingdoms in their life-times or at their Death amongst their Sons and Descendants for we hear not of one Tittle of Popular Elections in those early days And I have proofs enough of this in Scripture Since thus we find it to have been among the Sons of Ishmael and Esau as appears by Gen. 25 and 26. where it is said These are the Sons of Ishmael and these are their Names by their Castles and Towns c. Twelve Princes of their Tribes and Families And these are the Names of the Dukes that came of Esau according to their Families and their Places by their Nations And hence it is that in after Ages Princes did often divide their Kingdoms amongst their Children of which you may see divers Examples in Grotius de I. B. L. II Cap. 7. which Divisions when made and submitted to by the Eldest Son I doubt not but were good Yet I think it cannot be denied for all this that by the Law of Nature or Nations where there is no Will of the Father declared to the contrary the Eldest Son ought to inherit And this is the Judgment not only of Christian but Heathen Writers Thus Herodotus the most Antient Greek Historian lays it down for a general Custom of all People or Nations that the Eldest Son should enjoy the Empire and the Romans were likewise of this Opinion and therefore Livy when he speaks of two Brothers of the Allâ—broges contending for the Kingdom says The Younger was more strong in Force than Right And in another place he calls this Right of the Eldest Son the Right of Age and Nature as also doth Trogus Pompaeius in his Epitome of Iustine when he calls it the Right of Nations and in another place a Right of Nature when he says that Artabazanes the Eldest Son of the King of Persia challenged the Kingdom himself which the Order of his Birth and Nature it self appointed amongst Nations I could give you many other Authorities from more Modern Authors but I rather chuse to give you these because you cannot except against them as Writers prepossest by either Jewish or Christian Principles So that if this Right of Primogeniture be not absolutely Divine yet it is at least most Natural and Reasonable F. I see you are convinced that this Divine Right of Primogeniture is not to be proved out of Scripture and therefore you are contented to fall a Peg lower and to take up with the Right of Eldership by the Law of Nature or Nations which howsoever you are pleased to confound them are for all that two distinct things for if the Succession of the Eldest Son were by the Law of Nature it were no more to be altered by the Will of a Father than the Law of God it self and therefore notwithstanding all your Quotations your Right of Primogeniture amounts to no more than this
Subjection to Princes but by the Mediation of an Human Ordinance what reason is there that the Laws of Nature should give place to the Laws of Men As we see the Power of the Father over his Child gives place and is subordinate to the Power of the Magistrate And that this is not the Doctrine of Christianity alone but was also believed by the best Moralists amongst the Heathen may appear by this remarkable passage out of Seneca de Clementia which is so put to this purpose that I took the pains to translate it into English in my Common-place-book Some of which I will now read to you What is the Duty of a Prince That of kind Parents who use to chide their Children sometimes sweetly and at other times with more sharpness and sometimes correct them with blows And after having shewn that a good Father will not proceed to disinherit his Son or inflict any more severe punishments upon him till he is past all hopes of amendment He proceeds thus No Parent proceeds to Extirpation till he hath in vain spent all other Remedies That which becomes a Parent becomes a Prince who is stiled without flattery The Father of his Country in all our other Titles we consult their i. e. the Emperours Honour We have called them the Great the Happy the August and heaped upon ambitious Majesty all the Titles we could invent in giving thâ—se to them But we have stiled him The Father of his Country that the Prince might consider the Power of a Father was given him Which is the most temperate of all Powers consulting the Welfare of the Children and preferring their Good before its own And as for your Objection why Princes should not be loved and reverenced as if they were our Fathers because not being our Natural Fathers they may possibly want that Natural and Fatherly Affection to their Subjects and consequently may Tyrannize over them I think this is easily answered For First God who is and ever was the True Disposer of Kingdoms hath in his hands the hearts of all Princes and endows them with such Affections as he thinks fit not only towards the People in general but towards each particular person And therefore as he was the Author of all Government and is still the Preserver of it so no inconvenience can happen but he is able to redress it 2. That there was as great or rather greater Inconveniencies which sprung at first from the too great Lenity of these Natural Princes for want of Power or Will to punish the Disorders of their Subject Children as have ever sprung since from the Tyranny and Cruelty of the worst Princes And I believe to this was owing that excessive wickedness which forced as it were God Almighty to put an end to the first World by that time it had stood about 1600 years And we see afterwards Eli and Samuel good men and severe Judges towards others were yet too indulgent to their own Children which shews the weakness of your Reasons and the greatness of the Wisdom of God in making all Government to spring from Paternal Power which is the mildest of all Powers and to descend by degrees to Hereditary Monarchies which are the Divinest the most Natural and the best of all Governments and in which the People have the least hand F. I see plainly that you think the Laws of Nature or Reason are not on your side and therefore you are forced to recur not to the express words of Scripture but to the Paraphrase or Explanation of them in our Church Catechism which certainly never was intended to have that consequence drawn from it which you have made for tho you are pleased to omit one part of the Commandment with an c. Yet the Words are as you your self must acknowledge Honour thy Father and thy Mother and if from Honour thy Father you will gather that all Power was Originally in the Father it will follow by the same Argument that it must have been as Originally in the Mother too Father and Mother or Parents being mentioned together in all Precepts in the Old and New Testament where Honour or Obedience is enjoyned on Children And if these Words Honour thy Father must give a right to Government and make the form also Monarchical 〈◊〉 if by these Words must be meant Obedience to the Political Power of the Supream Magistrate it concerns not any Duty we owe to our Natural Fathers who are Subjects Because they by your Doctrine are divested of all that Power it being placed wholy in the Prince and so being equally Subjects and Slaves with their Children can have no Right by that Title to any such Honour or Obedience as contains in it Civil Subjection But if Honour thy Father and thy Mother Signifies the Duty we owe our Natural Parents as by our Saviours interpretation Matth. 