charged with these Failures while they were living But after they were dead the Custom was to Arraign their Memories and deny them the Honor of a Funeral Solemnity Which punishment was likewise inflicted upon the Iewish Kings who had been very irregular and oppressive in their Government 2 Chron. 24 25 and 28. 27. From all which it appears that a King 's Swearing at his Coronation does not make his Crown forfeitable or subject him to the Censure of the People And since the Breach of an Oath does not imply a forfeiture of Right since the Kings of England claim their Authority by Conquest and Succession from hence these Two Corollaries naturally follow First That with us Power always proves it self unless it appears that it 's given up or limited by any special Agreement Secondly That the Liberties of the Subjects are not founded upon the Reservations of an Original Contract For a Conquered People must not pretend to make their own Terms And therefore their Priviledges are not of their own Creating but Acts of Royal Favour and Condescentions of Soveraignty Indeed when the People are not forced into Submission but freely Elect their Monarch there all remote Inferences and doubtful Cases ought to be Interpreted in favour of the Subject because the Form of the Government had its Beginning from them and in this Case only it is that Liberty proves it self But where the Limitations of a Monarchy are the Condescentions of a Conqueror or his Successors there we are not to stretch the Priviledge of the Subject beyond express Grant. So that whatever Rights or Branches of Government are not plainly conveyed away must be supposed to be still lodged in the Crown For since the Prince was once Vested with Absolute Power and has afterwards bounded himself by his own Voluntary Act The Abatements of his Authority are to be measured by his own evident Declarations and not by any conjectural and consequential Arguings And here that Celebrated Maxim takes undoubted place That all Acts which are made in destruction of Common Law or Antecedent Right are to be Construed strictly and not drawn out into Corollaries and parallel Cases From whence it follows That if it was unlawful at first for the Subjects to resist their Soveraign it must still continue so unless they can prove he has relinquished this part of his Prerogative and given them an express Liberty to take up Arms when they think it convenient which I believe will be hard to find in our Constitution I Confess there is a Resistance Charter granted by King Iohn but such a one as is no ways serviceable to our Author For First It 's a plain Concession from the Crown and consequently far from the nature of a Mutual and Original Contract Secondly Here is no Deposing Power given in case the Articles were broken But on the contrary upon the supposition of a Rupture there is an express Proviso for the security of the King's Person and Royalty for a little after the Clause of Salva Persona nostra we have these remarkable Words Et cum fuerit Emendatum Intendent nobis sicut prius fecerunt That is if the King should fail in his Promise and constrain them to make use of Force When their Grievances were redressed and they had put themselves in Possession of their Rights They should then be obliged to obey him as formerly Matth. Par. p. 219. Thirdly This Charter was extorted from the King in a Menacing and Military manner The Barons were up in Arms the City of London declared for them and received them and the King was deserted by his own Army whereas before this Grant the Subjects had no colour of Authority to Levy Arms against the King. Now Rebellion is a very ill bottom to found our Liberties upon The advantages which are gained by such Monstrous Violences as these are no more to be insisted on than the Acquisitions of Piracy and therefore Fourthly This Charter being obtain'd in such an undutiful and illegal way is without doubt one great reason among others why it has been always counted a Nullity for that it 's no part of our Law I shall fully evince First From the Transactions in the Reign of Henry the Third for first in this King's Charter there is no notice taken of any Grant made by King Iohn whereas in the Confirmation of Magna Charta by Edward the First the granting it by Henry the Third is expresly mentioned and the Liberty recited at large Which is a plain Evidence that the one was not looked upon to have the same Authority with the other Secondly That the Magna Charta of Henry the Third was a pure Act of Grace to the Subject and no Confirmation of an Antecedent Right appears from the Instrument it self where in the Preamble the King declares That out of Our meer and free Will We have given c. And towards the end That for this Our Gift and Grant of these Liberties Our Arch-bishops Earls c. have given us the fifteenth part of their Moveables Now besides the wording of the Act which runs as clear for a Voluntary Concession as is possible the very consideration which was given the Crown is a sufficient Argument that the Subjects had no Title to these Liberties before For who can imagine they would have purchased that which was their own already at so dear a rate Thirdly This Charter of Henry the Third though it contains much the same Liberties with the former yet it has none of the same Ratification there are no Proviso's for Resistance in it but instead of Distraining and taking of Castles c. there was a Solemn Excommunication denounced by the Bishops against all Violators of this Law. So that now the Subjects were evidently returned to their former State of Passive Obedience And therefore those Barons who towards the latter end of this King's Reign took up Arms in defence of their Privileges as Matth. Paris relates were disinherited by a Parliament at Winchester which was soon after confirmed in another Parliament at Westminster Sir W. Raleigh Priv. of Parl. Ap. 31. More to the same purpose may be seen in the Law called Dictum de Kenilworth For though this Order was made by no more than a Committee of Twelve Peers yet they having an Absolute Delegation as to this Point from the King and the Members of Parliament what they agreed upon has the full Validity of a Law. Fourthly That King Iohn's Charter which warrants Resistance though within a Rule had never any Legal Authority is evident from the Militia Act 14 Car. 2. where the Parliament declares That the Militia was ever the undoubted Right of his Majesty and his Predecessors But this was a great Mistake if King Iohn's Grant had been Law For by vertue of that Charter provided the King receded from his Articles the Militia was lodged in the Barons and the People were obliged by Oath to assist them against the Crown Now if the case
our Government which as the Enquirer acknowledges lodges the Militia i. e. the Power of the Sword singly in the King. So that without his Order none of his Subjects can Form themselves into Troops or carry the face of an Army without being lyable to the highest Penalties And whereas he urges That if we have a Right to our Property we must likewise be supposed to have a Right to preserve it He means by Force To this I Answer First That a Man may have an unquestionable Right to some Things which he has no Warrant to recover Vi Armis but must rest the Enjoyment of them with the Conscience and Prudence of another E. G. If the Father of a wealthy Person falls into deep Poverty he has an undoubted Right to a Maintenance out of his Sons Estate and yet he cannot fairly recover it by Force without a Legal Provision for this purpose To bring the Instance nearer home The Right of making War and Peace is an Indisputable Branch of the King's Prerogative yet unless his Subjects assist him this Authority can seldom be exerted to any Successful effect because his Majesty cannot Levy Money which is the Sinews of War without the consent of Parliament Farther every one who is injured in his Property and endeavours the regaining of it by course of Law has without doubt a Right to have Justice done him But if the Court where the Cause is depending happens to be mistaken or corrupted I desire to know whether it 's Lawful for him to raise his Arrier Ban upon such a Disappointment Our Author is obliged by his Principle to say no and therefore he must either Answer 1. That the Party aggreived ought to appeal to a higher Court to which it may be replyed That it 's possible for him to meet with the same misfortune theÌ„re for our Constitution does not pretend