the power of the two Houses of Parliament I am very well satisfied that such a Declaration must be void in it self since I have sufficiently proved that there was no such Law of Succession ever setled by any general Custom or Common Law since it hath been near as often broken as observed and as for any positive or Statute-Law enacting any hereditary right of Succession you do not so much as pretend to show it so that I think I have sufficiently proved the three Propositions I laid down viz. That ever since the time of Edward the First though the Crown has been claim'd by right of blood yet has it not been very often enjoy'd by Princes who had no just pretence to that Title Secondly that the two Houses of Parliament have often notwithstanding that claim placed or at least fixed the Crown upon the heads of those Princes who they very well knew could have no hereditary right to it Thirdly That such Princes have been always taken for lawful Kings all their Laws standing good at this day without any Confirmation by their Successours M. I did not think that you who were so great an admirer of the two Houses of Parliament should now be so much against their power in joyning with the King to declare what the true right of Succession to the Crown is and hath ever been from time beyond memory But I see Acts or Declarations of Parliament signifie nothing with you if they are against your Hypothesis or else you would never go about thus to expose those Acts of Parliament of King Edward the IVth and King Iames the Ist. Whereby they are declared both by the Law of God and Man undoubted Heirs of the Crown And the last Act I cited viz. That of King Iames the Ist. doth sufficiently confute your Notion of a Vacancy of the Throne Where it is expresly declared That immediately upon the decease of Queen Elizabeth the Crown of England with all the Dominions belonging to the same did by Inherent Birth-right and Lawful and Undoubted Succession descend and come to his Majesty King Iames. So that if there then were no Vacancy of the Throne I cannot see how there could be any such thing now the next Heir to the Crown be He who they will being certainly not so far removed from King Iames the Ist. as himself was from King Henry the VIIth under whom he claimed F. I must still confess my self to have a great veneration for the solemn Declarations of King and Parliament made by any Statute yet not so as to Idolize them or to look upon all their Declarations as infallible I grant indeed that whosoever is by them Declared and Recognized for King or Queen of England is to be acknowledged and obeyed as such by all the Subjects of this Kingdom without farther questioning his Title But if not content with this they will also take upon them to declare that such Kings or Queens have an undoubted Hereditary Right by the Laws of God and Nature When I plainly find from the Holy Scriptures as well as the History of matter of Fact and the knowledge of our Laws that they have no other Tiâle than what the Laws of the Land have conferred upon them and therefore you your self cannot deny but that it was gross flattery in the two Houses of Parliament to declare that Richard the IIId for-example had a true and undoubted Right to the Crown by the Laws of God and Nature and also by the Laws and Customs of this Realm when you know he was a notorious Usurper upon the Rights of his Brother King Edward's Children now how can I be assur'd that the like Declaration made to Kâng Iames the I. was not lâkewise a piece of Courtship of the Representative of the Kingdom to this King then newly setled in his Throne since we find the People of this Nation when they are in a kind fit never think they can say or do too much for their Princes and therefore I must freely tell you that it is not the bare Declaration of a Parliament that this or that has been always the Law or Custom of this Realm when we can find from History that it has never been so held for above four hundred years at least and therefore not beyond the memory of Man as you suppose since that must be before the Reign of Richard the First as I have already proved to you at our Eighth Meeting But to answer your Objection against the vacancy of the Throne I do freely grant that aâ often âs the Crown descends by lineal Succession there can be no vacancy of the Throne as it did in the Case of King Iames the First yet doth it not therefore follow that there can never be any such Vacancy in any Case whatsoever since certainly it may so happen that all the Heirs Male of the Blood-Royal may fail as it happen'd in the Case of Scotland when Iohn Balioll and Robert Bruce contended for the Crown which not being to be decided by the Estates of the Kingdom they were forced to referr it to our King Edward the First and as also happen'd in France when Philip of Valois and our Edward the III d both claim'd the Crown which was decided by a great Assembly of the Estates of France in the favour of the former who claim'd as Heir of the Male Line against King Edward who was descended by a Woman and if King Iames's Abdication or Forfeiture call it which you will is good pray give me a sufficient Reason why the Convention of the Estates of England should not have as much Authority as those of France or Scotland this being as much or more a limited Kingdom thau either of the other ever were M. I do not deny that but pray shew me any sufficient Reason why the Convention should now Vote a Vacancy of the Throne since there was certainly an Heir Apparent not long since in England and I hope is now safe in France who ought to fill it or at least there should have been some sufficient cause alledged against him to prove that he was not true Son either of the King or Queen and till this was done they could not with any Right or good Conscience place any other Relation of his in the Throne since every Person ought to be esteem'd the Son of that Father and Mother that publickly own him for such for it is a Maxim in our as well as your Law Filiatio non potest probari F. How this could be performed without first declaring the Throne vacant I cannot apprehend for you your self must grant that there have been great doubts and suspitions of the Realty of this Prince of Wales and therefore that being one great reason of the Prince of Orange's coming over The truth of this Child whether he was really born of the of the body of the Q. is first to be examin'd and determin'd before he can be declar'd K. of England in the
Man hath in an Estate which is his Right let him be what he will or let him mannage it how he will Whereas in the Right to a Kingdom I take it to be a true Maxim That the Representatives of a Nation as the Convention was ought to have more regard to the happiness and safety of the whole People or Common-wealth than to the Dignity or Authority of any particular Person whosoever or howsoever nearly related to the Crown when it is evident that the advancement of such a Person to the Throne will prove destructive to our Religion Civil Liberties and Properties Now give me leave to apply what I have said to the Point now in question Let us therefore at the present suppose that your Prince of Wales is true and lawful Son to King Iames and Queen Mary and let me also farther suppose that in his late passage over Sea he was taken by the Pyrates of Argiers or Tunis and by them been carried to one of those places and been bred up in the Mahometan Religion and after he had been Circumcised and fully grounded in that abominable Superstition the Grand Seignior together with the Kings of Argier and Tunis should send this Nation word that if they would not admit him quietly for their King and allow him all those Priests he should bring with him a free exercise of their Religion in England they would then make War upon this Nation with all the Forces they could raise I ask you what we ought to do in this case whether we should receive him for our King or keep him out M. I must confess it is a nice Question and since it is a thing that never did yet nor I hope will ever come to pass I think I may freely Answer you That supposing this Prince could be proved to be the very same who was carried away so many years ago we ought notwithstanding his false Belief to receive him especially if he would solemnly Swear only to worship God in private after his own way and that he would Swear not to violate our Religion or invade our Liberties and Properties and this being done I think we ought then to admit him for our lawful Sovereign since as you your self have already acknowledged at our third Meeting the Supreme Powers are not to be resisted because they are of a different Religion from that of the People or Nation they Govern F. Very well But let me tell you In this you are much more kind to Mahometan and Heretical Princes than the Church of Rome who have decreed That no Prince ought to be received as right Heir to a Crown who is a Pagan Turk or Heretick and upon this ground it was that the States of France during the time of the League by the Pope's Decree refus'd to own Henry King of Navarre for their Sovereign and also that the Papists of the Nuntio Party in Ireland during the late Rebellion refused to own the late Duke of Ormond for Lord Lieutenant of that Kingdom because the King was a Protestant But pray answer me a Question or two further Suppose this Prince refus'd to promise these or such things or else if he did promise and Swear them pray tell me how could we be assured that according to the Principles of that Religion he had been bred under and those Arbitrary Notions he had learned concerning the Absolute Power of Kings in Barbary and which he would believe due to himself as being as Absolute a Monarch as any of them I say how such a Prince ever could be trusted Since if he had the whole Power of the Militia in his hands he might bring in what number of Turkish or Moorish Guards he should think fit who might easily set up that Religion and Government too in this Nation since according to your Principles of Passive Obedience and Non-resistance no Man ought to lift up so much as a Finger against him though he went about to make us all Turks and Slaves M. Well supposing all this as long as it is his Right he ought to have it let the consequence be what it will F. You have said enough I desire no more but I hope every true Protestant and English man will be of another mind if ever such a case should happen but indeed it appears very strange to me that a natural Disability such as Ideocy or Lunacy should be esteem'd sufficient in all Kingdoms to debarr the next Heir from the Government and yet that a Moral or a Religious Disability should not have the same effect and though I grant that a King ought not to be Rebelled against or resisted meerly because he is of a different Religion from that of his Subjects for I was never for resisting King Iames meerly upon that score yet it is another thing when a Prince is not actually possessed of the Throne but is to be admitted to it upon such Conditions as may appear safe for the Religion and Civil constitution of a Kingdom In this case if a Prince be certainly infected with such pernicious Principles either in relation to Religion or Civil Government it is much otherwise as for Example That no Faith is to be kept with Hereticks That his own Religion is to be propagated by Arms Blood or Persecution That no Government can be safe for the Prince or in which he can appear Great or Glorious but as an absolute Monarch let such a Prince be either a Christian or a Mahometan I think it would be a certain ruine to a Kingdom to be obliged to receive such a Prince when they were morally sure that he would not only subvert their Religion but destroy the very professors of it and not only those but alter the Civil constitution too by turning it from a limited Kingdom into an absolute despotick Tyranny To conclude I shall only desire you to consider into what a Country your Prince of Wales is carry'd and what Instructors he is like to have and what Principles he will receive from them and then pray tell me if he continues there till he is a Man what difference there will be between this young Prince bred up in such a Religion and such Principles and the same if he had been carried away by Pyrates to Argier as I at first suppos'd M. This is a very invidious Comparison for though I do not approve of the Roman-Catholick Religion yet sure there is a great deal of difference between that which professes all the Articles of our Creed and in which we of our Church own Salvation may be obtained and the Mahometan Superstition which denies that fundamental Article of our Creed viz. That Jesus Christ is the Son of God and as for Civil or Political Principles I hope the King his Father will take care to have him instructed by some of those English Noblemen or Gentlemen who are now with him in the Customs and Constitutions of the English Government and wherein it differs from the French