15.4 and all the other places 't is plain it doth then it cannot concern Political Obâ—dienâ—â— but a Duâ—y that is owing to Persons who have no Title to Soveraignty noâ— any Political Authority as Monarchs over Subjects For Obedience to a Private Father and that Civil Obedience which is due to a Monarch aâ—â— quite different and many times contradictory and inconsistent with each other And therefore this Command which necessarily comprehends the persons of our Natural Fathers and Mothers must mean a Duty we owe them distinct from our Obedience to the Magistrate and from which the most absolute Power of Princes cannot absolve us And to make this yet plainer suppose upon your Hypothesis that Seth as Eldest Son of Adam was Heir of all his Patriarchal Power how could all his Brethren and Sisters Honour that is Obey Eve their Mother at the same time supposing Seth and her to have commanded them things contradictory at the same timeâ— So that tho' I grant the Compilers of our Church Catechism did intend in this Explanation to comprehend all the great Duties towards our Governours Yet it is plain they never dreamed of this far-fetched inference that you have drawn from their Explanation of it for tho under this Command of Honour thy Father and thy Mother they do indeed comprehend Obedience and Honour to be due to the King c. this no more proves that they believed all Kingly Power to be Paternal than that because they likewise there Infer from this Command a Submission to be due to all Governours Teachers Spiritual Pastors and Masters that therefore all these Parties here named do likewise derive their Authority from Adam's Fatherhood or that because under the Command against bearing False-Witness we are taught to refrain our Tongues from Evil Speaking Lying and Slandering that therefore all Lyes and Evil Speaking whatsoever is down-right bearing False-Witness against our Neighbour Since nothing is more certain than that a man may commit either of the formerr without being guilty of the latter And to Answer your Query if Obedience to Parents be immediately due by a Natural Law
Foundation of all other and I have ever thought God's Love and Kindness to Mankind did never appear in any thing more except in Man's Redemption than in Creating only one Man and out of him only one Woman So that Adam was a kind of a Father to his Wife That Marital as well as all other Power might be founded in Paternal Iurisdiction That all Princes might look upon the meanest of their Subjects as their Children And all Subjects upon their Prince as their Common Father And upon each other as the Children of one Man that Mankind might not only be United in one common Nature but also be of one Blood of one Family and be habituated to the best of Governments from the very Infancy of the World Were this well considered as there could be no Tyrants so neither would there be any Traitors and Rebels But both Prince and People would strive to outdo each other in the offices of Love and Duty And now do you or any Man living read Sir R. F's Patriarcha or other works and see if either he or I have ascribed one Dram of Power to Princes which will not Naturally Spring from this Supream-Paternal Power So that upon the whole I think reason it self would conclude that this way of Solving the first Rise of Government is true and that it is the Duty of all who by the Blessing of God are under Paternal Monarchies to be very thankful for the favour and to do the utmost that in them lies to preserve and transmit that best form of Government to their Children after them And surely there is no Nation under Heaven hath more reason for this than the English who are under a Paternal Monarchy which has taken the best care that can be to secure them not only from oppression and wrong but from the very fear of it F. Since you lay the chief stress of your assertion upon the Original of most of the Kingdoms and Monarchies now in the World and of our own in particular I think I may safely joyn issue with you on both points and in the first place affirm that an unjust Conquest gives the Conquerour no right to the Subjects Obedience much less over their Lives or Estates and if our Norman William and his Successours had no more right to the Crown of England than meer conquest I doubt whether they might have been driven out after the same manner they came in But I believe you will find upon second thoughts that Unjust Conquests and Usurpations of Crowns be no firm Titles for Princes to relye on lest the Old English Proverb be turned upon you viz. That which is Sauce for a Goose is Sauce for a Gander but I Shall defer this discourse concerning Titles by Conquest and in particular that of our Kings to this Kingdom to some other time when I doubt not but to shew that it is not only false in matter of fact but also that it will not prove that for which it is brought And therefore what you say in your conclusion in exaltation of God's Love and Kindness to Mankind in Creating one Man and out of him only one Woman that Adam might be a kind of Father to his Wife is a very pretty and indeed singular Notion and you would do very well to move the Convocation next time it sits that this explanation may be added to the fifth Commandment that Women may be taught in the Catechism that Obedience to Husbands is due by the Precept of Honour thy Father and thy Mother And therefore I need give no other Answer to all the rest you have said however Specious the Hypothesis may seem as you have drest it up for Princes and People yet till you have proved that all Paternal Power is Monarchical and that all Monarchical Power is derived from Fatherhood it signifies nothing Nor can these Piae Fraudes do any more good in Politicks than Religion For as Superstition can never serve to advance the True Worship of God but by creating false Notions of the Divine Nature in Meâ—s Minds which doth not render it as it ought to be the Object of their Love and Reverence but Servile Fear So I suppose this asserting of such an unlimited Despotical Power in all Monarchs and such an entire Subjection as Sir R. F. and you your self exact from Subjects can produce nothing but a flavish Dread without that esteem and affection for their Prince's Person and Government which is so necessary for the quiet of Princes and which they may always have whilst they think themselves obliged in Conscience and Honour to protect their Lives and Fortunes from Slavery and Oppression according to the just and known Laws of the Kingdom and not to dispense with them in great and