to any Insallible or Impecable Judges 2. His Second Answer must be that this is a Private Case and therefore a Man is bound to submit to ill usage rather than disturb the publick Peace But to this I return that we may suppose a general failure of Justice through Subornation Bribery c. and then the Oppression will be of a publick and Extensive Nature and yet if a grievance of this Magnitude should continue unredress'd after complains our Author will not allow us the benefit of any rougher Methods for he frankly tells us That it 's not lawful to Resist the King upon any Pretence of ill Administration in the Execution of the Law. Pag. 14. so that by his own Argument we may have some very considerable Rights which it 's not justifiable to demand of the Government with a drawn Sword. Secondly This Liberty of Resistance dissolves all Government For as I have already Observ'd when every man is the Judge of his own Priviledges i. e. when he is made the Authentick Interpreter of the Laws and may use all the force he can get at his discretion against the State he is then most certainly to be govern'd by no body but himself And therefore Thirdly This Liberty must be the worst security for Peace and Property imaginable as I shall shew more at large by and by As for his limiting Resistance To plain and visible Invasions This is a very feeble Remedy against Confusion For since every one is made Judge of the Evidence and the generality are naturally over credulous and apt to believe ill of their Governours when designing Men have once impos'd upon their understandings and almost har'd them out of their sences then every thing will be plain to them but their Duty Thus it was plain that Charles the First intended to introduce Popery though possibly never any Person since the Reformation gave â—etter proof of his Adherence to the Church of England than that â—rince Thus likewise at the beginning of this present Revolution it was plain to the greatest part of the Nation that his Majesty had made a League with the French King to Extirpate the Protestants and their Religion Though now the World sees there never was a more Malicious and unreasonable Calumny invented But though Reports of this Nature are never so monstrous and nonsensical yet at this rate we shall never want a Demonstration for a Rebellion as long as such loose Principles as the Enquirer advances are allowed His Thirteenth Section contains nothing but Objections which to do him Justice are fairly put considering the small compass they are drawn into How well he gets clear of the Difficulties he was sensible of the Reader must judge for now we are coming to his Fourteenth and Dead doing Paragraph in which he offers to take off all the Arguments which are made for Non-resistance Now before I reply distinctly to his Answers I shall endeavour to offer something more than I have urged already in Consutation of his main Principle And here it 's not amiss to observe That the Enquirer in his Ninth Section Makes the Measures of our Submission much shorter than those of the Ancient Christians because Our Religion is Established by Law. By vertue of which Distinction he makes our Faith fall under the consideration of Property and from thence concludes by Implication That we may resist our Prince in defence of it But we are to consider though our Religion has a legal Settlement yet we have no Authority to maintain it by Force Nay our Laws are express as it 's possible against all manner of Resistance as himself acknowledges Now the Law is certainly the Measure of all Civil Right and therefore to carve out our selves a greater Security than the Law allows is Destructive of all Government If the Mobile get this hint it 's to be feared they will give him no occasion in their Second Expedition to admire them for Burning and Plundering with so much Temper and Moderation Further he grants by Consequence That the Roman Emperours were irresistable For I don't find that he allows the Primitive Christians a Liberty of Resistance though they were invaded in their Lives and Properties as well us in their Religion Now if these Emperours were irresistable I desire to know what made them so if he Answers the Laws I Reply That the English Constitution is as full against taking Arms to oppose the King as is possible If he Replies That it was unlawful to resist the Roman Emperours because the making of Laws was wholy in their own Power but where the Legative Authority is partly in the King and partly in the People the Case is otherwise To this I Answer That the Division of the Legislative Power does not weaken the Obligation of a Law when all the Distinct Authorities concur to the making of it E. G. I Question not but our Author will grant that the English Laws though the People have a share in Enacting them are as perfect and ought to be as inviolable as those in Turkey where all depends upon the Princes Will Therefore if the
First Now the Lords and Commons in their Petition to the King complain That his Majesties Subjects had been charged with Aids Loans and Benevolences contrary to Law and Imprisoned Confined and sundry ways molested for non Payment That the Subjects had been detained in Prison without certifying the Cause contrary to Law. That they had been compelled to quarter Soldiers and Marriners contrary to Law. That notwithstanding several Statutes to the contrary divers Commissions had been Issued out under the great Seal of England to try Soldiers and Marriners by Martial Law Quarto Car. 1. Rushworth's Coll. To this I might add the Levying Ship Money Coat and Conduct Money c. but I am not willing to enlarge upon so unacceptable a Subject non to discover the Misfortunes of the Father any further than Justice and Duty to the Son obliges me I say the Misfortunes which we see the best Princes through misinformation or improper advice may sometimes fall into However I must crave leave to take notice that these were other manner of Grievances than the Dispencing with Penal Laws both in respect of the Evidence and Consequences of them and yet I am sure the War which was made by the Subjects upon this Score is by our Laws declared an Horrid and Notorious Rebellion This I mention not to justifie the Conduct of the Ministers but to shew that under these Circumstances a mistake in his Majesty ought rather to be lamented than exposed and Magnified at such an enflaming Hyperbolical rate And to this modesty of Behaviour we are now more especially obliged since his Majesty has promised to Redress past Errors which is a plain Argument that some of his former Measures are unacceptable to himself as well as to his Subjects and that he will not pursue them for the future Fourthly Our Author proceeds to argue That the Law mentioning the King or those Commissionated by him shews plainly that it designed only to secure him in the Executive Power for the Word Commission necessarily imports this Since if it is not according to Law it 's no Commission From whence I suppose he infers that those who have it may be resisted Now that this Inference is wide of the Mark appears First Because when this Law was made the King was not restrained from Commissionating any Person whatever in the Field and therefore the Legislators could have no such Design in their View as the Enquirer supposes Secondly The Test Act which was made several Years after the former though it bars the King from granting Military Commands to those who refused to give the prescribed Satisfaction that they were no Papists yet this Statute only declares their Commissions void and subjects them to some other Penalty but it does by no means Authorise the People to rise up in Arms and suppress them and therefore by undeniable Consequence it leaves the other Law of Non-resistance in full force Thirdly This Law which declares it Unlawful to take up Arms against those who are Commissionated by the King was designed as may reasonably be collected from the Time to combat that pernicious distinction between the King's Person and his Authority which has been always too prevalent though in reality it 's nothing but the King's Authority which makes his Person Sacred and therefore the same inviolable Priviledge ought to extend to all those who Act under him Yet notwithstanding this it has often happened that those who pretend a great Reverence for his Person make no scruple to seize his Forts sight his Armies and destroy those who adhere to him under the pretence of taking him out of