the Nation from his Oppression though the Prince was pleas'd to accept it upon those terms expressed in the late Declaration of the Convention and upon his free promise to preserve preserve our Religion Laws and Liberties which he has since also confirm'd by his Coronation Oath But as to what you say that the Prince made the Kings Army desert him and wrought the People into hatred of his Person by lying Stories and mean Arts is altogether untrue since I know of no Reports he made of the King or his Government but what are in his first Declaration and that is certainly true in every part of it and as has been justified by the express Declaration of the Convention in every particular except that concerning the Prince of Wales which I confess is left still undecided because as I have already proved it is impossible to give any certain judgement in it unless the Witnesses as well as the Infant himself could be brought over hither nor doth the Prince in his said Declaration say any more concerning that business than that there are violent suspicions that the pretended Prince of Wales was not Born of the Queen but for the report of the Secret League with France for the extirpation of the Protestant Religion as there is no such thing in his Highnesses Declaration so the spreading of it cannot be laid to his charge since he never gave it out as I know of yet there are certainly great presumptions and too much cause of suspicion that it may be so as I proved at our last Meeting But though you will not allow the Prince the Title of our Deliverer yet I am sure the greatest part both of the Clergy and Laity of the Church of England were once of Opinion that King Iames's violations both upon our Religion and Laws were so great that nothing could preserve the Kingdom from a total Subversion in its Establisht Religion and Civil Constitution but his Highnesses coming over and most of the Bishops were of that Opinion who now the Government is setled refused to take the Oath of Allegiance to their present Majesties But to answer what you say that the manner of Henry the IV ths and Henry the VII ths coming to the Crown doth not at all agree with this Case of King William because they claimed by right of blood which you say King William cannot do that is not so in respect of the Queen who has certainly a right to succeed her Father by right of blood in case the Prince off Wales be not the true Son of the Queen and untill he can be proved so we must at present look upon him as if he were not so at all so that the Convention hath done no more in setling the Crown upon the King during his Life than what the Great Council of the Kingdom have frequently done before upon other vacancies of the Throne as I have proved from the Examples of William Rufus and Henry the First King Stephen King Iohn and Henry the Third And it is very hard to suppose the whole Nation to have been guilty of Perjury and Treason upân their Swearing to and Fighting for those Princes after they were so Solemnlâ Elected Crowned and Invested with the Royal Power But as for Edward III. his first and best Title was from the election of the Great Council of the Kingdom who I doubt not but if they had found him unworthy of the Royal Dignity by reason of folly or madness or Tyrannical Principles would have set him aside and have made his youngââ Brother King a Protector to govern in the King's Name with Royal Power having never been known in England till the Reign of Henry the VI th but as for Henry the IV th notwithstanding his claim by right of Blood I have already proved that the Paâliament by their placing him in the Throne did not at all allow it nor is any such Right recited in the Act of the 7 th of Henry the IV th which by the Crown is entail'd upon that King and his four successive Sons And though it is true Henry the Seventh also claim'd the Crown by right of Inheritance in his Speech in Parliament yet they were so far from allowing it that they do not so much as mention it in that Act of Setlement which as I have recited they made of it upon that and the Heirs of his Body And therefore I think I may still maintain that the Convention hath done nothing in the present Setlement of the Crown but what hath been formerly done upon every vacancy of the Throne either by deposition or resignation of the King or Abdication or Forfeiture of the Crown as in the case of King Iames in which the Convention have done no more than exercised that Power which has always been suppos'd to reside in the great Council of the Kingdom of setling the Crown upon such a Prince of the Blood-Royal as they shall think best to deserve it Thus much I have said to preserve the Antient Right of the Great Council of the Nation But to put all this out of dispute I have been credibly inform'd that the Princess of Denmark her self did by some of her Servants in both Houses as well of the Lords as Commons declare upon a great Debate that arose about securing her Highnesses Right to the Crown immediately after her Sister the Queen that her Highness had desired them to assure the Convention that she was willing to acquiesce in whatever they should determine concerning the Succession of the Crown since it might tend to the present setlement and safety of the Nation which I think is a better Cession of her Right to his present Majesty than any you can prove that the Empress Mawd made to her Son Henry the Second or than the Countess of Richmond ever made to her Son Henry the Seventh M. You have often talked of this forfeiture and extravagant Power of your Convention by whom you suppose they are not obliged to place the Crown upon the head of the next Heir by Blood which I shall prove to be a vain Notion for if there be an absolute forfeiture of the Crown the Government would have been absolutely Dissolved for since there is no Legal Government without a King if the Throne were really vacant and that the People might place whom they pleas'd in it yet the Convention can have no Power to do it as their Representatives since upon your suppos'd dissolution of the Original Contract between the King and the People there was an end of all Conventions and Parliaments too And therefore if a King could have been chosen at all it ought to have been by the Votes of the whole body of the Clergy Nobility and Commons in their own single Persons and not by any Council or Convention to represent them since the Laws for restraining the Election of Parliament-men only to Freeholders are upon this suppos'd Dissolution of the Government altogether void and
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 âacit 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
you have now quoted out of Genesis thy desire shall be Subject to thy Husband and he shall rule over thee is not fairly cited for as for the Marginal addition viz. Subject to thy Husband it is not warranted from the Hâbrew Original or Version of the LXX The Hebrew having no more than thy desire shall be to thy Husband which the LXX renders i. e. the conversion or inclination of the desire by which some Interpreters understand no more than the carnal Appetite so likewise from the words rule over thee they likewise observe that Moses makes use of the same Hebrew word when he makes mention of the Sun and Moon ruling the Day and Night tho they do not do it by any violence or corporeal force so likewise by this ruling of the Husband is not to be understood any absolute despotick power whereby he hath a right to dispose of the person and actions of his Wife in all things at his pleasure but that she may in many cases refuse nay controul his commands and resist his actions in case they prove unlawful or destructive to her self and Children But that this Argument of St. Paul of the Husband's Superiority over his Wife was not granted to Adam alone but equally extends to all Husbands whatsoever appears from the very Text it self or otherwise St Paul had argued very impertinently of the duty of all Wives and if so it will follow that every one of Adam's Sons as soon as he took a Wife had the like Authority over her as Adam had over their Mother And if over their Wives then by your Maxims of partus sequitur ventrein quicquid eâ me uxore mea nascitur in potestate mea est all the Sons of Adam must have had the same Power over their Children as their Father had over them So that the same consequence will still follow from theses places of Scripture and also from you Civil Law Maxims that either Adam had no Civil or Despotick Power over his Wife and Children or else if he had that every one of his Sons when Married an separated from his Fathers Family had the same and consequently there were as many Princes as distinct Masters of Families and then what would become of Adam's Monarchy I give you leave to Judge M. I must beg your pardon if I am not satisfied with your answer to my last argument For I am still of opinion notwithstanding what you have said that Eve was to yield an absolute subjection to her Husband from that place already cited That her viz. Eve's desire i. e. will should be subject to her Husband c. To which you answer that this subjection of Eve to Adam was not the same which Sons owe their Fathers or Slaves to their Lords And that Eve owed Adam not a filial or servile but a conjugal subjection For I would âain know the difference in the State of Nature between one and the other For if you please to compare that place of Genesiis I but now quoted with that other where God gives Cain power over Abel his Younger Brother you will find them the same in words as also in sense For in this God likewise tells Cain That unto thee shall his desire be subject and thou shalt rule over him And âure God could not intend by these words that Abel should yield a Conjugal but a filial subjection to his elder Brother and these words are not capable of two senses but must be understood a like in both places i. e. That the Desire which is a Faculty of the Soul and that the most active too was to be subject and the body and all the Powers of it were to be over-ruled by him which is as full and absolute a subjection as can be express'd in words and whereas you say that these words were not spoken till after the Fall and thence seem to infer that Eve did not owe Adam so much as a Conjugal Subjection before that St. Paul hath given you an answer to that already which it is needless to repeat and therefore upon the whole matter I think your distinction of a Conjugal Subjection different from a Filial or Servile one will signifie nothing F. I doubt not Sir but I shall be able to make good this distinction of a Servile and a Filial Obedience and in order to it shall reply to the consequence you have made for Eve's absolute subjection to Adam from the like Expression used by God to Cain concerning his ruling over his Brother Abel as is us'd here to Eve concerning her Subjection to her Husband and that because the Subjection of Abel was absolute that therefore her Subjection must be so too I must crave your pardon if I deny your Assumption for I think I am able to prove that neither Abel nor any other younger Brother was or is obliged by vertue of this Text to yield an absolute Obedience to his Elder Brother in the state of Nature or that he is therefore his Lord and Master Nor can I see any absurdity but that the same words might be spoken to several Persons yet in different senses which according to the Nature of the Persons to whom they were spoken might have different Effects As here these words when spoken to Eve enjoyn a Conjugal Submission of Eve's Will to Adam as her Husband but when spoken to Abel they may signifie a Fraternal Submission of Abel's Will to Cain's as the Elder and perhaps the wiser of the two but without giving any absolute or despotick power over either M. I cannot be yet satisfied with your Reply for methinks this is but to play the Fool and trifle with God's Word when he told Cain thy Brother's desire shall be Subject to thee that is say you Thou shalt rule over him only as far as he thinks sir or if thou hast the knack to wheedle or perswade him Was not this a mighty matter for God Almighty to appear to Cain about An Excellent and Rational way to appease his Wrath towards his Brother Whereas God here plainly enjoyneth a subjection from Abel to his Elder Brother and if so by Vertue of the same words a like Subjection of Eve to Adam and then it will likewise follow that as the streams are of the same Nature with the Fountain the Subjection of all her Posterity will likewise be included in hers which I have sufficiently proved already had you not mistaken the true sense of those two Maximâ I laid down For first if Partus sequitur vontrem and the Mother be a Subject as Eve was all her Posterity must be so to all Generations And if Quicquid ex me uxore mea nascitur in potestate mea est be true then Adam's Grand-Children and Great-Grand-Children deriving themselves from him and Eve must be likewise under Adam's power Nor caâ I see how his Sons or Grand-Children by setting up separate Families could ever discharge themselves from this absolute