Essential Points without the Consent of those who have a hand in the making of them And all false Notions of this Supreme Power as derived from I know not what Fatherly but indeed Despotick Power are so far from settling in Peoples Minds a sober and rational Obedience to Government that they rather make them desperate and careless who is their Master since let what Change will come they can expect no better than to be Slaves Nor are Subjects put in a better condition by this Doctrine of Absolute Non Resistance since all Princes are not of so generous a Nature as not to Tyrannize and Insult the more over those whom they suppose will not or else dare not resist them and therefore I cannot see how such a submission can soften the hearts of the most Cruel Princes in the World as you suppose much less how Resistance in some cases can inrage the mildest Princes to their Peoples Ruine since all Resistance of such mild and merciful Princes I grant to be utterly unlawful nor do I hold Resistance ever to be practised but where the People are already ruined in their Liberties and Fortunes or are just at the brink of it and have no other means left but that to avoid it To conclude I so far agree with you that I think it is the Duty of all that are born under a Kingly Government Limited by Laws to be very thankful to God for the Favour and to do the utmost that in them lies to preserve and transmit this best Form of Government to their Children after them without maintaining such unintelligible Fictions as a Paternal Monarchy derived from Adam or Noah And tho' I own that some of our former Kings have taken the best care they could to secure this Nation from Popery and Arbitrary Power yet whether the Method of our three last Kings have been the readiest way to secure us from the fears of it I leave it to your own Conscience if you are a Protestant to judge But since you defie me to shew you out of Sir R. F's Patriarcha that he hath ascribed one Dram of Power to Princes which doth not naturally arise from a Supreme Paternal Power and that this is
seize upon some Territory or Island sufficient for them to Inhabit in Yet doth not the Text tell us whether the Countrey they lived in was by them divided into particular shares or whether they made use of it in common as the Indians of America do at this day where the Quantity of Land doth far exceed that of the Inhabitants that live in it Nor lastly Supposing that a Division was made of these Countries they then inhabited doth it tell us whether it was done by the Sole Authority of their Prince or Leader claiming as his own the whole Dominion of it so that no Man could have Right to a foot of Ground in it but himself or whether this Division was made by the Joynt Consent and Agreement of all the rest of the Heads of Families and other Freemen that went along with him The Scripture is silent in these Circumstances that only telling us that the Great Grand-sons of Noah mentioned Gen. 10. The Isles of the Gentiles were divided in their Lands every one after his Tongue after their Families in their Nations And that this Division was in the days of Peleg but no where declares whether every particular Region or Countrey was then divided into distinct Shires or not And as for what you say that all Princes and Conquerors of Territories and Countries have the like Absolute Dominion and Property in them as Adam and Noah had over the whole World if it were no more than that I doubt it would be very little since I have already proved and I think you must grant that no Monarch at this day can claim his Crown as the Right Heir of Adam or Noah or as their Representatives and it will I think be much harder to prove that the Sole Property of an acquired Country or Kingdom must be in them by vertue of any such Right But as for your Instance of William the Conqueror's having a Right to all the Lands in England by Conquest since it requires somewhat a longer Answer than the time will now afford I shall refer speaking farther of it till another opportunity But pray Sir at present make me see a little plainer what those Inconveniences and Absurdities are that will follow from my Hypothesis that God at first gave the World and all Creatures therein to Mankind to be used and enjoyed in common if they thought fit M. I shall shew you some farther Absurdities that will follow from it than I have done already For tho' Grotius and Selden indeed maintain that a Community of things was by the Law of Nature of which God is the Author and yet that such a Community should not be able to continue seems to derogateâ— from the Providence of God to ordain a Community of things which could not continue And it seems also an Act of high presumption in the Descendants of Noah to abrogate the Natural Law of Community by introducing that of a Propriety in things F. I pray give me leave to interrupt you that you may not run on in a mistake for let Grotius or Selden assert what they please I am not tied to submit to it and therefore when I say that God gave the World and all the Creatures therein to Men to be used in common if they please I thereby understood that God hath by the Laws of Nature commanded nothing in this matter but hath left the Earth and all things therein to be used in common or in several as may best consist with the Convenience Necessity or Customs and Laws of each particular Nation or Common-Wealth who God designs should live peaceably together and make the best use of the Country where they inhabit and the things therein contained for their own common maintenance and safety according to the expression of the Royal Psalmist But the Earth hath God given to the Children of Men i. e. all the Descendants of Adam M. Well suppose it were so the prime Duties of the Second Table are chiefly conversant about this Right of Propriety but if this Propriety were introduced by Human Laws or Agreements as Grotius and you your self suppose then both the Moral and Divine Law would depend upon the Will of Men so that there could be no Law of Nature against Adultery or Theft if Women and all things else had been in common F. This Objection wholy proceeds from your not having any distinct or true Notions of the Nature and true Original of Propriety and therefore if you please to hear my Account of it I hope you will grant when I have done that your Objection against the Community or things will be to no purpose I do therefore in the first place distinguish between a Natural and a Civil Propriety By the former Mâ—n might be guilty of Theâ—t before Civil Propriety was instituted But as for Adultery that was always unlawful both by the Laws of God and Nature which abhâ—rs Community of Women and Promisâ—uous Copulations and God hath particularly ordained that the Man and his Wife should be one Hesh and no Man that maintains a Natural Community of things ever supposed that Women were amongst those things that were to be in common or