the Hands of Evil Counselors which has been the most usual and plausible Colour of subverting the Government This Act therefore which was made soon after the Restauration we may fairly conclude was particularly levelled against this dangerous Maxim which had so Fatal an Influence upon the late Distractions Fourthly and Lastly The Enquirer urges That the King imports a Prince clothed by Law with the Regal Prerogative but if he goes about to subvert the whole Foundation of the Government he subverts that by which he has his Power and by Consequence he Annuls his own Power c. First To this it may be Reply'd That bare endeavouring to do an Action though the signs of Executing may be pretty broad is not doing it in the Construction of humane Laws E. G. Drawing a Sword upon a Man is not Murther The intention of the Mind is often impossible to be known for when we imagine a Man is going to do one thing he may be going to do another for ought we can tell to the contrary or at least he may intend to stop far short of the Injury we are afraid of And supposing we had an Authority to punish him there is no reason that conjecture and meer presumption should make him forfeit a Right which is grounded upon clear and unquestionable Law. But Secondly If with reference to the present Case our Author means that the Government is actually subverted as he seems plainly to affirm pag. 7. Then I grant the King's Authority is destroy'd and so is the Property of the Subject too For if the Government is dissolv'd no Man has any Right to Title or Estate because the Laws upon which their Right is founded are no longer in Being But if the Government be so lucky as not to be dissolv'd then the King's Authority remains entire by his own Argument because it 's supported by the same Constitution which secures the Property of the Subject In his Sixteenth Paragraph we have a mighty Stress lay'd upon the difference between Male Administration and striking at Fundamentals as if it was Lawful to resist the Prince in the latter Case though not in the former But if this Distinction had been own'd by our Constitution we may be assured we should have had a plain List of Fundamentals set down in the Body of our Laws particularly we have all imaginable reason to believe that these Fundamentals would have been mentioned and saved by express Clauses and Provisoes in those Statutes which forbid Resistance For without such a direction it would be impossible for the Subject to know how far his Submission was to extend and when it was Lawful to make use of Force Such an unregulated Liberty would put it into the Power of all popular and aspiring Male Contents to corrupt the Loyalty of the unwary Multitude as often as they thought fit to cry out Breach of Fundamentals And at this rate it is easy to foresee what a tottering and unsettled condition the State must be in And therefore according to the old Maxim for which there was never more occasion Ubi Lex non Distinguit non est Distinguendum I have now gon through his Principles and I think sufficiently shewn the Weakness and Danger of them And if so his Catalogue of Grievances signify nothing to his purpose though there was much more aggravation and Truth in them than there is But time has now Expounded the great Mystery and made it evident to most Mens Understandings that our Authors Party has fail'd Remarkably in Matters of Fact as well as in Point of Right For they have not so much as attempted to make good the main and most invidious Part of the charge against his Majesty though to omit Justice Honour and Interest has so loudly called upon them to do it Their giving no Proof after such Importunity of their own Affairs is a Demonstration they never had any For how defective soever they may be in other Respects we must be so just as to allow them Common Sence THE END * Letter to the Convent
in a Publick and Peaceable Way These Unproclaimed Expeditions have been always thought unjustifiable and contrary to the Law of Nature and Nations For those who have a Just Tenderness for the Lives of Men who have any Regard to Justice or the Repose of Christendom will try all other Arguments before they Dispute the Cause at the Swords Point For besides the Roughness of such a Method if Princes should make a practise of Invading each other without warning Men would be almost obliged to sleep in Armour and the World must be always kept up in a posture of Defence for fear of being surprized Now this would be a very troublesome and expensive way of Living and make all Neighbouring Kingdoms especially very distrustful of and disaffected towards each other I know His most Christian Majesty complains in his Memorial That He has been ill used by the Court of Vienna but then He might have pleased to have told the Emperor so before the Siege of Philipsburgh And the Action was still more Unaccountable if he went as who knows but he might upon the bare Presumption of an Injury and relyed upon the Intelligence of a few Sceptical Obnoxious and Discontented Germans who lay under the Imperial Bann And to mention nothing further if this very Disputable Right was only an Expectancy which would have admitted of Slow Forms and kept cold well enough till had fallen as any one might fairly conclude from the Numbers and Inclinations of his Friends in the Empire this was a further Aggravation of the Unreasonableness of his War. I confess if all these hard things are true of the French King I don't wonder if the Enquirer has levelled a whole Paragraph against Him and I wish the Emperor may recover just Damages for so Secret and Violent an Invasion All this while we have been Kings and Emperors but now we must Reign over our selves no longer but descend into the Melancholy state of Subjection However to do the Author right he has put the Yoak on so favourably that whenever we find it galls us we may throw it off again and return to our former Independency For he gives us to to understand Sect. 3. That the True and Original Notion of Civil Society and Government is that is a Com-promise made by such a Body of Men by which they resign up the right of demanding Reparations either in the way of Iustice against one another or in the way of War against their Neighbours to such a single Person or to such a Body of Men as they think fit to trust with this Now not to Examine how our Author comes to know that the Original Notion of Society was the True one It 's pretty apparent his Notion of it is neither Original nor True not Original because it does not comprehend the most Antient beginning of Government viz. Paternal Authority and Conquest in which Cases Men have not the liberty of Articling for Priviledges but must submit to their Parents and Conquerors whether they think fit to trust them or not Secondly His Notion is defective in Point of Truth for he has only restrained his Men from Acting Arbitrarily upon one another or from Fighting a Foreign State without Commission but as for their Governours they may resist them for all his Diffinition when they please for having resigned nothing but their right of demanding Reparations either in the way of Justice or War against their Fellow Subjects or Neighbouring States it follows that one Branch of their Natural Liberty is reserved to them to Fight their Prince with upon Occasion This Conclusion if we had nothing else to infer it follows evidently from his own Principle for since Government is only a Trust committed by the People to a Single Person c. and all Trusts as he affirms in this Section by their Nature import that those to whom they are given are accountable Nothing is more plain then that they may discharge themselves from Subjection whenever they shall think fit to say Their Governours have not kept Touch with them He proceeds to tell us That the Executive Power when separated from the Legislative is a plain Trust and no more than a Subordinate Authority From hence we may observe First That by this Authors Concessions the People have not the Legislative Authority for he owns part of it is in the King from whence it follows that the whole Body of the People is not the Supream Authority nor consequently can call their Prince to Account without his own Consent Secondly That part of the Legislative Authority which is lodged in the People is not given them at large to be exerted at their pleasure but depends upon Stated Rules and Limitations and can only be exercised by their Representatives in Parliament Nay it 's so precarious