Subjection to Adam since they could never have quitted his Family without his consent and when they did quit it unless he pleased to manumit them they their Wives and Children were still as much Subject as they were before Since I do not see if they were once Subjects to him how any thing but his express will and consent could ever discharge them from it Nor was that Authority which every one of these Sons of Adam might Exercise over their Wives and Children though they were not freed from the power of their Father any more inconsistent with that Subjection and Obedience they owed him as their Prince than in an absolute Monarchy the power of Fathers and Husbands over their Wives and Children as to the things relating to the well-ordering and governing their Families is inconsistent with that supreme predominant power which the Monarch hath over the Father himself and all his Family or than the power of a Master of a Family in the Isle of Barbadoes over his Slaves that are Married and have Children is inconsistent with that Marital and Paternal power which such a Slave may exercise over his Wife and Children within his own Family though still subordinate to the will of the Master who may forbid any such Slaves or their Children to Marry but where he hath a mind they should and may likewise hinder them from correcting or putting to Death their Wives and Children without his consent Though such Subjects in an absolute Monarchy or Slaves in a Plantation cannot have or enjoy any Property in Lande or Goods but at the Monarchs or Masters will And so likewise at first none of these Sons of Adam though they set up distinct Families from their Fathers could enjoy or inclose any part of the Earth without his Grant or Assignment to whom the whole was given by God before It seems likewise to be a great mistake when you at first affirmed that all Civil Government was Ordained by God for the benefit and advantage of the Subjects rather than the Governours Whereas from the first and most Natural Government it appears that Children who were the Subjects were Ordained as much for the benefit and help of their Parents who were the first Monarchs as their Parents for them From all which we may draw these Conclusions First that from Gen. 3. v. 6. already Cited we have the Original Charter of Government and the Fountain of all Civil Power derived from Adam as the Father of all Mankind So that not only the Constitution of power in general but the special limitation of it to one kind viz. Monarchy and the determination of it to the individual person of Adam are all Ordinances of God Neither had Eve or her Children any Right to limit Adam'â Power or joyn themselves with him in the Government Now if this Supreme Power was setled and sounded by God himself in Fatherhood how is it possible for the people to have any Right to alter or dispose of it otherwise it being God's Ordinance that this Supremacy should be unlimited in Adam and as large as any Acts of his Will So that he was not only a Father but a King and absolute Lord over his Family a Son a Subject and a Servant or Slave being one and the same thing at first the Father having power to dispose of or sell his Children or Servants at his pleasure and though perhaps he might deal too severely or cruelly in so doing yet there was none above him except God in the state of Nature who could call him to an account much less resist or punish him for so doing F. You have Sir made a very long Speech upon the Monarchical power of Adam which you have made of so large an Extent that this imaginary Kingship will swallow up all the other more dear and tender Relations both of a Husband and of a Father So that were I not satisfied you were a very good natured Man and spoke more the sense of others than from your own Natural Inclinations I should be apt to believe that if you had sufficient Power you would prove as great a Tyrant over your Wife Children and all that should be under your Command as such Arbitrary Tenets would give you leave but since I hope your Errour lyes rather in your Understanding than in your Natureâ I shall make bold to shew you the mistakes you have committed in those Principles you here lay down I might first begin with the place of Scripture you farther insist upon for Eve's absolute Subjection to Adam from the like Expression used by God to Cain concerning his ruling over his Brother Abel as is us'd here to Eve and tho' you are pleased to think my exposition of this place so ridiculous yet I doubt not but I be able to prove when I come to speak of this pretended Divine Author of Elder Brothers over this younger that this place cannot be understood in any such sense according to the best Interpretation that both the reason of the Subject and the sense the best Commentators put upon it can allow but I shall defer this till we come to discourse concerning the successors of Adam in this Monarchical Power you suppose And therefore I shall only at present pursue that absolute Power which you suppose Adam to have had not only over Eve but all her descendants So that your Argument of Eve's and consequently all her Childrens absolute Subjection to Adam depends upon a very false supposition For if the Subjection of Eve to Adam and of all Wives to their Husbands is not servile or absolute neither can that of the Children be so since according to your own simile if the streams are of the same nature of the Fountain they can never rise higher than it and tho' I grant Adam might in some cases have put his Wife or Children to death for any enormous crime against the Law of Nature yet I allow him that power not as a Husband or Father but only as a Lord or Master of a separate Family who having no Superiour in the state of Nature I grant it is endued by God with this Prerogative for the good of his Family and preservation of Mankind lest such horrid crimes so much to its prejudice should pass unpunisht But that the Husband or Father doth not act thus in either of these two capacities I can easily prove First Because the Scripture tells us the Husband and Wife are one Flesh and that no man ever yet hated his own Flesh so that it is impossible for a Husband to put his Wife to death till by the greatness of her Crimes she becomes no longer worthy of that tender affection he ought to bear her Then as to the Father he as a Father ought not to desire to put his Son to death whose being he hath been the cause of and who is principally made out of his own substance and on whom he hath bestowed nourishment and education for
now they might then certainly have chosen Wives for themselves when they were of years of dicretion and capable of Marriage And farther to shew you that Children may in some Cases seperate themselves from their Fathers Family and Subjection without their Fathers consent is apparent as to the Daughters who if they were at first obliged by this precept to Marry might likewise do it whether he would or not and were to be obedient to their Husbands when they were Married the obedience which they before owed to their Father being now transferred to their Husband or also they must serve two Masters which is against our Saviours Rule by which it appears that the subjection of Daughters in the State of Nature is not perpetual And to prove that Sons have a like Right to separate from their Fathers Family let us suppose that Adam had been so cruel and unnatural as some Fathers are that being only sensible of the profit he received from his Sons labours he would never have permitted them to leave his Family nor to enjoy any thing of their own but would have kept them like Slaves as long as they lived if you affirm that he might have done so if he had pleased and that the Sons had no Lawful means to help themselves since he only was Judge whether ever he thought fit to set them free or not You your self have already granted the contrary when you affirmed that a Father had no Right to sell his Child as a Slave and then sure he can have as little Right to use him so himself But as for what you say against that natural equality of Children to their Parents considered as Men you might easily have understood it if your thoughts were not so wholly taken up with this transcendant imaginary Empire of Fathers in the State of Nature as if they were some what more than Men. For pray tell me are they not equal who have the same Right from God to the same things For if Fathers have a Right to live and be preserved so likewise have the Children and if they have a Right to the end they have likewise the same to the means necessary thereunto such as are food rayment freedom from Slavery c. And if they are thus equal they must likewise when they attain to years of discretion be endued with a Power of judging for themselves concerning what things are necessary to their happiness and perservation and what tends to their misery or destruction and consequently may very well judge whether their Fathers treat them kindly or cruelly for if the Father in the State of Nature in the sole Judge of the means that conduce to his Sons happiness and preservation without his consent he may determine that Poverty Slavery and Torment shall be fit means and conducing to this end which is against sense and reason and tho I grant that Sons may sometime be mistaken in the true means that may lead to these great ends of life yet doth not this take away their Right of judging for themselves any more than it doth the same Right from their Fathers who as Men are also lyable to the like mistakes Neither did any Slave or Subject ever give up his will so totally to his Master or Monarch as absolutely to renounce all Right to happiness and self preservation or to the means that may conduce thereunto But I think we have sufficiently debated this great point of the Natural Power of Fathers over their Children and therefore Let us in the next place consider whether Children may not upon these Principles in some Cases make use also of self defence even against their Fathers if they cannot otherwise avoid certain ruine and destruction therefore I will first ask you what you think of this Case A Son in the State of Nature being separated from his Father's Family and having Children and House of his own what shall he doe in Case his Father by the evil suggestions of a Step-mother or other wicked Persons be so far incensed against his Son as to send Men to burn his House plunder him of his Goods and destroy his Plantation M. If the Son be absolutely set free from his Fathers Family and Power with his consent I do not deny but that such a Son may resist those Persons his Father sends to ruine him and his Family and may repel their violence by force but I do not allow the Son the same power to resist the Person of the Father if he should come himself thus to destroy him F. Why so Do you think a Father by being so hath any greater Right to destroy his Son and ruine his Family then a Stranger M. No but because the Person of a Father ought always to be esteemed by the Son as Sacred as his Natural Prince and if he should have a Right to resist his Father by force he might happen to kill him in the scuffle which would be a sin against Nature F. Well suppose the worst would this be more a sin against Nature than to suffer himself Wife and Innocent Children to be turned out of all they have and left to perish by hunger and cold St. Paul says That he that doth not provide for his Family is worse than an Infidel and I think so would the Son be if for fear of hurting his Fathers Person he should permit all his Family to be exposed to certain beggery and ruine M. This precept of St. Paul obliges only when a Man may provide for his Family by Lawful means but not when it cannot be procured but by doing what is unlawful as I take this resistance of the Person of the Father to be F. I grant indeed that a Father acting as such is not to be resisted even when he corrects his Son but I suppose you will not say that in the Case I put he acts as a Father but an Enemy when he goeth about without any just occasion to kill or ruine him unless you can suppose that the will to preserve and destroy can consist together in the same Subject neither can you affirm that the Father hath any right to deal thus wickedly and violently towards his Son and his innocent Family By what Law then must the Son be obliged to Sacrifice his own life and that of Wife and Children and all that he hath to this imaginary Duty M. There seems to me two good reasons for it The first is that gratitude which the Son must always owe his Father for his Being and Educaâion and therefore if he give up his Wife Children and all that he hath to his Will it would scarce be a sufficient requital for all the Benefits he hath received from him The second is because no circumstances whatsoever can take off or obliterate this Relation and thô 't is true your Father whilst acting thus doth not deal with you as a Father but an Enemy yet he is still your Father and you are and will be always his