that a Man had the same kind of Propriety in his Wife as in his Horse so that the Command against Adultery might very well consist with the Community of things M. Suppose I grant this I do not understand how there can be a Natural Propriety and yet a Community in things as you suppose F. I wonder you should not be able to apprehend this and have been so often at an Ordinary and a Play-house at the former you know tho' a Man hath a Right to his Dinner yet all the Meat at the Table being in common he cannot call any part of it his own till he hath cut it or divided it from the rest And at the latter a Man hath a Right to a Place either in the Box or in the Pit and yet he cannot tell where it is till he hath placed himself in it or sent some body to keep it for him M. I do apprehend what you mean but pray explain to me the manner of this Natural Propriety â— little more at large F. I would readily do it since if that were well done I grant it would be a great step to the clearing of the Original and Nature of all Civil Power I would readily do it were it not now too late to enter upon so long a Subject and therefore I think we may both be sufficiently 〈◊〉 with Talk so as to put it off until another opportunity when I shall give you my thoughts of the 〈◊〉 Original of Civil Government in what sense it proceeds from God and yet how far the Consentus the People is necessary to make it obligatory on the Consciences of the Subjects which when it is once well setled I hope there will be little need of disputing farther whether this great Alteration hath been brought about by Lawful means
the mentioning of them since I grant that about the End of the Fourth Century when these things happen'd not only the common People but also the Clergy began to grow very corrupt in their Manners And therefore I cannot much value any Precedents that you can bring in that time to justifie Resistance in Christians unless you could have shewn me any before the time of Constantine which I am sure you are not able to do much less any Authority from any of the Primitive Fathers which justifieth Resistance of the Supream Powers upon any account whatsoever F. 'T is a very hard matter to satisfie you by Quotations for before the time of Constantine it is evident the Christians were not only weak dispersed and disarmed but had also the Laws of the Empire against them And I have already granted That Self-defence against Persecution upon account of Religion was unlawful but when in the time of Constantine's Son and Successor the People having the Law on their side stood upon their defence against those that would have taken away their Lives as in the Examples I have brought of the Inhabitants of Paphlagonia then the Instances come too late and the Age is grown so corrupt that they are no longer Primitive Christians than they observe your Doctrines But as for express Precepts or Testimonies out of the Scriptures and Fathers to justifie Resistance I think it is very needless to bring any for the great Mr. Hooker shews us very well that it is the intent of the Scripture to deliver us all the Credenda and Agenda necessary to Salvation but in other Matters within the compass of our Reason it is enough if we have evident Reason for them Scripturâ non contradicente and if the Scripture doth not forbid such Resistance for Self-defence as I hope I have now proved to be Lawful I do not value whether there be any Express Authority to be quoted out of the Fathers for it or not For whatever the Scripture leaves free I think the Fathers have no Power to forbid M. I see it is to no purpose to argue longer with you from Primitive Examples or Testimonies And therefore I come now to the last thing I proposed which is to shew you that the Doctrine of our Church of England as it is contained in the 39 Articles Canons and Book of Homilies is as expresly for passive Obedience and against All Resistance of the Supream Powâ—rs as the Primitive Church it self And therefore I shall begin with the Infancy of the Reformation under Henry the VIII For there I begin the Restoration of Religion to its Purity in this Kingdom F. I pray Sir give me leave to interrupt you for I must tell you I will not be concluded by any thing that the King or Church in those times did publish concerning matters of Faith or Practice since unless it were in that one Political rather than Religioâ—s Article concerning the Pope's Supremacy the Church in all other Speculative and Practical Doctrines was as much infected with Popâ—ry as it was before And therefore if you will have me to be converted by your Authorities I pray begin with the Purer Times of Edward the VI. and Queen Elizabeth M. I shall comply with your desires since you will have it so And therefore I shall begin with the 39 Articles of the Church of England where in the 37 Article as they were past under Queen Elizabeth Anno 1562 you may find it runs thus The Queen's Majesty hath the Chief Power in this Realm of England and other her Dominions unto whom the Chief Government of all the Estates of this Realm whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in all Causes doth appertain and is not nor ought to be subject to any foreign Iurisdiction It is true this Doctrine is not limited to the particular Case of Subjects taking up Arms but it seems to me by two necessary Consequences to be deduced from it First Because if the Pope who pretended by a Divine Right had no Power over Kings much less have the People any such Power who pretend to an Inferiour Right that of Compact Secondly Because the Article makes no distinction but excludes all other Power as well as that of the Pope And in truth the Plea is the same on either side the Pope says as long as the Prince Governs according to the Laws of God and the Church of which He is the Interpreter so long the Censures of the Church do not reach him and say the People as long as the Prince governs according to the Laws of the Land and of the meaning of those Laws they themselves will be the Interpreters so long are they bound to be obedient but as soon as the King doth any thing that may contradict the Pope then he is deservedly say the Romanists excommunicated deposed and murdered and when he usurâ—s upon the Peoples Liberties then he ought to be deposed by the People The Arguments on either side are the same and for the most part the Authorities F. I must confess this is the first time that ever I knew any Man go about to prove Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance out of the 39 Articles and indeed I should have thought you might have deduced any thing else from these Articles as well as that But let us see how what I have saiâ— in this Discourse can come within the Contents of this Article which only says that the King or Queen of England is Supream Governour over all Persons as also in all Causes whether Ecclesiastical or Civil and is not subject to any foreign