a Privilege that without the King's leave they can never make use of it for it 's neither Lawful for them to Convene themselves nor yet to Sit any longer than the King pleases For though there is an Act for a Triennial Parliament yet if the King Omits the Calling of them within that time there is no provision made to Assemble themselves which is an Evidence this Power was never conveyed to them by this Act For if it had the Methods of putting it in Execution would have been Adjusted And if the King should refuse to Issue out Writs the Chancellor would have been Authorized to do it Which Power upon the Suppositition of intermediate Failures would have been handed down as low as the petty Constables as it was proposed by the Parliament Assembled in 40 to Charles the First Now if the People have no share in making of Laws but by Representation in Parliament and the Being of this Assembly depends upon the Prince's pleasure then either the King is the Supream Authority in the Intervals of Parliament which may be as long as the Crown thinks fit or else there is no such thing as a Supream Authority in the Nation and consequently no Government Further when the Two Houses are actually Convened when they are Dictating Law and Justice to the Nation and Cloathed with all the Advantages of Solemnity and Power they are then no more than Subjects they are lyable to the highest Penalties if they are proved guilty of those Crimes which deserve them for Felony and Treason are expresly excepted out of their Privileges But to consute the Author's Notion of Government more fully and especially to make his Application of it Unserviceable I shall endeavour to prove Two things against him First That a Trust does not always imply the Person accountable to whom it 's made Secondly That the Kings of England hold their Crown by right of Conquest and Succession and consequently are no Trustees of the People 1. A Trust does not always imply the Person accountable to whom it 's made which I shall briefly make good these Three ways First From the common Notion of a Trust. Secondly From the
Enquirers Concessions Thirdly From a considerable Instance in our own Government First From the common Notion of a Trust For what is more generally understood by trusting another than that we lodge our concerns with him and put them out of our own disposal When I trust a Man with my Life or Fortune all People agree that I put it in his Power to deprive me of both For to deliver any Property to another with a Power of Revocation is to trust him as we say no farther than we can throw him He that can recover a Sum of Money he has deposited when he pleases to speak properly has it still in his Custody and trusts his Friend no more than he does his own Coffers And therefore if we consult our thoughts we shall find that a Trust naturally implies an entire reliance upon the Conduct and Integrity of another which makes us resign up our Liberty or Estate to his Management imagining them safer in his Hands than in our own In short a Trust where there is no third Person to judg of the performance as in these Pacts between Subjects and Soveraign there is not In this case a Trust includes a Translation of Right and in respect of the Irrevocableness of it is of the Nature of a Gift so that there seems to be only this difference between them that a Gift ought to respect the Benefit of the Receiver whereas a Trust is generally made for the Advantage of him who conveys it Secondly By our Author 's own Concessions a Trustee is sometimes unaccountable for he grants a Man may Sell himself to be a Slave p. 1. And when he has once put himself into this condition his Master has an Absolute Soveraignty over him and an indefeasable right to his service so that notwithstanding all the unreasonable Usage he may meet with he can never come into his Freedom again without the consent of his Lord. This I take to be an uncontested Truth and if it was not St. Peter's Authority ought to over-rule the dispute Who charges those who were in this state of servitude to be subject to their Masters with all fear not only to the good and gentle but also to the froward 1 Ep. 2. 18. Thirdly I shall prove the unaccountableness of a Trust from a considerable Instance in our own Government The House of Commons V. g. are certainly Trustees for the Towns and Counties who choose them the People resign up the disposal of their Rights and Properties into their Hands in hopes of a good management But suppose they prevaricate in their Employment and betray their Electors does this Impower the People to lay their Representatives by the heels when they come into the Country or to punish them farther as their Wisdoms shall think convenient If so then the last resort of Justice must lie in the Sovereign Multitude who have neither capacity to understand the reasons of Government nor temper and tenderness to manage it 'T is pitty the Mobile in Henry the 6th his Reign had not this discovery when the Right of choosing Members was limitted to Forty Shillings per Annum Free-hold whereas before all Tenures if not all Persons had the liberty to elect without exception but this Act in all likelihood barr'd no less then a Fifth of the Nation from this principal Post in the Government And if Columbus had not given them a lift by finding out the West-Indies and abating the value of Money their Grievance had continued to this day as heavy as ever We see therefore that the Author's Notion of a Trust will not hold Water and if it would it can do him no Service for I shall prove in the Second place that the Kings of England hold their Crown by Right of Conquest and Succession and consequently are no Trustees of the People I shall begin with the Point of Succession which because it's generally received I shall only mention an Act of Parliament or Two for the proof of it In the first of Edward the Fourth Rot. Parl. where the Proceedings against Richard the Second are repealed it 's said That Henry Earl of Derby afterwards Henry the Fourth Temerously against RightWiseness and Iustice by Force and Arms against his Faith and Ligeance rered Werre at Flint in Wales against King Richard the Second Him took and Imprisoned in the Tower of London in great Violence and Usurped and Intruded upon the Royal Power Estate and Dignity And a little after they add That the Commons being of this present Parliament having sufficient and evident knowledge of the said Unright-wise 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 Soveraign Lord thereunto true and that by God's Law Man's Law and the Law of Nature He and none other is and ought to be their true right-wise and Natural Leige and Soveraign Lord and that He was in Right from the Death of the said Noble and Famous Prince his Father Richard Duke of York very just King of the said Realms of England do take and repute and will for ever take and repute the said Edward the Fourth their Soveraign and Leige Lord and Him and his Heirs to be Kings of England and none other according to his said Right and Title In the first of Richard the Third there is another Statute very full to this purpose which begins The Three Estates c. But I shall pass over this and proceed to the Act of Recognition made upon King Iames the First his coming to the Crown Wherein it 's declared That He was Lineally Rightfully and Lawfully Descended of the Body of the Most Excellent Lady Margaret Eldest Daughter of the Most Renowned King Henry the Seventh and the High and Noble Princess Queen Elizabeth his Wife Eldest Daughter of King Edward the Fourth The said Lady Margaret being Eldest Sister of King Henry the Eighth Father of the High and Mighty Princess of Famous Memory Elizabeth late Queen of England In consideration whereof the Parliament doth acknowledge King Iames their only Lawful and Rightful Leige Lord and Soveraign And as being bound thereunto both by the Laws of God and Man They do recognize and acknowledge that immediately upon the Dissolution and Decease of Elizabeth late Queen of England the Imperial Crown of the Realm of England and all the Kingdoms Dominions and Rights belonging to the same did by Inherent Birth-right and Lawful and undoubted Succession Descend and come to his Most Excellent Majesty as being Lineally Iustly and Lawfully next and SOLE HEIR of the BLOOD Royal of this Realm as it is aforesaid And thereunto they do most Humbly and Faithfully submit and oblige themselves they Heirs and Posterities for ever until the last drop of their Bloods be spent So much concerning the Succession where by the way we may observe the Deposing Doctrine is directly pronounced unlawful as appears from the