therefore since I have many other examples out of Scripture of this kind I shall the less insist upon it but will now proceed to the examples before the Floud First therefore it seems highly probable if not certain that whatever Civil Government there was in the World before that period of time as it is very rational to believe there necessarily mâst be some in so long a space as near two hundred years it was chiefây administred by those first Patriarchs whose names you 'l find particularly recited in the fifth of Genesis and sure that long Chain we there have of them by whose Lives the Chronology of the World is only reckoned till the Floud were in their several Generations considerable persons nay Princes over their own Families which could not but be very numerous and indeed the very counting the Age of the World by the years of their lives is to me an Argument that they were no obscure unregarded men but that they were either Monarchs or Princes of all Mankind or at least over that part of the World in which they lived and Iosephus is likewise of my opinion in the first Book of the Jewish Antiquities where as you may see cap. 3. he expresly tells us thus Seth autem centesimo quinto anno genuit Enoâ Qui dum quinque nongentos vixisset annos rerum curam tradidit filio suo Carnae and immediately after proceeds thus Lamecâum autem filium genuit Maâhusalas Enocho oreus cum annos ipse habere ãâã CLXXXVII Imperium vero Lamecho eidem tradidit parenâ quod jam tenuerat ipse annos DCCCCLXIX Lamechus pariter Principatum reliquit Noe filio post quam regnasset annos DCCLXXVII Noe denique verum summam tenuit annos nongentos quinquaginta Lamecho annos 382. aetatis habenti genitus And Noah the last of the Ten Patriarchs and the surviving Patriarch of all Mankind was declared by God the Universal Monarch of the World as soon as he came out of the Ark to whom he granted the Dominion over all things as appears by those words of God to Noah Gen. 9. whereby I conceive that tho' it hath been thence concluded by Mr. Selden in his Mare Clausum that there was a general Community between Noah and his Sons yet the Text doth not clearly warrant it For altho' the Sons are there joyned with Noah in the blessing yet it may best be understood with a Subordination or a Benediction in Succession and the Blessing might truly be fulfilled if the Sons either under or after their Father enjoyed a Private Dominion Nor is it probable that the Private Dominion which God gave to Adam and by his Donaâion Assignation or Cession to his Children was abrogated and a Community of all things instituted between Noah and his Sons after the Flood And when Noah was left the sole Heir of the World why should it be thought that God would disinherit him of his Birth right and make him only Tenant in Common with his Children And if the Blessing given to Adam Gen. 1.128 be compared to that given to Noah and his Sons Gen. 9.2 there will be found a considerable difference between these two Texts In the Benediction of Aââm we find expressed a subduing of the Earth and a Dominion over the Creatures neither of which are expressed in the Blessing of Noah nor the Earth there once named It is only said The Fear of you shall be upon the Creatures and into your hands are they delivered then immediately it follows Every moving thing shall be meat for you as the green Herb c. The first Blessing gave Adam Dominion over the Earth and all Creatures the latter allows Noah Liberty to use the Living Creatures for Food Here is no alteration or diminishing of his Title to an absolute Propriety of all things but only an Enlargement of his Commons F. As for the Government of the World before the Flood I have already acknowledged that the Scripââres being silent in it no man can affirm any thing positively concerning it whether it was Regal Aristocratical or Paternal neither is it any Proof that because God thought fit for our understanding the Age of the World or the Genealogy of Noah from whom all Mankind now takes its Original to set down a Series of the Patriarchs from Father to Son or that because they were no obscure unregarded Men that therefore they must all be absolute Princes or Monarchs over their Families This is as a Father said long ago Divinare âagis quam scire But I see when Prejudice once blinds our Reasons we easily make good that old saying Facile credimus quod volumus But as for your Quotation out of Iosephus I grant indeed that at the first sight it makes for you but suppose it doth I cannot see how a Man may can lay any stress upon it since the Scripture being silent of any such Monarchy or Principality in these Patriarchs since this Author writes his History above three sand years after the time that these Patriarchs lived which he there mentions and that we are sure there were no Authors then extant that writ of the Ante-Deluvian Patriarchs but Moses only Iosephus could speak no otherwise than by guess or from some uncertain Tradiâions preserved amongst the Pharisees of which Sect he was To which Traditions when not warranted by Scripture how little Credit is to be given our Saviour himself teaches us And also the many futilous Traditions of the Rabbins at this day do sufficiently shew us But I suppose that by this word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã there used by Iosephus which is rendered by the Latine Version Principatus is not meant any Monarchical Power but only that Principality or Eminency or that Reverence and Respect which their Posterity paid them either in regard of their great Age and Experience or of the Spirit of God with which they might be supposed to be endued sufficient to make them to be taken notice of and reverenced above all other Men living in their time I have likewise upon better consideration two other Reasons to add why by the curam rerum mentioned in this place cannot be meant a Regal Power because Iosephus mentions no such thing of Adam the fârst Father and as you suppose Monarch of Mankind which sure he would have done had he believed him endued by God with such a Power The second Reason is that if you please to observe he ascribes to Mathuselab Lamech and Noah as many years of Empire as of Life So that either this place of Iosephus signifies nothing at all or else will make nothing to your purpose to prove these Antient Patriarchs to have been so many Monarchs I come now to the next Period of time after the Flood and whereof I grant we may discourse with more certainty But I could have wished you would have repeated more particularly the words whereby you suppose God granted to Noah alone
care of them chose Moses and Ioshuah successively to Govern as Princes in the Place and ââead of the Supreme Fathers And after them likewise for a time he raised up Judges to defend his People in time of Peril Yet that all these were endued with Regal Authority may appear in that Moses is called in Deuteronomy a King in Ieshurun that is over Israel And when Moses saw that he was to die he besought God to set a Man over the Congregation that the Congregation of the Lord be not as Sheep which have no Shepherd And as for the Judges it is apparent from the Book that bears their Name that they had Power of making Peace and War and of Judging in all Cases of Appeal insomuch that whosoever would not hearken to the Priest or to the Iudge even that Man should die But when God gave the Israelites Kings F. I pray give me leave to interrupt you a little for I have a great âeal to say against your Notion of the Government of the Israelites before they had Kings actually nominated by God for notwithstanding all you have said it doth not appear to me that either Moses Ioshuah or the Judges were any more than figuratively or in a larger sense to be stiled Kings For as for Moses his being called King in Ieshurun he only calls himself so Poetically in that excellent Hymn of Blessing which he bestoweth upon the Twelve Tribes For certainly God did not suppose him to have been a King when in Deut. 17.14 he speaks of the Children of Israel setting a King over them as a thing that was to happen many years after and there lays down Rules how he should Govern himself which had been needless if they had had a King already And that Moses was not a King Iosephus himself shews us in his Antiquities Lib. 4. where he makes Moses to have instructed the Children of Israel at the time of his Death to this purpose Aristocracy is the best Form of Government and the life that is led under it the most happy and therefore let not the desire of any other sort of Government take Possession of you owning no other Master than the Laws and doing every thing according to it For God is your King and that is sufficient for you and if Moses was no King then certainly Ioshua was none neither M. Pray give me leave to answer what you have now said against the Kingly Power of Moses and Ioshua for if you will please to remember that tho' the Sanhedrim had been constituted before this time yet Moses esteemed them as Sheep without a Shepherd if a Man was not set over them which might go out before them and which might lead them out and bring them in and God approved his desires and appointed Ioshua to succeed him and the People received him accordingly and told him All that thou commandest us we will do and whithersoever thou sendest us we will go according as we hearkened unto Moses in all things so will we hearken unto thee If this were not Kingly Power then is there no such thing So that this Discourse which Iosephus puts into Moses his Mouth seems directly contrary to Moses his Thoughts and Practice And whereas he makes Moses to have opposed Obedience to the Laws to Kingly Government it is a pure Greek Notion For whilst the Grecians lived under Kings they had âew or no Laws but when they set up Common-Wealths they then found the necessity of having Laws and then the Dominion of Laws was opposed to the Government of Princes But this was contrary to the Practice of Israel for they were to live according to their Laws as well under Kings as without them in all Estates and Conditions and their Kings were bound to Govern them by the Law and not by their Wills contrary to the Law So that in this Iosephus clearly made the Antient Customs of his Country to comply with a Greek Notion that had no being for some hundreds of years after Moses was dead And as for the time of the Judges even in the Intervals between them when every one did that which was right in his own Eyes even then the Israelites were under the Kingly Government of the Fathers of the particular Families over whom the Prince or Head of it had likewise a Supreme Power F. But pray give me leave to speak a little farther Let me ask you what is an Aristocracâ if this be not viz. an Assembly of the Elders or Chief Fathers of Families of each Tribe meeting consulting and resolving of the Publick Affairs of the Common-Wealth under their Head or President the Chief of the Tribe and this is the Government for which Iosephus makes Samuel so much afflicted when the People would quit it for a Monarchy M. I think you are much mistaken in this Point for it is no where declared that these Fathers of Families Governed their own Families independently for then there would have been no Publick Government at all Nor yet is it said that these Fathers Governed by Majority of Voices chosen out of themselves for then I grant it would have been a Democracy nor yet doth it appear that a few of the better sort of Fathers of every Tribe Governed it by a Counsel and Magistrates or that there was such Counsel of the several Tribes but on the contrary every Tribe was Governed by the Prince or Head of it and these Princes Moses calls the Heads of the House of their Fathers in Numb 7.2 and who were over those that were numbered and made their Offerings And Moses tells us particularly what every Man's Name was as Nashon the Son of Aminadab of the Tribe of Judah and Nathaniel the Son of Zuar Prince of Issachar c. Now if there was in those days any Government at all in Israel then were these Princes the Governours of the several Tribes and so every Tribe was under a Monarch tho' the whole State of Israel was not under any one Person or constant standing Council and consequently was a System of little Monarchies F. I am not at all better satisfied with your last Reply For in the first place I have Iosephus on my side who must needs know what the Government of his Country had been better than you or I and he expresly calls it an Aristocracy in which the Judge when there was one was only in the nature of a General or Statholder to whom the last Appeal was to be made in all Causes and it is also as plain that neither Moses Ioshua nor the Judges had Monarchical Authority Fâr tho' it be true the two first could make War and Peace yet this was also with the Consent of the Princes of the Congregation as plainly appears by the Story of the Peace made with the Gibeonites which the Princes of the Congregation confirmed by an Oath Neither could they raise Taxes upon the People or take any thing from them