Iurisdiction from whence you raise this Argument that if the Pope who claims by a Divine Right hath no Power over our Kings much less have the People who can pretend to no such Right as he does but only that by Compact Now pray tell me whether this be conclusive I assert that the People have by the Law of God and Nature a Right to defend themselves against the Supream Powers in case they are violently Assaulted in their Lives Liberties or Estates Now I would very fain have you prove to me how Resistance for Self-defence doth subjâ—ct a Prince to any Iurisdiction either Foreign or Domestick and whether the People can have no Right to Resist such Violence unless they have also an Authoritative Power over them M. It is not worth while to dispute this any longer with you to so little purpose And therefore I shall come to the Canons of the Church and in particular those of the year 1640 which I look upon as a full Explanation of the Belief of our Church in this Point where you may see in the first Canon these two plain Propositions among others First That the most Sacred Order of Kings is of Divine Right being the Ordinance of God himself founded in the Prime Laws of Nature and clearly Established by express Texts both of the Old and New Testaments Secondly For Subjects to bear
its Original to Conquest but either to a long possession the Extinction or at least Dereliction of the right Heirs together with the consent of the People to confirm their Titles So that it is not only my Opinion but that of the most Learned Writers in your own faculty such as Grotius and Pufendoâ—f that Conquest alone though in the justest War can confer no Right over a Free People without their recognition or consent I have added of a Free People because I much doubt upon the Conquest of a Kingdom or Territory as for example where the People do own themselves meer slaves to their Sultan Whether their consents be at all necessary or not since they fall to the Victor as the movable goods of the Prince Conquered But then the Power he has over them is not properly a Civil Authority but that of a Lord over his Slaves And hence it is that in all Kingdoms and Territories obtained by Conquest among us in Europe Princes do not think themselves to have any Title to their Subjects Allegiance before they have acknowledged them for their Lawful Soveraignâ— by some publick Act either of the Estates or Representatives of the Kingdom or else by the particular Oaths of all the chief Subjects or Inhabitants of those places M. I shall not at present dispute this point any farther with you but yet there remains one great difficulty behind concerning the manner of Gods conferring this Supream Power upon Princes and States For you your self have already granted that the Power of Fathers and Masters of Families is not of the kind but somewhat specifically different from Civil Power or Authority And if so since they had not this Civil Power in themselves I cannot see how they could confer it upon another since nemo dat quod non habet And therefore there still seems a necessity of Gods conferring a new Power upon that Prince or upon those Persons whom they shall pitch upon to Rule over them F. I hope I shall as easily remove this difficulty if you will please to consider the manner how God confers this Civil Authority upon men which is certainly by Natural Means and is to be found out by Natural Reason without any Divine Revelation since Civil Government was instituted and men were obliged to obey it long before the old Testament was written But the true Original of it is thus to be traced First It is without doubt that right Reason sufficiently taught Mankind when it began to multiply and that they were sensible from the great wickedness and corruptions of mens Natures that their common peace and safety could not be well maintained unless Common-Wealths were instituted which could not subsist without a Supream Authority placed in some one or more persons This being a dictate of the Law of Nature or Right Reason and so highly conducing to the good of Mankind it must needs owe its Original to God the Author of all Truth and the Giver of every good and perfect Gift From whence it follows that not only the Institution of Common-Wealths themselves but also the Supream Power with which they are indued do's not proceed meerly from men but from Gods command exprest by the Law of Nature or Right Reason So that the same Legislator who first prescribed Civil Society also prescribed the order of that Society but a Supream Civil Authority either in one or more persons is the Life and Soul thereof without which it cannot Live or Subsist Now it is certain that those things are not only said to proceed from God which he immediately Institutes without any human act intervening but those also which men by the conduct of Right Reason and according to their present occasions and necessities have introduc'd to fulfil that Obligation that lay upon them to promote the common good and safety of Mankind and since in a promiscuous ungoverned multitude that great Law of Nature which prescribes the publick Peace and Concord of Mankind cannot well be exercised the unruliness of mens passions considered nor be well maintain'd without some Supream Civil Authority to keep men in order it is plain that God who enjoyn'd men this do's also command that Civil Societies should not be only Instituted but their Authority also obeyed as derived from himself and as the necessary means of obtaining this great end of all the Laws of Nature the common good and safety of Mankind and hence it is that he hath not any where prescribed or instituted any particular Form of Government but leaves the choice of it to the particular Genius and Temper of each Nation and People This being setled your Objection is easily answered how Civil power can be conferr'd without an immediate conferring of it from God since the people in the state of Nature had it not before which proceeds from your not considering that this Supream Authority is not like the Soul of Man an immaterial form that gives knowledge and understanding to the Body and may be separated from it but is only a moral quality which may be produc'd by the mutual consent of those that institute it as the productive cause thereof tho' they had it not formally in themselves before just as from many Voices singing in Consort though in different Tones there arises a Harmony which was not in any single Voloe alone Therefore since Civil Authority proceeds from the non-resistance of the Subjects and their Concession that the Supream Powers should freely dispose of their Bodies and Goods for the publick safetâ— it plainly appears that in each particular Master of a Family and Freeman there lay though hidden and disperst the seeds or rudiments of Supream Power which by mutual Compacts did afterwards grow into a perfect Civil Authority And thus not only many Masters of Families