Case Oppression and Violence in the Administration of Iustice would Warrant the use of such a Remedy And if every one who imagined himself injured might beat up for Volunteers toredress his Grievances the Judges and Laws would be the only Criminals in a short time and all Disputes would be decided by Blows and Blood. Besides supposing Men were generally agreed That nothing but the Breach of Fundamental Laws would justify Resistance since the People are made the Judges of this Distinction they need only be at the Expence of a hard Name for their enlargement for it 's but calling any disgust or petty Injury a Breach of Fundamentals and the Work is done If it be said That the People are always quiet when they are well used and never attempt to displace their Governours but upon just Occasions To this I Answer That if the generallity of Mankind were Masters of so much Sense and Honesty as this comes to Why did they not continue in that State of Nature some Men fancy them in at first If they had been wise enough to have understood their true Interest What need they have brought themselves under the Guidance and Obligation of Laws If they are so Vertuously enclined Why did they submit their Wills and Powers to a Publick Regulation Why should Men so well qualified for the use of their Freedom be bound to their good Behaviour and come under the restraints of Pacts and Subjection All Authority and Law is a great Reflection upon Mankind it plainly supposes the generallity of us are Weak Deceitful and Turbulent Creatures But if we are so full of Understanding and Conscience as some Men would make us believe all Governments ought to be broken up and every Man have his Original Charter of Liberty return'd him For if we are so fit to be Trusted and to dispose of our own Actions it 's highly unreasonable to keep us in a State of Ignominy and Bondage any longer But English-Men of all others have the least reason to make Panegyricks upon the Discretion and Governableness of the People For not to mention the Barons Wars How many Tylers and Cades and Kets and Flammocks have we had within the compass of Four hundred Years What formidable Bodies did those Massianelos bring into the Field and how near was the State being overturn'd by the Rebellious Levity and Madness of the Multitude And after all these Instances of Confusion we have certainly little reason to think that Vox Populi and Vox Dei are the same or that Right and Wrong depends upon Numbers From what has been said it's apparent That there must be an irresistable Power in all Governments But our Two Houses whose Authority is nearest to the Kings have no share in this inviolable Priviledge For least their Legislative Office should make them forget their Duty to his Majesty they are obliged to take the Oaths of Allegiance and Subjection to him before they are capable of Transacting any business in Parliament 7 Iac. 1. Cap. 6. Sect. 8. 30 Car. 2. Cap. 1. From whence it follows That with us the King and only he is the irresistable Power Neither must this Prerogative be restrained to his Person but extend to his Authority For a King cannot be every where himself neither is he able to punish Offenders by his own single Strength He must govern by his Ministers and sometimes by his Armies Therefore if those who are employed by him may be opposed and hindered in the Execution of their Châ—rgâ— he is as much disabled from pursuing the ends of Government as iâ— Violence had been offered to himself Of this Consequence those who made the late Act of Uniformity were well aware and therefore in the Declaration which they obliged a considerable part of the Kingdom to make the Subscriber does not only declare That it 's not Lawful to take up Arms against the King upon any pretence whatever but likewise That he abhors that Trayterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against those Commissionated by him Therefore that Objection which is usually made does not come up to the Point viz. That it 's Lawful for a private Person to resist an Illegal Commissioner of the Kings when he comes to dispossess him of his Property or to outrage him in any other respect For though a Man has the liberty of defending himself from Encroachments in a private way yet if he calls in Hundreds and Thousands to his Assistance without the King's Authority he falls under the censure of the Law. Now the reason why the Constitution permits the use of Force in one Case and not in the other is because private Defence though never so unjustifiably managed cannot bring any publick Mischief along with it But if Men were allowed to arm Towns and Countries when they thought fit to complain this would be of dangerous Consequence to the State and make it lyable to perpetual Convulsions so that we should always either feel or fear the Miseries of a Civil War. But to proceed with our Author In his Fourth Section we are told That no consideration of Religion binds us to pay more than we owe not to extend our Allegiance farther than the Law carrys it Which though it 's True yet it 's foreign to the Argument For I shall make it appear farther afterwards that the Laws extend our Submission which is one part of our Allegiance to all Cases whatsoever I suppose this Advice was intended for a preservative against over Dutyfulness and that his Reader might not be misled by the Church of Englands Doctrine of Passive Obedience Now how proper soever such Hints as these may be to some Flegmatick Climates and Constitutions of Liberties I shall not dispute yet certainly the Enquirer could not have thought them over-seasonable Directions for our Conduct if he had pleased to consider either the legal Advantages of the Crown the temper of the English Nation or the time of his own Writing But his generous Zeal for the freedom of Mankind makes him think he can never say nor do enough His Fifth Paragraph supposes an Original Contract and that the Measures of Obedience are to be taken from thence i. e. Once upon a time when every Man was weary of Governing himself any longer they agreed by â—â—â—eral consent to set one of their own Countrym◠〈…〉 â—ome Stranger they had a fancy for upon whom 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Term of King Sovereign or Supream i. e. 〈…〉 glorious Titles without conveying the Power 〈…〉 â—ther to make the Royal Pageant ridiculous 〈…〉 him â—n occasion to over-rate his Authority which 〈…〉 make him stretch it into a Forfeiture in a short time 〈…〉 the People forfeâ—â—ing that they should quickly be out 〈◊〉 with being governed might over Title their Monarch and â—e the Principles of the Conâ—tution weak on purpose that so 〈…〉 â—pse to them the sooner But that neither Willlim 〈…〉 or his 〈◊〉 Succeâ—ors received their Crowns by way 〈…〉 iâ—â—vident to every one
Authority of the Kingdom Declares their Prince Irresistible this makes him as much so as if he had given himself this Power by Conquest and had been the most Absolute Monarch in the World. And as this Priviledge is clear so he may make it Immortal if he pleases provided he has a Negative upon the Remainder of the Legislative Power as the King has upon the Two Houses so that the Constitution cannot be alter'd without his own Consent Nay if the People have given up their Rights of Resistance by their own voluntary Motion they are bound in Honour as well as Justice to maintain their own Act. So that it seems more unaccountable not to Acquiesce in this Case than if they had been forc'd into such a submission Though it 's not improper to Observe That the Act which I have now in view viz. 13 Car. 2 which tells us It 's unlawfull to Levy War Offensive or Defensive against the King. Does not so much pretend to vest the King with any new Authority as to acknowledg his Antecedent Right where it 's likewise Declar'd that The Militia has ever been the undoubted Right of his Majesty and his Predecessors Which is as plain a Concession as can be that this Parliament did not believe our Government began upon Hobs his Pacts or that the King had his Power Originally from the People But supposing the Government was Founded in the Voluntary consent of the People the contrary of which has been proved yet after they have once by the most Solemn and Deliberate Act bound up their Hands and made it Unlawful under the highest