his People will no more prove that Government belonged to Adam's Heir as to his Fatherhood than God's chusing Aaron of the Tribe of Levi to be Priest will prove that the Priesthood belonged to Adam's Heir or the Prime Fathers since God could chuse Aaron to be Priest and Moses Ruler over Israel tho' neither of those Offices were settled on Adam's Heir or the first Patriarchs So likewise for what you say concerning God's raising up the Judges to defend his People proves Fatherly Authority to be the Original of Government just after the same rate and cannot God raise up such men unless Paternal Power give a Title to the Government But to come to your darling Instance the giving of the Israelites Kings whereby you suppose God re establisht the Antient Prime Right of Lineal Succession ãâã Paternal Government This I can by no means understand for if by Liâââl Succession you mean to Adam I desire to know how you will make it out that either Saul or David could be Heirs of Adam's Power or how the Power that those Kings were endued with by God was the same Power which Abraham Isaac and Iacob enjoyed before For if you please to consider it your Hypothesis consists of two Propositions the first is that all Paternal Power is the same with Regal Power which if it be proved not to be true the other convertible Proposition which is but the Conversion of this will likewise be as false viz. that all Regal Power is Paternal Nor is what you said last of all any truer than the rest that whensoever God made choice of any person to be King he intended that the Issue I suppose you mean his Issue should have the benefit thereof For either Moses and Ioshua and the Judges were no Kings tho' you have asserted the former to be so or else they had not the benefit of this Grant But certainly Saul was a King and yet his Issue never succeeded but you speak very warily to suppose this Grant to be made to the Issue in general without specifying in particular who should enjoy it because I suppose you are sensible that Solomon whom God expresly appointed to be David's Successor and Iehoahaz whom the People of the Land made King in the room of Iosiah were neither of them Eldest Sons of the Kings their Fathers To conclude I desire you would shew me what Relation or Title all Kings or Princes now-a-days have or can claim as Heirs to Adam or Noah or how that Power with which God endued those Fathers of Mankind is the same which you say all Princes or Monarchs may now claim to be given them by God For I confess I can see no likeness or Relation at all between them M. It may indeed seem absurd to maintain that Kings now are the Fathers of their People since Experience shews the contrary It is true all Kings are not the Natural Parents of their Subjects yet they all either are or are to be reputed the next Heirs to those first Progenitors who were at first the Natural Parents of the whole People and in their Right succeed to the exercise of Supreme Jurisdiction and such Heirs are not only Lords of their own Children but also of their Brethren and all others that were subject to their Fathers And tho' I have all along supposed that Paternal Government was at first Monarchical yet I must likewise grant that when the World was replenished with People that this Paternal Government by Succession ceased and a new kind of it started up either by Election Conquest or Usurpation yet this was still Paternal Power which can never be lost or cease tho' it may be transferred or usurped or it may be ordained a new in a person who otherwise had no Right to it before Thus God who is the Giver of all Power may transfer it from the Father to the Son as he gave Saul a Fatherly Power over his Father Kish So that all Power on Earth is either derived or usurped from the Fatherly Power there being no Original to be found of any Power whatsoever for if there should be granted two sorts of Power without any subordination of one to the other they would be in perpetual strife which should be Supreme for two Supremes cannot agree if the Fatherly Power be Supreme then the Power of the People must be subordinate and depend on it if the Power of the People be Supreme then the Fatherly Power must submit to it and cannot be exercised without the Licence of the People which must quite destroy the frame and course of Nature F. If this be all you have to say for the proof of so weighty an Hypothesis I confess I wonder how you or any rational Man can lay so great stress upon it For tho' I should grant you that some Fathers of Families at first became by the tacit or express Consent of their Children and Descendants to be Kings or Princes over them doth it therefore follow that all Kings Govern by Right of Fatherhood at this day 'T is true you tell me that all Kings tho they are not now the Natural Fathers of their People Yet are still to be esteemed as such by them as Succeeding either as Heirs or Successors to those that were so I grant indeed if any Kings now adays could prove themselves right Heirs to Adam or Noah this were somewhat to the purpose but to talk of a Paternal Power proceeding from Election Conquest or Usurpation is perfect Iargon to me for pray tell me can a Man become endued with Paternal Power over me by my Electing him to be my King or can a Man by Conquest or Usurpation oblige me to yield him a Filial Duty and Obedience for if this were so if a Father of a separate Family such as Abraham was should be conquered by the head of another separate Family nay tho he were a Thief or a Robber if once the true Father were Killed or destroyed all the Children and Descendants of the Family must pay the same Duty and Obedience to this unjust Conquerour or Robber as to their true Father and the same may be said in Usurpations in case after the death of such a Father of a Family a Younger Brother or Nephew should get possession of the House and Estate and force all his Brethren and Kinsmen to Submit to him they must then all own him to be endued by God with the same Paternal Power which their Father or Grand-father had and consequently must Honour and Obey him as their true Father Both which examples being contrary to the Common sense and reason of Mankind may shew you how absurd this Hypothesis is whereas indeed Fatherhood being a Relation of Blood and the Duty and Respect we owe to him that is our Father proceeding from that Piety and Gratitude we owe him both for our Generation and Education how can this Relation or these Obligations be ever transferred to or
usurped by any other so that any other man can become my Father or I owe him that Filial Duty and Respect as to him that begot me and brought me up And tho' I grant that God may confer a Regal Power on whom he pleases either by his express Will or the ordinary course of his Providence yet when such a person who was not a King before doth become so I utterly deny that the Power he hath then conferred upon him is a Paternal Power in relation to his Subjects which is evident from your own Instance of Saul's becoming a King over his Father Kish For tho' you say that God then conferred a Fatherly Power on Saul over his own Father this is a great mistake For then Saul would have been immediately discharged from all the Duties of Piety and Gratitude which he owed his Father and they were all transferred from Kish to Saul so that after he became King he might have treated his Father with no more Respect or Deference than any other Subject which is contrary to God's Commandment that bids all Men Honour their Father and Mother And I know not how Kings can be excepted out of this Precept So that your mistake arises from this preposterous confounding of Paternal Authority with Regal Power And because Adam Noah or any other Father of a separate Family may be a Prince over it in the State of Nature that therefore every Monarch in the World is also endued with this Paternal Power Which that they are distinct may farther appear from your own supposed Monarchical Power of Adam who tho' granting him to have been a Prince over his Posterity yet did not this discharge any of his Descendants from their Duty and Obedience to their own Father And tho' I confess you talked at our last meeting of a Fatherly Power to be exercised in subordination to the Supreme Fatherly Power of Adam yet this is a meer Chimera for Filial Honour and Obedience being due by the Commandment only to a Man 's own Natural Father can never be due to two different persons at once since they may command contradictory things and then the Commandment of Honour that is obey thy Father cannot be observed in respect of both of them and therefore granting Adam or Noah to have exercised a Monarchical Power over their Children and Descendants it could not be as they were Fathers or Grand-fathers when their Sons or Grand-children were separated from them and were Heads of Families of their own for the reasons already given so that if they were Princes in their own Families whilst their Sons or Grand-children continued part of them it was only as Heads or Masters of their own Families but not by any such Patriarchal or Paternal Authority as you suppose But as for the Conclusion of your Discourse it being all built upon this false Foundation that all Power on Earth is derived or usurped from the Fatherly Power I need say no more to it For if that be false all that you argue from thence concerning the subordination of all other Powers to this will signifie nothing M. I think I can yet make out my Hypothesis notwithstanding all you have said against it For tho' I grant the Paternal Relation it self can never be usurped or transferred yet you may remember I at first affirmed that Adam was not only a Father but a King and Lord over his Family and a Son a Subject a Servant or a Slave were one and the same thing at first and the Father had power to dispose of sell or Alien his Children to any other whence we find the Sale and Gift of Children to have been much in use in the beginning of the World when Men had their Servants for a Possession and an Inheritance as well as other goods whereupon we find the Power of Castrating or making Eunuchs much in use in old times And as the Power of the Father may be lawfully transferred or aliened so it may be unjustly usurped And tho' I confess no Father or Master of a Family ought to use his Children thus Cruelly and Severely and that he sins mortally if he doth so yet neither they nor any Power under Heaven can call such an Independant Father or Monarch to an account or punish him for so doing F. I am glad at last we are come to an Issue of this doughty controversie and tho I forced you at our last meeting to confess that Fatherly Power was not despotical nor that Fathers upon any account Whatsoever were absolute Lords over their Children and all their Descendants in the State of Nature Yet now I see to preserve your Hypothesis You are fain to recur to this Despotical Power of Fathers in the State of Nature Because without supposing it and that it may be transferred or usurped Princes at this day whom without any cause you suppose to be endued with this Paternal Despotick Power could never claim any Title to their Subjects Allegiance And then much good may do you with your and Sr. R F's excellent discovery For if as you your self acknowledge Princes are no longer related in Blood to their Subjects any nearer than as we all proceed from Adam our Common Ancestor that relation being now so remote signifies little or nothing so that the true Paternal Authority being lost as you confess the Despotick Power of a Lord over his Servants or his Slaves only remains since therefore you make no difference in Nature between Subjects and Slaves then all Subjects Lye at the mercy of their Kings to be treated in all things like Slaves when ever they please And they may exercise an absolute Despotick Power over their Lives and Estates as they think fit So that I can see nothing that can hinder them from selling their Subjects or castrating them as the King of Mingrâlia doth his Subjects at this day and as the Great Turk and Persian Monarchs do use those Christian Children whom they take away from their Parents to make Eunuchs for their Sâraglio's and then I think you have brought Mankind to a very fine pass to be all created for the Will and Lust of so many single Men which if it ever could be the Ordinance of God I leave it to your self to judge M. I was prepared for this objection before and therefore I think it will make nothing against this Absolute Power with which I suppose God to have endued Adam and all other Monarchs at the first So that I am so far from thinking that this Doctrine will teach Princes Cruelty towards their Subjects that on the contrary nothing can better inculcate their Duty towards them For as God is the Author of a Paternal Monarchy so he is the Author of no other He introduced all but the first Man into the World under the Subjection of a Supream Father and by so doing hath shewn that he never intended there should be any other Power in the World and whatever Authority shall be
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 thâse 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 ãâã 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 Obâdienââ but a Duây 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 aââ 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