and Freemen may combine together for their mutual safety to erâ—ct a Common-wealth by appointing one or many men to rule over them for their mutual safety but it is not impossible but that from the Government of a Master of a Family having many Villages and Slaves under his power there may â—ise â— perfect Kingdom for though Paternal power do's chiefly respect the Education of Children and that of a Master the Government of Servanâ—â— for his own advanâ—â—gâ— yet is there not so great a distance between the power of a Master of a Family and Civil Authority that there can be no passing from one to the other without a new Authority immediately created by God for that purpose for suppose a Master of a Family having a numerous train of Children and Servants should permit both of them by way of emancipation or manumission to enjoy such a portion of Lands or other Goods to their own use as also to Govern their own private Families and Affairs as they shall think fit provided they will still obey him and contribute the utmost assistance of their Lives and Fortunes for the publick safety I cannot see any thing that would be
Rebellion for the Duke of Lancaster to take up Arms against King Richard the 2 d and to Depose him I cannot see why according to your own Principles it should not be the same crime in the Duke of York to take up Arms against King Henry the 6 th to whom he had more than once sworn Faith and Allegiance and having taken him Prisoner to call a Parliament whereby himself was declared Protector of the Kingdom and the Son of King Henry disinherited after a quiet possession in three descents during the space of above sixty years which if it will not give a thorough settlement after two Acts of Parliament to confirm it I know not what can M. I confess you have given me a more exact account of this transaction than ever I had yet and I should very much incline to be of your opinion were it not that I am satisfied that our Kings have a Right to the Crown by Gods Law as well as mans as also by the Law of Nature and that more than one Parliament have been of my opinion in this matter I shall shew you from several Statutes and Declarations of Parliament which though not Printed are yet to be seen at this day upon the Parliament Rolls for after that Henry the 6 th or rather his queen for him had broken the aforesaid solemn agreement made between this King and Duke in Parliament whereby it was accorded that if King Henry made War again upon the Duke of York he should then forfeit his present Right to the Kingdom during his Life whereupon Queen Margaret and her Son Prince Edward who would not submit to this agreement renewed the War and fighting another Battle at Wakefield the said Duke was slain but though he did not live to enjoy his right yet his Son Edward Earl of March again recovered it and having in the second Battle of St. Albans taken K. Henry Prisoner triumphantly Marching to London he there declar'd himself King and having immediately call'd a Parliament it was therein declar'd that all the proceedings against K. Richard the ad are repeal'd and the taking him Prisoner by Henry Earl of Darby was declared against his Faith and Allegiance and that with violence he had usurped upon the Royal Power and Dignity c. and that he had by cruel Tyranny Murther'd and Destroy'd the said King Richard his Liege and Soveraign Lord against Gods Law and his own Oath of Allegiance And then they proceed further to declare in these words That the Commons being of this present Parliament having sufficient and evident knowledge of the said unrightwise Usurpation and intrusion by the said Henry late Earl of Derby upon the said Crown of England knowing also certainly without doubt and ambiguity the Right and Title of our said Sovereign Lord viz. King Edward the 4 th thereunto true and that by Gods Law Mans Law and the Law of Nature he and none other is and ought to be their True Rightwise and Natural Leige and Sovereign Lord and that he was in Right from the death of the said noble and famous Prince his Father very just King of the said Realm of England and will for ever take accept and repute the said King Edward the â—ourth their Sovereign and Liege Lord and him and his Heirs to be Kings of England and none other according to the said Right and Title And that the same Henry unrightwisely against Law Conscience and the Customs of the said Realm of England Usurped upon the said Crown and that he and also Henry late call'd K. Henry the 5 th his Son and Henry Late called Henry the 6 th his Son occupy'd the Realm of England and Lordship of Ireland and exercised the Governance thereof by Unrightwise Intrusion Usurpation and no otherwise that the â—motion of Henry late called King Henry the 6 th from the Exercise Occupation Usurpation Intrusion Reign and Governance of the said Realm and Lordship done by our Sovereign Lord King Edward the 4 th was and is rightwise Lawful according to the Laws and Customs of the said Realm and so ought to be taken holden reputed and â—ccupied I have been the larger on this point because it is a full and free Declaration of the whole Parliament nor only against all past as well as future Parliaments having any thing to do in the disposal of the Crown but is also as express a Declaration as words can make against any Vacancy of the Throne upon the Death of the Predecessor and therefore I hope you will pardon me if I have been a little too tedious in reciting these Records F. I cannot blame you for being very exact in this point because the whole strength of your Cause depends upon it but yet I doubt not but to shew you that this Parliament was as much awed by King Edward's Power being now Conqueror as ever those Parliaments were that Depos'd Edward and Richard the 2 d for you your self have sufficiently set forth the manner of it that it was not till after a great Victory obtain'd against King Henry the 6 th and I never found in all my reading that a Victorious Prince ever wanted power enough to get a Parliament call'd to settle himself in the Throne and declare his Competitor an Usurper as I shall shew you more fully by and by but that this Act of Parliament which thus posiâ—ively declares Edward the 4 th to be their Sovereign Lord by God's Law Man's Law and the Law of Nature I think can no ways consist either with Scripture Reason or Matter of Fact for in first place I think I have sufficiently proved that there is no Divine Right of Succession for the Heirs of Crowns any more than of other Inheritances either by the Law of God or that of Nature and as for Man's Law I think I have here also proved that the Succession to the Crown by right of Blood alone was never establisht by any positive Law nor yet setled by any constant or interrupted Custom when this Declaration was made for the Crown had then never descended from Father to Son for above two Descents without a deposition or possessed by those who claim'd by Right of Blood without any other Title for as for the three Kings of the House of Lancaster I have already proved and your self must also own it that they could have no Title to the Crown but from the Acts of Entail of the 7 th and 8 th of Henry the 4 th above mention'd so that according to Man's Law that is Custom and also the Statute Law of this Kingdom the House of Lancaster had all that time the better Title But to shew you what uncertain things Parliaments are when King Edward the 4 th had Reign'd ten years he was driven out of the Kingdom by the Earl of Warwick's turning suddenly against him and in his absence he replaced King Henry the 6 th upon the Throne who had been all this while kept