Penalties to use Force against the Magistrate in this Case it 's unreasonable to suppose they can resume their Antient Liberty at pleasure For that which a Man has Alienated by his own free Grant is as much out of his Power as if he had never been possess'd of it at all So that it 's as great Injustice to wrest back that which I have once given away as to invade my Neighbour in his Original Property If it 's Objected That such Laws of Non-resistance as this are to be understood with a Tacit Exception Viz. Provided the Magistrate does not press too hard upon the Constitution and Violate the most Fundamental Parts of it To this I Answer First If a Law which is so absolutely against all Resistance as appears both by the clear and comprehensive stile it 's Pen'd in and by the time in which it was Enacted which was immediately after we were emerged out of the Miseries of a long Rebellion so that we have all imaginable reason to believe the Wisdom of the Nation design'd to make the most effectual Provision to secure us from the like Calamity If I say a Law thus remarkquibly worded and circumstantiated may be eluded by Distinctions and Reservations then the Statute Book is little better than wast Paper for at this rate there is nothing so plain but may be glossed away into insignificancy If he Objects That the Natural Right we have to preserve and protect our selves will justify the Defence of our Lives and Liberties against all Invaders whasoever notwithstanding any positive Municipal Prohibitions to the contrary To this I Answer That to Object thus is to Argue against himself as well as against Reason For he grants by undenyable Consequence Sect. 9. That the Primitive Christians were obliged to Non-resistance because they Lived under a Constitution in which Paganism was Established by Law. He should have said In which Christianity was prohibited for it was possible for both Religions to have been Established as they were in the time of Constantine Now if a Municipal Law ought to be over-ruled by the Law of Nature when they happen to clash then the Christians who lived under the Heathen Emperors might Lawfully have taken up Arms against the Government because they were deprived of their Lives and Fortunes against all Equity and Humanity For to persecute Men so remarquibly Regular and Peaceable both in their Principles and Practices is as manifest a Violation of the Law of Nature as is possible And if it was Lawful for them to resist then they seem bound in Conscience to do it whenever they had a probability of prevailing For without doubt it 's a great fault for a Man to throw away his Life impoverish his Family and encourage Tyranny when he has a fair Remedy in his Hand But our Author has not yet been so severe as to bring in the Martyrs Felo de se. But Secondly The Law of Nature obliges all Men to stand to their Contracts though they have made them to their Disadvantage They must not as the Scripture speaâ—â— change though they Have sworn to their own hurt Psal. 15. Except the Matter of the Contract be Malum in se. But for Men to bar themselves the use of some Liberties though never so unquestionable with respect to some particular Persons and to tye up their Hands in reference to their Governors is no Malum in se for in such a case they dispose of nothing but what is their own and that upon a valuable consideration Thus much is acknowledged by our Author Sect. 1. For he tells us That by the Law of Nature a Man may bind himself to be a Servant or sell himself to be a Slave by which he becomes in the Power of another so far as it was provided by the Contract So that where the Contract is clear it ought to be punctually observed From whence it follows That when a Nation shall Deliberately and Authoritatively declare either that it always was Unlawful for them to take up Arms against their King or at least that it should be so for the future After they have thus Solemnly disclaim'd all manner of Right or pretence to Resistance to defend themselves by Force is a notorious Infraction of their Promise and as much a breach of the Moral Law as of the Statute Book Thirdly Because the Authority of the Constitution must be weakned and the Ends of Government lost by allowing the Subject a Latitude of Exposition therefore the Wisdom of the Nation has thought fit to stick by the Letter when it 's plain and unquestionable though it is apparently against the intention of the Law. Of this Practice I shall give a considerable Instance In the Reign of Henry the Sixth there was an Act made which I have already cited to another purpose in which all Persons not possessed of Forty Shillings per Annum Free-hold are declared uncapable of Electing Knights for the County The Design of which Act was to strike the Mobile out of the Government and that none but Persons of presum'd Discretion might have a share in choosing their Representatives But the value of Money being so prodigiously altered since that time Fifteen Shillings now probably being not more than one then This alteration has thrown the Elections upon Multitudes of People who are apparently excluded by the intention of
was not counted a good Protestant who would not believe them How well they have been proved since the World knows And here I cannot omit taking notice what a Frantick and Ruinous Maxim it is to assert That it 's Lawful for the People to set their Kings aside upon a bare jealousie and apprehension of Rigour Give them but this Liberty and an Impostor will easily fright them into a State of Nature and carry them whether he pleases If we may renounce the Government as often as any bold Pretence is made against it and translate our Allegiance upon conjecture and report the contests about Dominion would be so frequent and terrible yet we had better Disband into Solitude than live any longer together If Calumnies and Aspersions and all undemonstrated Reports ought to go for no more are sufficient to cancel our Obedience then no Prince can have any Title as long as there is either Knavery or Folly in the World. This Principle lays a Foundation for a Rebellion every Week and renders all Government impracticable By acting in this manner we put it in the Power of Slander and Perjury to determine the weightiest points of Justice and make it an easie Task to over-turn a Kingdom with a Lye. If it be urged that it is needless to search after farther proof that the Subversion of Protestancy was intended because a Prince of his Majesties Perswasion and Zeal must necessarily think himself obliged to pursue a design of this Nature Before I return an Answer I shall just Observe that Religious Zeal though it acts upon misinformation is really a commendable Quality For it 's an Infallible sign of a good Intention it argues great Charity to the Souls of Men and a generous desire to propagate Truth and to promote the Glory of God. To speak freely I cannot be heartily angry with a Man though his Methods of Discipline are never so unacceptable who I am perswaded has no other Design than to carry me to Heaven though I had much rather he would permit me to go thither my own way because it 's almost impossible I should go any other For Rigour is usually very unfortunate both to the Proselyter and Proselyted It creates Prejudice and Aversion to the one and makes no more than a Hypocrite of the other But to proceed to the Objection in order to the confuting of which I shall endeavour to prove these Two things First That his Majesty is not obliged by the Principles of his Church to attempt the Converting his Subjects by Severity Secondly That in all humane probability such a Method would prove Unsuccessful First That his Majesty is not obliged by the Principles of his Church to attempt the Converting his Subjects by Severity The Doctrine of the Church of Rome I conceive is to be collected these Four ways Either from her eminent Divines The Bulls of Popes The Decrees of Councils or the usual Practice which when a Case is doubtful ought to be taken for the Sense of a Communion To begin with their Divines Cassander a Person of great Learning and Judgment and whose Writings were never censured insists upon gentle Methods for the propagation of Religion disapproves of Severity and tells us it has been a miserable occasion of the spreading of Schisme De Offic. Pii Viri pag. 187. 