for as Iohannes Pomarius in his Saxon Chronicle sheweth us for which I refer you to Verstegan where this passage is made use of at large Verstegan p. 68. So that if this were the Government of the Saxons as low as the time of Charles the Great I durst leave it to any indifferent person to judge whether the first Saxon Kings in this Island were made so by their own Princes before they came over or were chosen by their Followers since no Historians mention the former tho all of them agree of the latter They commonly using this Phrase Regem fecerunt or elegerunt And that all the first Kings of the Heptarchy were Elective nothing is more plain since the Great Council of the Nobility and People did not only Elect them but often Depose them too when they grew intolerable through Tyranny or Misgovernment as may appear by the Example of Sigibert King of the West-Saxons and divers others I could Instance in who were Expelled this Kingdom as Brompton and other Ancient Chronicles tell us by the Vnanimous Consent and Deliberation of the Nobility and People Many like Instances I could give you in the other Kingdoms of the Heptarchy but that it would be too tedious Nor doth your Reason signifie any thing that it is not probable that the first Princes were made Kings upon Condition because of the Absolute Authority they had over the Lives and Fortunes of their Subjects since it is altogether false in matter of Fact none of the Saxon Kings being able alone to make Laws or impose Taxes upon their People without their Consents in their Great Councils much less to make War without it for then the War tho begun by the King alone must have signified little in an Age when there were no standing Armies nor Money in the Princes Power to pay them there being then but little Coyn of any sort and their Revenues being mostly paid in Victuals M. Pray Sir give me leave to interrupt you a little I own indeed that the particular Laws and Constitutions of each of the Kingdoms of the Heptarchy are not particularly known and perhaps some of their Kings might be Elective and consequently liable to be Deposed by their People whether by Right or Wrong I will not now Dispute but if we consider the State of things after these Seven Kingdoms became reduced into one you will find them much altered And as Egbert our first Saxon Monarch Reduced all those Kingdoms into one So it is to be supposed that having no Right to them but by Conquest and the Submission of their Kings when overcome in Battle both he and his Successors must needs have become far more Absolute than they were before and if they were Elective before that time did now certainly become Hereditary Monarchs The Crown Descending from Father to Son for divers Descents And so Consequently these Princes granted divers Priviledges and Liberties to the People of those Kingdoms they Conquered And that they were no other than the free Grants or Concessions of our former Kings upon Petition or Request of the People and accepted by the Clergy Nobility and People of the Kingdom in their Great Councils For this I need go no farther than the Coronation Oath taken by the Kings of England when the Archbishop of Canterbury asks the King Sir will you grant and keep and by your Oath confirm to the People of England the Laws and Customs granted to them by the Ancient Kings of England your Predecessors and namely the Laws and Customs and Liberties granted to the Clergy and People by the Glorious King Edward your Predecessor From whence we may observe that all the Bishops Earls Barons and People there present do own and confess that their most Ancient Laws Customs and Liberties were granted to them by Edward the Confessor and other Ancient Kings F. I doubt you will prove as much out in the account you give me of our King's Power after the Seven Kingdoms were reduced into one as you were before For though I grant that the Title of the West-Saxon Kings over all the rest proceeded from Conquest and the Submission of the Kings and People they Conquered yet were they not all actually reduced into one Kingdom or Monarchy till a good while after the Kings of Mercia and of the East-Angles continuing in Being till the Coming in of the Danes as you will find by our Saxon Annals And though t is true the West-Saxon Kings made those Kings Tributary to them Yet that they did not become more Absolute thereby appears from the Testimony of our Ancient Histories Since we find them Transacting all Affairs in their Wittena Gemots or Great Councils as well after their Conquest as they did before And therefore we find in an Old Register of St. Leonard Abby in York cited by Mr. Dodsworth in the Monastââon Anglic. put out by Mr. Dugdale this Memorable passage Memorandum quod Anno Domini 800. Egbertus Rex totlin Britanniae in Parliamento apud Wintoniam mutavlt nomen Regni de consensu Populi sui jussit illud de Caetero vocari Angliam And Will. of Malmsbury that Ancient and Exact Historian says expresly of this King Egbert Lib. 11. Has omnes Regnorum Varietates Egbertus animi Magnitudine composeuit ea uni quadrans Imperio ad uniforme Dominium servans unicuique proprias Leges vocavit Angliam It is therefore most evident that upon the Submission of those Kingdoms he Conquered he promised and agreed to govern them according to their Ancient Laws And hence we find the Mercian Laws called Merchen Lage to have continued in force long after that Kingdom was united to that of the West-Saxons Nor will your Inference from the Coronation Oath prove of any greater Moment For tho it be therein recited that divers of the Laws Liberties c. we now enjoy were granted by King Edw. the Confessor and other Kings Yet must it not be so understood as if the People of England had no Laws or Civil Rights before his time for that were to contradict plain matter of Fact and the Histories themselves I have already Cited But why they were called his Laws and his Customs Will. of Malmsbury hath very well observed when speaking of the good Laws made by Ancient Kings and especially by King Ethelred which were confirmed by King Câââe he hath this remarkable passage In quarum custodiam etiam âunc temporis Bonarum Sub nomine Regis Edwardi juratur non quod ille Statuerit sed quod observaverit The like I may say for the Laws of divers other Saxon Kings which tho they go under their Names Yet were made by the Assent of the Great Council of the Kingdom as by the Titles of the Laws themselves in Mr. Lamberts and Sir H. Spelman's Collection of them you may be satisfied if you please But for a Tast pray see the Laws of King Alfred which you Cited which tho said to be
this War had been made in their own names it had been but a just Return for what had been done to them before by the Late King who made actual War upon them without ever giving them the least notice or demanding satisfaction for any wrongs or damages receiv'd and this was the more justifiable because his present Majesty when Duke of York was looked upon to have a very great hand in those Councils which begun that unhappy War in which he himself serv'd as Admiral But as to the Prince of Orange there is much more to be said in his justification for in the first place tho' in some respects he was a Subject by living under and enjoying divers Lands and Territories and Commands within the Dominions of the United Provinces yet as he is Prince of Orange he is a free independent Prince and as such has a right of making War and Peace and if so all that is to be further enquired into is whether the Prince had any just cause of making War upon the King or âot therefore to answer your first Objection against the Prince's making War upon an Uncle and a Father-in-law without first demanding satisfaction and then denouncing War if he could not obtain it I confess this were a good Objection if you could once prove to me that the Prince could have been sure to have had granted him whatever he could in reason demand both in respect of the Church of England the security of the Protestant Religion the Rights and Liberties of the Subjects of England and his own particular concerns in respect of the Prince of Wales but whoever will impartially consider the Terms that the Prince and King were upon just before his coming over will find that he was not obliged to give the King notice of his intentions by first demanding satisfaction and then denouncing War if it had been denyed since the King might then have joyned his own with the French Fleet and sent for French Forces into England and then all that the Prince could have done in behalf of himself and the Nation had been altogether in vain And then though I grant that such satisfaction ought to be demanded in most cases yet will it not hold in this where if the Prince had sooner discovered his designs the King might have easily prevented them And how near this was to have been put in Execution may appear by this That Succours were actually offered by the French King and if they were refused by ours it was partly because it was too late for the French Fleet to be then put out and partly out of a Politick consideration that besides the losing of the Hearts of his English Subjects it might give the French such a footing here that they would not be easily gotten out again But indeed it seems as if the old formal way of making War was quite out of fashion since Charles the Second made War against the Dutch and the King of France so lately against Spain the Elector Palatine and the Emperor without any Observation of those formalities But if we consider the Grounds and Causes of this War as they are set forth in the Princes late Declaration they may be reduced to these three Heads First The Restoration of the Church of England with the Bishops and Colledges to their just Priviledges Secondly The securing of the Rights and Liberties of the Subject from the Dispensing Power and those other Incroachments that had been made upon them by the partial Judgments of Popish Ignorant or Corrupt Judges And Lastly The Enquiry into the Birth of the Prince of Wales In all which the Prince was so reasonable as to refer the decision of these differences to the Judgment of a Free Parliament Now as for the first of these That the Prince as a Neighbour and of the same Religion with us might justly secure the interest of the Protestant Religion here and also redeem the Clergy from the persecution they lay under is very evident Since it has always been held lawful for Princes to take the part and espouse the interest of those of the same Religion with themselves though Subjects to another Prince Thus Eusibius makes it a good cause of War by the Emperor Constantine against Licinius because he persecuted the Christians living under his Dominions So likewise of later Ages Queen Elizabeth assisted the Dutch Protestants of the united Provinces and those of France against the Persecutions and Oppressions they suffered from their own Princes As to the French Protestants King Charles the I. sent a Fleet and an Army to their Assistance in 1627. But as to the next Head the Oppressions we lay under in respect of our Civil Liberties the Prince had as great or rather greater right to vindicate these than the former For Bodin and Barclay though they suppose it unlawful for Subjects to take up Arms against their Prince though never so highly Opprest yet they count it not only lawful but Generous and Heroick for a Neighbouring Prince to rescue injur'd and opprest Subjects from the Tyranny of their Kings So that if the King had by his Dispensing Power his Levying of Taxes without Law and taking away the freedom of Elections for Parliament men almost totally dissolved the Government and brought it to the condition of an absolute Monarchy it was high time for the Prince to put a stop to those Encroachments both in respect of his own particular interest and also of the States whose General and Stadâholder he is Of the former since if this Kingdom should once become of the Popish Religion by the means of a standing Army and those other methods that have been taken to make it so granting the Prince of Wales to be truly born of the Queen yet should he happen to die the Popish faction here in England would in all likelihood debar the Prince and Princess of Orange from their lawful Succession to the Crown or at least would never admit them but upon conditions of establishing of Popery and Arbitrary Government in England the former of which is as contrary to their consciences as the latter is to their principles and inclinations So on the other side if the Prince of Wales be not the Queens true Son he had certainly a much greater interest as the presumptive Heir of the Crown to demand satisfaction in that great point which so nearly concerned their right of Succession For then certainly they might justly demand satisfaction especially when they desired no more but to have this business left to the inspection of the Estates of the Kingdom as the only proper Judges of the same For as to the Privy Council who by the Kings command though without any president had taken upon them to hear and determine this matter their Highnesses certainly had no reason to be satisfied with it since besides the incompetency of the Judges the King himself appeared too partial and interested in the affair for them to set down by
But it is very strange to me that none of them deposed any thing concerning their seeing any Milk come from Her Majesties Breasts after she was Delivered And perhaps there was good reason for it for I have had it from good hands that she had none afterwards whatever she had before the reason of which deserves to be enquired into since it is very rare But as for the Mid-Wife her deposition is equivocal That she took a Child from the Body of the Queen She is also a Papist and consequently a suspected witness in this cause Whereas all this might have been prevented had the Queen were she really with Child been perswaded to be Delivered not within the Bed but upon a Pallate where all the persons whose business and concern it was to be present might have seen the Child actually born nor needed there to have any men been by though I have heard that the late Queen of France was Delivered of the present King the Dake of Orleans not being only present in the Room but an Eye-witness of the Birth And so sure if somewhat of this nature had been done it might have saved a great deal of dispute and bloodshed which has already or may hereafter happen about it And therefore I do not at all wonder that the Prince of Orange should not take this partial Evidence that has been given for sufficient satisfaction so that whether this Birth of the Queens was real or not I shall not now farther dispute It is sufficient that if His Highness and His Princess had just and reasonable suspitions of an Imposture whilst they remain under them they had also a just cause of procuring a Free Parliament to examine this great affair and also to obtain it by force since it was to be got no other way M. I need not further dispute this business of the Prince of Wales with you since I durst appeal to your own Conscience whether you are not satisfied notwithstanding these supposed indiscretions in the management of the Queens Delivery that he is really Son to the Queen and I think it would puzzle you or I to prove the Legitimacy of our own Children by better evidence than this has been