why you cannot take this new Oath of Allegiance since you have the Judgment and Declaration of the Convention which is the Representative of the whole Nation to justifie you in so doing M. I must tell you once again that I think Allegiance is not only due to the King by the Law of the Land but also by the Laws of God and Nature and consequently cannot be dissolved by any subsequent Judgment of a Convention who are and always ought to be Subjects to him and his Right Heirs as long as they are in Being and therefore I should not allow the Prince and Princess of Orange for such were the King now actually dead nay if King Iames himself had stayed in England and had been so over awed by fear or overcome by persuasions as to have declar'd in Parliament that the Prince of Wales was not his true and lawful Son born of the Queen and had thereupon setled the Crown upon the Princess of Orange as his Heir Apparent I could never have thought my self oblig'd to swear Allegiance to her or to own her for my lawful Sovereign as long as the Prince of Wales or the Heirs of his Body are in Being since I am very well satisfied and that by unexceptionable proofs that he is really the Son of the King and Queen for I think I have sufficiently made out by several Declarations of Parliament that the Hereditary Right of the Crown can never be defeated nor alter'd by any Statute whatsoever but according to the Act of Recognition of King Iames the first 's Title which I have already urged the Crown ought to descend to the next Heir by Blood according to the rules of Descent I have now laid down F. I cannot but admire your obstinacy in this matter which proceeds from your old errour of believing that there is a Natural or Divine Right of Succession to Crowns different or abstracted from the Civil and Political Laws and Constitutions of particular Kingdoms which I think I have already confuted by shewing you that there was no such thing in Nature as a Patriarchal Right in Adam or Noah or their Heirs nor yet to any other King as their Assigns or Representatives and therefore though I grant that Allegiance to every lawful King is due by the Laws of God and Nature yet who that King is or who is to be his lawful Successor in limited or mixt Monarchies as ours is can only be determined by the Assembly of Estates of the whole Nation for notwithstanding all you have said there is a very great difference between the Legal Rights of Princes and the natural Rights of Fathers and Husbands which yet may cease and be dissolved in some cases as I have already sufficiently proved for I think it is evident that not only a Legal Title and Legal Authority may be parted from each other but that Legal Titles and Legal Authority may be rightfully separated from the persons to whom they were once due which natural Rights can never be A King may cease to be a King though a Father can never cease to be a Father for Laws have not the same force and power that nature has Now all men confess this separation may be made by a voluntary resignation as also by Conquest in a just War both which will divest such a Prince of all Right and Authority to Govern and if it may be done by either of these ways his Right and Authority is not inseparable from his Person since then there is no natural inherent property in Lands or Kingdoms but what proceeds from the particular Laws of each Kingdom or Common-Wealth therefore who ever the Supream Power appointed by the Constitution of such Kingdoms shall Judge or Determine to have a true and legal Right to the same are to be own'd and esteemed as the true legal owners and possessors thereof by all the Subjects so that if a King can part with his Kingship it is possible he may lose it too since there are more ways than one of parting with that which may be parted with If then a voluntary Resignation of a Crown or Conquest in a just War can give another Prince a just Title to it I cannot see why a â—acit Abdication or Forfeiture of a Crown upon a limited Kings total breach of the Fundamental Laws and Constitution of the Kingdom should not as much discharge all the Subjects of their Allegiance to him and also give the great Council as the Representative of the Nation a like Right of Ordaining a Successor upon such a Vacancy of the Throne and who being once placed therein all the people of the Nation ought to pay the same Allegiance to him as they did to his Predecessors But as for the latter part of your supposition that the right Heirs of the Crown by blood must always necessarily succeed to it that is likewise sounded upon two very false principles first that a lineal hereditary succession to the Crown is established by the Fundamental Laws and Customs of the Kingdom Secondly That the Succession to it cannot be limited by the Parliament or Great Council of the Nation the former of which suppositions I have confuted at our last meetting and as for the other you cannot deny but the Crown has been frequently setled and limited by Act of Parliament contrary to the common rules of Succession as hath been sufficiently proved by the Statute above mentioned of Henry the VII th as also by those several Acts concerning the Succession in Henry the VIII ths time and so it continues at this day by the Statute of the 13 th of Queen Elizabeth whereby it is declared Treason during the Queens Life for any person to affirm that the Queen and Parliament had not power to make Laws to limit and bind the descent and inheritance of the Crown or that this Act was not of sufficient force to bind limit and govern all Persons their Rights and Titles that in any way claim any Interest or possibility in or to the Crown of England in Possession Remainder Succession Inheritance or otherwise howsoever and every Person so holding or affirming after the decease of the Queen shall forfeit all his Goods and Chattels So that I can see no just reason you can have to refuse Swearing Allegiance to Their present Majesties and Their Successors according to the limitation in the said Act. M. Well I see it is in vain to argue these Points any longer with you since it would only force me to repeat the same things over again which will neither edifie you nor my self only give me leave to tell you this much that the last part of your Argument which is the only thing that is new in all your Discourse is founded upon a very wrong ground for though I should grant as I do not since this Act you last mentioned is expired that the Crown may be limited or intail'd by Act of Parliament contrary to the due Rules