196. But because it may be objected this Author was more gentle in his Censure and allowed a greater Latitude than the generallity of Communion I shall subjoyn the Testimonies of others of a straiter Principle and who are well known to carry up Popery to the height 1. Thomas Aquinas yields 22 ae q. 10. Art. 11. c. That Unlawful Worship Ritus Infidelium under which Words he comprehends an Heretical Religion as appears both from this Conclusion and from his next Question 22 ae q. 11. 1. May be tolerated in some cases Which he proves 1. Because the Church ought to take her Measures of Government from the Administrations of Providence Now God permits many ill Practises in the World least a forcible Restraint should prevent a greater Good or prove the occasion of a greater Evil. Therefore Infidels and Hereticks have been sometimes tolerated by the Church when their Numbers were great and Discipline could not take place without the hazard of giving great Offence without occasioning a Commotion or civil Disturbance and hindring the Salvation of those who by fair means might by degrees be won over to the Catholick Faith. These Arguments for Toleration are much stronger now than they were either in Aquinas his Time or before it And therefore if he had lived since the Reformation we have reason to believe he would have pressed them more at large Which probably is the reason why Cardinal Lugo who wrote since the Counsel of Trent is more full and particular in the point For though he won't allow a Tolleration but upon a very great Occasion yet in such a case he acknowledges That a Catholick Prince may give Liberty of Conscience to his Heretical Subjects For this Opinion he quotes Acquinas and says he Was followed by the rest of the Divines particularly naming Suarez Coninch and Hurtado He adds That this Practice has been used by many of the most Pious Christian Princes who Tolerated open Heresie when they could not oppose it without the danger of a greater Inconvenience For this Urgent Occasion causa gravissima is then supposed to happen as he proves from Hurtado When Religion is likely to be more damnified by the denial than by the grant of such an Indulgence when the People are in danger of growing Mutinous and Diserderly by strict Usage And therefore in an Heretical Country such a Liberty of Conscience may be granted without any difficulty And in a Catholick one too when things are desperate He proceeds farther and tells us That such an Allowance to Hereticks is a thing Lawful in its self and therefore when a Prince has passed his promise he ought punctually to keep it Lugo de Virt. div Fid. Disp. 19. Sect. 4. Numb 121. 123. 128. 130. We see therefore That in the Opinion of these Schoolmen though none of the kindest we are not to be roughly managed till the Major part of us are gained by dint of Argument which is so improbable a supposition in England that I think we need not trouble our selves about the Consequences of it It 's true Bellarmine de Laicis Lib. 3. Cap. 18. pretends to prove by Scripture the Fathers and Reason That Kings ought not to permit a Liberty of belief but then he supposes their Authority to be Absolute as appears from his Instances of the Jewish Kings and Roman Emperors Therefore his Doctrine does not oblige Princes who have only a Part though a Principal one in the Legislative Power especially when a different Communion is Established by the Laws of the Realm which cannot be Repealed but by consent of Parliament A King when he exceeds his Prerorogative is in some measure out
as follows viz. That if his Majesty or any of his Successors should happen at any time hereafter to Act contrary to those Provisions by which the Privileges and Liberties of the Kingdom were Established that from thenceforth it should be for ever Lawfull for the Subjects without the least Blemish of Disloyalty to Resist and Oppose their Prince This was a Decree to purose by vertue of which as Thuanus observes the Protestant Hungarians Justified their Arms against their King And we may take notice in Contradiction to what our Author Affirms That such Odious Things and their Remedies too where they are allowed are particularly Named and Provided for Therefore we may fairly Conclude that where none of this plain Dealing is to be seen the Constitution does not admit of any such singular Reservations Indeed to talk of a Character for Resistance in a Country which has been Conquered so often and all along Monarchically Governed seems to be a Romantick Supposition For can we imagine that when our Kings had sought themselves into Victory and Power and forc'd a Nation to swear Homage and Submission to them that they should be so easie as to Article away their Dominions make their Government Precarious and give their Subjects leave to Disposess them as often as they should be pleased to say they had broken their Agreement But the Silence of our Laws and History as to any such Compact is a sufficient disproof of it For if there had been any such Enfranchising Instrument how prejudicial soever it might have been in its Consequence yet the natural desire of Liberty would have occasioned the preserving it with all imaginable Vigilance And as it would not have miscarried through Negligence so if Violence had wrested such a pretended Palladium from us the Calamity would have got into the Almanack before this time and been as certainly Recorded as the Destruction of Troy. Since therefore we have no Evidence either for the Possession or so much as for the Loss of this supposed Privilege we may certainly conclude we never had it or at least must grant that no claim can be grounded upon such an Improbable conjecture for Idem est non Esse non Apparere Secondly Our Author urges That when there seems to be a Contradiction between Two Articles in the Constitution the Interpretation ought to be given in favour of that Article which is most evident and important From whence he proceeds to assert That there is a seeming Contradiction between the provisions for the publick Liberty and the renouncing all Resistance And therefore the Constitution ought to be expounded in behalf of the former as being most advantageous to Government Now one who had never read the Statute Book would imagine by this Authors Argument that we had some Laws for the taking up Arms against the King as well as others which forbid it and both equally plain than which nothing is more false And upon supposition there was any such Clash in our Acts of Parliament the Law for Non-resistance being last Enacted must necessarily take place and Repeal whatever was before Established to the contrary But Secondly I Answer That I have already proved that the Rights of the Subject are best secured by Non-resistance and therefore they are no ways inconsistent or contradictory to each other So that our Liberties had much better lye at the Discretion of Kings who have much greater Motives than others to do Justice and give general Satisfaction than to depend upon the Management and Mercy of the People and be liable to such Fatal Convulsions which must happen as often as Discontent and Ambition can impose upon the Weakness and Inconstancy of the Multitude Thirdly His Third Argument is the same with his Second which he has given us in different Words That what we want in Weight may be made up in Number It begins somewhat Remarkably Since it is by Law that Resistance is condemned we ought not to understand it in such a Sense as that it does destroy all other Laws First Now one would have thought that the condemning Resistance or any other Action by a Law had been the only way of doing it to any purpose But this Author seems to draw a consequence of Abatement upon this Doctrine from its Authority as if it was to be less observed because it is Established by Law. But Secondly To give him rather more advantage than the Construction of his Period will allow I Answer That I have already made it appear that to wrest the Laws from their plainest and most obvious Sense is to make them perfectly Useless and that Non-resistance is the best Expedient to preserve the Laws and every thing else that is valuable And therefore though its plain that the Law did not design to lodge the wole Legislative Power in the King yet as its plain that it intended to forbid Resistance in case he should set about it For the Law-makers declare in in as full Intelligible Words as can be conceived that the Militia the Posse Regni was always the undoubted Right of his Majesty and his Predecessors and that its Unlawful to take up Arms against him upon any Pretence whatever Now if its possible for a Law to make