and I think all those of your party may very well despair of producing any thing against it since the Prince of Orange himself has thought it best to let it alone as knowing very well there was nothing material could be brought in evidence against him But I shall defer speaking further to this Head till I come to consider of the Conventions setling the Crown upon the Prince and Princess of Orange But before I come to this I have many things further to observe upon the Princes harsh and unjust proceedings with his Majesty and refusing all terms of Accommodation with him upon his last return to London In the first place therefore I must appeal to your self whether It were done like a Nephew and a Son-in-Law after the King was voluntarily returned to White Hall at the perswasion of those Lords who went down to attend him at Feversham when he had had scarce time to rest him after his journey and the many hardships he had indured since his being seized in that Port and when he had but newly sent my Lord Feversham with a kind Message and Complement to the Prince inviting him to St. Iames's together with some overtures of Reconciliation as I am informed the Prince should make no better a return to all this kindness than to clap up the Messenger contrary to the Law of Nations as his Majesty observes in his Late Paper I now mentioned And should without any notice given to the King of it order his men to march and displacing his Majesties Guards to seize upon all the Posts about White-Hall whereby his Majesties Person became wholly in his Power And not content with this he likewise dispatcht three Lords whose names I need not mention to carry the King a very Rude and Undutiful Message desiring him no less than to depart the next Morning from his Pallace to a private House in the Countrey altogether unfit for the reception of his Majesty and those Guards and attendance that were necessary for his security Nor would these Lords stay till the Morning but disturbing his rest delivered their Message at Twelve a Clock at Night nor did they give him any longer time than till the next Morning to prepare himself to be gone and then the King was carried away to Rochester under the conduct not of his own but of the Princes Dutch Guards in whose custody his Majesty continued for those few days he thought fit to stay there till his departure from thence in order to his passage into France by which means the Prince hath render'd the breach irreconcileable between his Majesty and himself for whereas if he had come to St. Iames's in pursuance of the Kings Invitation and had renewed the Treaty which was unhappily broke off by the Kings first going away there might have been in great probability a happy and lasting reconciliation made between them upon such terms as might have been a sufficient security for the Church of England as also for the Rights and Liberties of the Subject which you so earnestly contend for whereas by the Conventions declaring the Throne vacant and placing the Prince and Princess of Orange therein they have entail'd a lasting War not only upon us but our Posterity as long as his Majesty lives and the Prince of Wales and his Issue if he live to have any are in Being F. I confess you have made a very Tragical relation of this affair and any one that did not understand the grounds of it would believe that King Iames being quietly setled in his Throne and the Prince of Orange refusing all terms of reconciliation had seiz'd upon his Pallace and carried him away Captive into a Prison whereas indeed there was nothing transacted in all this affair which may not be justified by the strictest Rules of Honour and the Law of Nations for the doing of which it is necessary to look back and consider the state of affairs immediately after the Kings leaving Salisbury and coming to White-hall where one of the first things he did after he was arrived was to issue out a Proclamation for the calling a new Parliament which was so received with great satisfaction by the whole Nation and immediately upon this the King sent the Lords Hallifax Nottingham and Godolphin to treat with his Highness upon those Proposals of Peace which he then sent by them and to which the Prince return'd his answer the heads of which are very reasonable without demanding any other security for himself and his Army than the putting of the Tower and Forts about London into the Custody of that City now pray observe the issue of all those fair hopes before ever the terms propos'd by the Prince could be brought to Town the King following the ill advice of the
President and Fellows of Magdalen Colledge and that Prosecution that was lately order'd against all those Bishops and inferior Clergy who had refused to distribute or read the King's Declaration though I confess there was a stop put to this upon re-calling this Commission Immediately before the Princes Arrival So likewise for the other Article of levying Money contrary to Law that was also without any opinion of the Judges at all demaâded about it for the illegal collection of Chimny Money by making Cottages and Ovens pay that were exempted by the Acts concerning it and also the illegal levying of Excise by making Small-Beer pay the Duties of Strong were all of them acted and done by particular directions from the Treasury or by the private abuse of the Farmers of the Excise without any opinion of the Judges and of these Orders his Majesty could not chuse but be the Author or approver at least since 't is very well known he constantly satâ there when any great Business was to bâ transacted and the Lord Treasurer or Commissioners of the Treasury would certainly never have presum'd to have issued out their Orders in a Case of so great moment if they had not been very well satisfied that it was his Majesty's express Will and Pleasure to have iâ so And I my self have now by me a Copy of the then Lord Treasurers Directions to the Officers appointed for the levying of Chimney-money commanding them to levy it upon all Cottages and Ovens whatsoever which was done accordingly with the utmost rigour which though it was a very great oppression yet since it chiefly concern'd the poor and ordinary sort of people who had not purses to go to law with the King or else such Gentlemen and others who though they were forced to pay for their poor Tenants yet did they not think it worth their while to bring iâ before the Barons of the Exchequer where as things then went they could not expect to find much Justice I shall not insist upon the King 's taking the additional Customs contrary to the Act of Parliament by which they were granted to the late King Charles only for life and though in his last Sickness there was a Contract for the new farming of them by vertue of which I grant the King might have justified the taking of them till the end of the Farm yet since that Contract never passed the Seals during the King's life-time it was certainly against Law for the King to take them before they were re-granted by Act of Parliament I say I shall not insist upon this since the Parliament were so easy as to pass it by without declaring it to have been illegal only it sufficiently shows that from the very beginning of the King's Reign he was resolv'd to govern arbitrarily and to levy Money upon the Subject whether the Law gave him any Authority to do it or not But as to what you say concerning the Judges being wholly in fault for all the unjust and illegal Proceedings exercis'd in their Courts and that the King was wholly faultless I should be of your mind had I not seen that all those Judges who would not agree to the dispensing power and other illegal Judgments I could name were turn'd out and others either Papists or of less consciences than Papists were put in their places which were not conferr'd for any longer time than durante bene placito and therefore no wonder if such men were absolute slaves to the King's will and pleasure M. I had much more to say in defence of the King 's raising and keeping up a standing Army and his disarming Protestants in and after the Duke of Monmouth's Rebellion which are laid to his charge as endeavours to destroy the Rights and Liberties of this Kingdom But since it grows late I shall only now take notice of something which I forgot to insist upon concerning your Notion of the King 's obdicating the Crown by a wilful breach of the Laws which is quite different from the sense in which this Word is taken in Roman Authors as also in our Civil-Laws For when Cicero uses the Expression Itaque tutela me abdicare togito Brison tells us his meaning was se nolle esse tutorem But Pompenius in his Book De orig Iuris gives us the true sense of this Phrase Abdicare se Magistratu est ante tempuâ Magistratum deponere which plainly shows the Romans had no notion of a Tacit or imply'd abdication of a charge or Majestracy without a man's express consent and therefore if the Kings bare desertion of the Kingdom was not an Abdication of the Throne as you your self are forced to grant I cannot imagine how the King's violation of the Laws or endeavouring to subvert the Government both which you lay to his charge can properly be call'd an Abdication of it so that indeed the King hath not abdicated the Government but your Convention hath abdicated him And tho we often read in our Civil-law That a Father might abdicare filium yet I never read or can you show me any Example that a Son might abdicate a Father or Subjects their Prince F. You discourse upon a wrong ground for I never affirmed That Subjects had any authority to abdicate or depose their Prince nor hath the Convention assum'd any such power to themselves what they have done in this affair hath not been authoritative or as taking âpon them to call the King to an account for his actions or to depose him for his misgovernment but only declarative to pronounce and declare as the Representatives of the whole Nation that by endeavouring to extirpate the Protestant Religion and to subvert the Fundamental Laws and Liberties of the Kingdom he had wilfully I do not say willingly Abdicated the Government that is renounced to Govern this Kingdom any longer as a lawful King which I take to be a tacit or imply'd Abdication of it as I have already proved and to shew you farther that even Tully himself allows in our sense of an imply'd Abdication in his third Philippicks when he says thus concerning Mark Anthony that for his offering a Crown to Caesar Eoâdie-non modo Consulatu sed etiam libertate se abâitavit c. where you see Mark Anthony is said to have Abdioned the Consulshâp without any express Renunciation of it for Caesar might have continued him in it after he had been declar'd Emperor M. I grant your Authority to be good yet even in this sense this Abdication of the Consulship could only take its effect from Anthony's owâ Will for offering a Crown to Caesar if he did not expresly yet he effectually renounced his Consulship for had Caesar accepted in he could no longer have been the Consul of a Popular State but must thenceforth have acted by authority from Caesar or not at all but then this would not have agreed with your Noâon of a Forfeiture which always supposes a crime and a depriving the party
Wales though it is true he is carried out of England ought to have been immediately declar'd King as was done in the Case of Edward the 3 d. who was so declar'd upon the Deposition or Resignation of King Edward the 2 d. F. Though I grant ever since the Crown has been claim'd by Descent the Law has gone as you have cited it and that Finches Law lays it down for a Maxim I shall not deny but that from the beginning or original of Kingly Government whether we look before or after you Conquest it will appear that the Throne was often vacant till such time as the Common Council of the Kingdom had agreed who should fill it and to shew you I do not speak without good Authority pray tell me if this Maxim had then obtain'd why after the Death of William the First his Eldest Son Robert Duke of Normandy did not immediately take upon him the Title of King of England or at least had done it after the Death of William Rufus who you know was placed on the Throne ânot by Right of Inheritance but by his Fathers Testament confirm'd and approv'd of according to the Antient English-Saxon Custom of Succession by the common Consent of the great Council of the whole Kingdom and yet notwithstanding after the Death of this William Henry his younger Brother succeeded him by the free Election and Consent of the same Common Council and yet that Duke Robert should never in all his Life-time take upon him the Title of King Pray tell me likewise if this Maxim had been then known why Maud the Empress immediately upon the Death of her Father King Henry the First did not take nor yet her Husband the Duke of Anjou in her Right the Title of King and Queen of England though she had had Homage paid her and Fealty sworn to her in the Life-time of her Father as the immediate Successor to the Crown and yet notwithstanding the utmost Title she could assume was that of Domina Anglorum Lady or Mistress not Queen of the English whilst Stephen who had no other Title but the Election of the great Council of the Nation held both the Crown and Title of King as long as he lived As also why Arthur Duke of Britain who according to the now received Rules of Succession was the next Heir to the Crown upon the Death of King Richard the First never took upon him the Title of King