also to those of justice and right reason for an Usurper not only to seize the Throne by force but if he can once get himself solemnly Crown'd and then recogniz'd by an Act of Parliament of his own calling which your self cannot deny but to have been ever too obsequious to the will and power of Usurpers as appears by those instances you have given me in Henry the IVth Henry the VIth and Richard the IIId the consequence will then be that the whole Nation would not be only bound to swear Allegiance to him but would be also oblig'd by this Act to desend him in his Tyranny and Usurpation to the utmost of their power and it would also indemnifie them for so doing which would be to establish iniquity by a Law and would destroy all the setled foundations of right and wrong which I affirm God himself is not able to alter without departing from those great attributes of immutability and Justice so essential to his Divine Nature F. It will not be very difficult to reply to these Arguments since they are grounded on such false Principles as are already answer'd As first that this Kingdom is by the fundamental constitution of it an Hereditary Monarchy and that consequently none but he who has a right by inheritance can require our Allegiance but pray tell me where you can find this fundamental constitution for I think I have sufficiently prov'd that there never was any such thing known in England till between four and five hundred years since that King Edward the First succeeded to his Father Henry the Third without any Bequest of the Crown by his Testament and before any Election or Coronation since he was then in the Holy-Land But suppose it now to be an Hereditary Monarchy it doth not therefore follow that the Monarchy should continue always in such a Family for that may sail or may be changed by Conquest or Usurpation as has often been and the constitution continue So that the most that can be said is that when any particular Family by the Providence of God and the consent and submission of the People is placed in the Throne of right the Crown ought to descend to the Heir of that Family but suppose it does not must we pay Allegiance to no other person though pâ—ssessed of the Throne Pray Sir shew me that fundamental constiâ—ution for its being an Hereditary Monarchy does not prove it and according to the Judgement of the best Lawyers the Laws of the Land require the contrary viz. that we must pay our Allegiance to him who is actually King not to him who ought to have been King but is not and to think to confute this by pretending this fundamental constitution of an Hereditary Monarchy is to take that for granted which is still to be proved And therefore I am not at all frighted at the dreadful consequences which you suppose must follow if this Statute of Henry the VIIth should be Law viz. that it would be in the power of every Rebell and Usurper who could get himself Crown'd and then own'd to be King by a Parliament of his own calling to have a legal right to our Allegiance and that Cromwell if he could have got himself once Crown'd and recogniz'd might have been defended in his unjust Usurpation against King Charles the Second But admit this to have been so yet it is still to be understood that at this Coronation he had taken the Oath anciently taken by our Kings and that the Parliament he had summon'd to recognize his Title had consisted of the antient Lords and Commons consisting of Knights Citizens and Burgesses which never was observ'd in any of those Mock-Parliaments which Cromwell call'd had all these Conditions been observ'd I believe he would have been as legal a King within this Statute of Henry the VIIth as he himself ever was before he Married with the Princess Elizabeth which was not till near half a year after he had the Crown setled upon him by Act of Parliament So that though upon every translation of the Crown from one Family to another the first Prince of that Family could have no Hereditary Right to it yet we find such Princes to this day taken for Lawful Kings thus your William the Conquerour King Henry the IVth and King Henry the VIIth are each of them looked upon as true and lawful Kings according to our constitution as if they had been right Heirs of the Crown by lineal descent and though you may say that as to William I. he had a good right by Conquest that is only gratis dictum since I have already prov'd that he could be really no Conquerour And if the English Saxon Monarchy was hereditary before the Conquest as the Gentlemen of your opinion suppose he could be no other than an Usurper upon Edgar Athling the right Heir of the Crown by blood and as for Henry the IVth and Henry the VIIth though they both pretended a feigned Title to the Crown as Heirs by blood yet it is plain by the very Acts of Recognition I have cited that they durst not insist upon that Title since I have already prov'd there is no such thing mention'd in that Act of Parliament wherein the Estates of the Kingdom unanimously agreed that Henry Duke of Lancaster should Reign over them nor yet in the subsequent Act whereby the Crown was intail'd upon himself and his four Sons successively so likewise the Statute of the first of Henry the Seventh it is only drawn in general terms declaring that the Inheritance of the Crown of England c. shall rest remain and abide in the Person of King Henry the VIIth and the Heirs of his Body lawfully coming c. Nor is there indeed any breach made upon this Statute as you suppose nor yet upon the Act of Recognition of King Iames which you so much insist upon since the Crown is certainly setled upon two Princes who are not only lineally descended from them but who are also to be looked upon as right Heirs unto them since the Great Council of the Nation who are the Supream Judges have declar'd them to be so But as for the rest of your Speech whereby you would prove that this Act must needs be void because contrary to the Laws of Justice and right Reason this also depends upon your former errour in supposing that Princes have a Divine or Natural Right to their Crowns antecedent to the municipal Laws of their respective Kingdoms which is already sufficiently confuted so that tho' I grant it is not in the power of God himself to alter the natural foundations of right and wrong just and unjust yet it is likewise as certain that the Civil Rights of Princes as well as those of Subjects can no ways be accounted for according to those Natural Laws since all Civil property as well in Crowns as other Possessions must depend upon the particular Laws and Constitutions of each Kingdom and