or declare a Monarch Irresistible which I suppose no man will deny I desire to know whether it can be drawn up in more significant and demonstrative Terms than this Act before us If it cannot then our Author has no imaginable reason to dispute this Part of the King's Prerogative As for his Instance That the Legislative Power is Invaded and the Constitution of Parliaments Dissolved This Charge is Aggravated beyond all Decency and matter of Fact For it s well known that the King did not pretend to make his Proclamations Equivalent to an Act of Parliament and what his Majesty acted by way of Dispensation was not only directed by the present Judges but grounded upon a solemn Resolution of all the Twelve in Hen. 7th Reign in a Case seemingly Parralell which Sentence has been followed by eminent Lawyers since and never Reversed by Act of Parliament As to the Regulation of Corporations That was a Method begun by Charles the Second a Protestant Prince and Applauded by all the Loyal Party of the Nation Besides the Burroughs were not so prodigiously altered but that we might have had a good Protestant Parliament out of them as appears from the Elections made upon the Writs Issued out in August last where those who were against Repealing the Penal Laws and Tests carried it with great odds against the other Party And since we know his Majesty has returned the Charters to the State of 79. And here it may not be improper to observe That Prerogative has been as Remarkably misunderstood at Court in former Ages of which several Instances might be given but I shall consine my self to the Reign of one who on all Hands is accounted a most Excellent Prince I mean King Charles the
had been doubtful the Judgment of a Parliament ought to have put an end to the Controversie This Legislative Council has a Power to interpret as well as to alter or enlarge the Constitution an Authority to tell us what has been as well as what shall be Law. Such publick Determinations are as it were first and self-evident Principles in our Government they have a kind of Practical Infallibility in them and ought not to be disputed except where they plainly contradict the Laws of God. Fifthly and Lastly If this Singular Charter had ever been part of our Constitution as it 's plain it never was yet now it can have no manner of Force because the forementioned Statute concerning the Militia not only declares it to have been but likewise to make the Case more incontestable Enacts it unlawful to Levy War Offensive or Defensive against the King. But of this more hereafter If it 's Objected That unless we are allowed to Assert our Rights by Force when they are Invaded the Laws which secure them to us are insignificant because the King may break down these Fences when he pleases To this I Answer That these Laws upon this Supposition are far fâ—om being insignificant because First They are the Boundaries of Right They clearly distinguish the Property of the Subjects from the Prerogative so that the Prince can seldom encroach upon them in any considerable Measure without being Conscious of the Injustice Secondly By vertue of the Laws we are better assured of the Prince's Protection against the Injuries of all our Fellow Subjects which is no small Advantage Thirdly We have the Prince's Honour and Conscience and Interest to secure us I say his Interest for notwithstanding the Subjects were never so well convinced that Resistance is utterly unlawful yet it is by no means adviseable for Princes to try their Patience too far For Religion has a very slender Influence upon the World now a days Nothing is more frequent than to see Men live in those Practices which they know to be Immoral Now Oppression is apt to make wise Men Mad. Nothing touches them so much to the quick as the breaking in upon their Properties and the undermining the Publick Securities And therefore when the Government sits thus uneasy upon them they will be apt to fly out into Disorders notwithstanding all the Restraints of Law and Conscience to the contrary Now since Princes are supposed to be acquainted with the Frailty and Degeneracy of Mankind This consideration of danger will generally keep them within compass and check their Arbitrary Designs though the Principles of Honour and Integrity should happen to prove insignificant This one would think a sufficient Security and more than this is neither allowed by our Government neither can it be by any other First We have no reason to believe our Government permits us to maintain our Rights by Arming against our Prince not only because our Laws plainly declare against all Resistance as I shall shew afterwards but because the Libertys of the Subject were Acts of Grace from the Crown and since they had no right to demand them by Force they must take them upon such Conditions as they are offer'd Now things standing thus we have no imaginable reason to conclude our Kings had any intention to forego their irresistable Authority except they had signed it away in so many Words we are not to suppose they would part with such an inestimable Jewel and be so Prodigal of their Favours without the plainest Evidence Indeed the granting this Liberty would be equally prejudicial to Prince and People and render all Government Impracticable For Secondly The Ignorance and Partiality of the greatest part of Mankind is such that to make it Lawful to resist our Governors whenever we think it necessary is an infallible Expedient to keep a Nation almost always embroyl'd and to banish Peace and Happiness out of the World. Such an allowance as this does in reality dissolve all Government and throw us back into a State of Nature For when a Man may make use of all the Force he can get to redress his Grievances to carve out his Satisfaction and to possess himself of all those Rights he fancies he has a Title to his owning Authority is but a Complement for he is certainly under no Government but his own He is bound to do no injury 't is true but this does not hinder his being independent of Society For his Obligation to Justice results from the Law of Nature which binds him to abstain from Fraud and Violence whether it 's enforced by any Municipal Constitution or not If it 's Objected That this liberty of Resistance is not to be allowed but in Cases of extream Necessity when the Government is in danger of being wounded in its Vitals and the Fundamental Laws are struck at To this I Answer That since the People must be Judges of the Exegencies of State this restraining of Resistance to Cases of Necessity is no Security to the Common Welfare For by this Principle whenever a Man either through Mistake or Design believes or pretends to believe that the Fundamental Laws are broken he has a Warrant to take up Arms and form a Party to dispossess his Governor and if he can discharge himself of his Allegiance when he pleases he is actually free because his Will is in his own Power Farther Except the People are barred from Uniting their Forces against their Governors there can be no determination of Civil Controversies For in regard most People are apt to say they are wronged as often as they lose a Tryal if they have the liberty of Appealing from the Bench to the Neighbourhood and may raise all their Friends and Dependents to oppose the Execution of the Judges Sentence then Right must be resolved into Force and Justice will be all Sword without any Ballance Now that the Doctrine of Resistance gives this dangerous Allowance is plain For though our Author will not permit us the freedom of raising a Civil War upon the account of Male Administration in the Execution of the Laws yet he has not given us any assurance that other Men will be of his mind For may they not object that the prospect of having Justice observed was the principal reason of combining in Society For all Laws how Fundamental soever are designed only as means for the distinction and security of Property for the punishing of violence and circumvention and therefore they ought not to be valued above the End. For if the Prince has an unlimitted Priviledge of corrupting Judges suborning Witness and forcing the Execution of unjust Sentences all other Provisions for Liberty are to little purpose If we are to submit to all this hardship because it falls within the compass of Male Administration What do our Fundamental Laws signify When at this rate may some Men say We can neither have Life Liberty nor Estate secured to us So that if Resistance was allowable in any