unless it were that he very well knew that his Uncle King Iohn had been placed in the Throne by the Common Consent and Election of the great Council of the Kingdom So likewise after the Death of King Iohn why Henry his Son was not immediately proclaim'd King till such time as the great Council of the Clergy Nobility and People had met and agreed to send back Prince Lewis whom they had chosen for their King though not being Crowned he never took upon himself that Title and so chose Henry the Third then an Infant for their King Lastly Why all these Princes viz. Henry the Second Richard the First and Henry the Third who according to your notions were undoubted Heirs of the Crown never took upon them the Title of Kings of England nor are so stiled by any of our Historians till after their Elections and Coronations if it had not been then received for Law that it was the Election of the People and Coronation subsequent thereunto that made them Kings and till this was performed though they might look upon themselves as never so lawful Successors the Throne was notwithstanding esteem'd in Law vacant Therefore as for your Iâstance of King Edward the Third 's immediately succeeding upon the Resignation of his Father if you please better to consider of it that makes against you for it is plain from Th. Walsingham and H. de Knyghton that Prince Edward succeeded not to the Crown by Succession but the Election of the great Council or Parliament the words are express Huic Electioni universus Populus consensit and this was also owned by Edward the Second himself who when the Commissioners of all the Estates of Parliament came in all their Names to renounce their Homage to him yet in the midst of all his sorrow he gave them thanks quod Filium suum Edwardum post se Regnaturum eligissent which plainly shews that the Parliament had then such a Notion of a Forfeiture proceeding from his Deposition for violating the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom that the Eldest Son and Successor could pretend no other Right to it even in the Judgment of the late King himself but what proceeded from their Election M. I cannot deny but what you have now urged from matter of fact may appear very plausible to your self and those of your Notions yet if it be looked closer into I doubt not but the known Laws then receiv'd and the Notions the people had then of a Lineal Succession by Right Inheriâance will prove directly contrary to the matter of fact For you know very well à facto ad Ius non valte consequentia but that all the Princes you mention'd except the three last were really Usurpers and not Lawful Kings I shall let you see by evident Authorities from the Historians of those Times For in the first place though I grant William Rufus succeeded to the Crown by his Fathers last Will which was certainly unlawful as being contrary to the receiv'd Laws of Succession in Normandy as well as England yet was it not by Election of the people as you suppose but by the kindness of Arch-Bishop Lanfranc his God-father and the favour of the greater part of the Norman Barons who came over with his Father as well as out of hatred to Duke Robert his Elder Brother that he was thus made King so that William Rufus claimed as a Testamentary Heir and by reason of that Claim was advanced to the Throne by the Assistance of Lanfranc's and the Bishop's Faction who then swayed the people but yet never owned any Election from them so that if you rightly consider this Story you cannot call it an Election but a Designation or Nomination by his Father William the Conqueror and consented to by the major part of the Bishops and Lords of the Kingdom but not by their Election or Decree as a Common Council as you suppose But that for all this Duke Robert his Brother being assisted by Odo Bishop of Bayenx and Earl of Kent his Uncle as also divers other Norman Lords who being satisfied of his Right raised a War in England against William and great mischief was done on both sides till at last a Peace was made between them upon these conditions among others as Matthew Westminster relates it that because of the manifest Right Duke Robert had to the Crown he should have a Yearly Pension of three thousand Marks out of the Revenue of England and he of the two Brothers that surviv'd the other if he died
grant that Hoveden as you cite him relates that Homage to be made and Fealty sworn to Richard the I. by the Title of King yet is it very much to be doubted whether this was not only by a Prolepsis or perhaps a slip of the Pen in this Author since he writ this History long aâter King Richard's Death and therefore without we had the very words of this Oath there is no certain conclusion to be drawn from thence and I think we may as well credit the Chronicle of Abbot Brompton who likewise lived about the same time and recites all this affair almost in the same words with those in Hoveden but there the Oath does not run exactly in the same words as in this Author but thus quod unusquesque liberorum hominum totius regni Iuraret quod sidem portaret Domino Richardo Domino Angliae filio Domini Regis Henrici c. ficut legio Domino suo contra omnes mortales where you see the Oath is not made to King Richard as King but only as Lord of England and that there is a great deal of difference between those two Titles not only in name but in Substance I have already prov'd when I spoke of the Empress Maud's stiling her self Domina and not Regina Anglorum tho' she had Homage rendred and Fealty sworn to her not only in her Fathers Life time but also after her coming over again into England in the Reign of King Stephen by all that own'd her Title and that Hoveden himself meant no more than this appears by that passage I have already taken notice of viz. that Hubert Arch-bishop of Canterbury and William the Earl Marshal being sent over to keep the Peace made all the men of the Kingdom as well of Cities as Burroughs with the Earls Barons and Free-holders Iurare fidelitatem pacem Iohanni Normanorum duci filio Henrici regis filii Matildis Imperatricis contra omnes homines where you see the Oath is taken to him only as Duke of Normandy and not as King at all and therefore you are mistaken to say that Hoveden mentions the like Oath to be taken to Duke Iohn as it was before to King Richard But I come now to answer your last argument whereby you would prove that there was no Vacancy or inter-regnum in this Age which is because that our Chronicles and Tables of Successions do still begin the Reigns of each King from the day of the Decease of his Predecessors without any Vacancy or Inter-regnum between them to which I reply That none of our antient Chronicles or Historians reckon thus as I know of but rather acknowledge a Vacancy of the Throne to have been between each Succession and as for the Tables of the Succession of our Kings when you can shew me one more antient than the time from which I grant the Crown of England began to be looked upon as a Successive and not an Elective Kingdom I shall be of your opinion but admit it were so since the Succession to the Crown has been for the most part mixt partly Elective and partly Hereditary our Kings might to maintain the honour of their Title still reckon their coming to the Crown immediately from the death of the last Predecessor tho' there has been oftentimes some days and weeks between the one and the other as I have now proved and shall prove farther by and by which being but small fractions of time are not taken notice of in the whole account which may be notwithstanding very agreeable to Law for both my Lords Dyer and Anderson in their Reports do agree That the King who is Heir or Successor may Write and begin his Reign the same day that his Progenitor or Predecessor dies M. It will be to no purpose to dispute this point with you any longer since I must confess that there were so many Usurpations in the Succession of most of those first Kings after the Conquest that it is a difficult matter to prove any setled rule of Succession to have been then observed in England and therefore I only desire you to take notice that though it is true King Henry the 3 d was an Usurper for the first Twenty five years of his Reign yet for all the rest of it which was near Thirty more he was a true and lawful Prince for Elianor his Cousin being dead in Prison without issue and there being no more of that Line left her Right wholly devolved upon King Henry and he and his Children are to be from henceforth reckon'd to have a true Hereditary Right to the Crown without any Competitors And that this was so will plainly appear from the Testament of King Henry the 3 d. a Copy of which I have by me where tho' he Bequeaths a great many of his Jewels to the Queen and a great deal of Money to charitable uses yet for this Kingdom and other Territories in France and Ireland he makes no Bequest of them at all either to Prince Edward his Eldest or to Edmund his youngest Son tho' his Father King Iohn had bequeathed the Kingdom to him by his Will as you have already shewed and what could be the reason of this But that there being now no Title left to contest with his Son there was no need of it and therefore tho' Prince Edward was absent in the Holy Land when his Father Died yet a great Council being call'd in his Name at London he was there only recognized and acknowledged to be their natural Leige Lord and Lawful Successor to his Fathers Throne pray read the words as they are in Walsingham's Life of this King Edwardum absentem Dominum suum Leigium recognoverunt paternique successorem honoris ordinaverunt we meet not here with any thing like Election which no doubt we should not fail to do if there had been any such thing practised So likewise upon this King's death his Son King Edward the 2 d. by the like Right succeeded as Heir to his Father and tho' this Prince by suffering himself to be too much guided by his Minions fell at length into such Arbitrary and Irregular courses as procured him the hatred and ill will of his Subjects to that Degree that by the Disloyal and Ambitious practices of his Lascivious Queen he being made Prisoner a Parliament was call'd in his name who took upon them to Depose him for his misgovernment contrary to all Law and Right and though his Son Prince Edward had hitherto join'd with his Mother against his Father yet is he herein so far to be commended that tho' the Crown was offered him by Election of the Great Council yet the same Author tells us he swore that without his Father's consent he would never accept it whereupon divers Messengers or Delegates being dispatched from the Parliament to the King then Prisoner at Kenel-worth Castle who told him what had been done and concluded of at London required him to resign his Crown and
in Prison and the first Act this King did after his Restoration was to call a Parliament which revoked all the former Statutes and Declarations of the 39 th of Henry the 6 th and 1 st of Edward the 4 th and then entail'd the Crown anew upon the issue of King Henry the remainder to the Duke of Clarence who then took part with King Henry against his own Brother 'T is true indeed that King Edward the 4 th returning again not long after into England and regaining the Crown from King Henry the 6 th the said King was not only murther'd together with his Son Prince Henry but in the next Parliament was also attainted of Treason with all others of his Party and yet lot let you see that this very Act is now null and void against King Henry the 6 th and his Son Prince Edward see an Act of Parliament of the first of Henry the 7 th not Printed which because it is not commonly known I will read it almost verbatim The King our Sovereign remembring how against all rightwiseness honour nature and duty an inordinate seditious and slaunderous Act was made against the most famous Prince of blessed memory King Henry the sixth his Uncle at the Parliament holden at Westminstey the fourth day of November the first year of the Reign of Edward the 4 th Late King of England whereby his said Uncle contrary to the due Allegiance and all due order was attainted of High Treason wherefore our same Sovereign Lord by the Advice and Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present Parliament assembled and by Authorities of the same ordaineth enacteth and establisheth that the same Act and all Acts of Attainder Forfailure or Disablement made or had in the said Parliament or else in any other Parliament of the said Late King Edward against the said most blessed Prince King Henry or against the right famous Princess Margaret Late Queen of England his Wife or the right Victorious Prince Edward Late Prince of Wales Son of the same blessed Prince K. Henry and Margaret c. are void annulled and repealed and of no force nor effect so that by vertue of this Act the Title of the House of Lancaster was again declared to be good But to conclude I cannot but take notice of one mistake you have fallen into by saying that all proceedings against King Richard the 2 d. are repeal'd by that Parliament of the first of Edward the 4 th which is not so for though I grant that the dealings of Henry Earl of Darby as he is there call'd in imprisoning the said King and Usurping the Royal Power is there expresly condemned and his Murthering of him said to be against Gods Law and his own Oath of Allegiance as certainly it was yet the Deposition of the said King Richard by Parliament is no ways repeal'd by this Act for then all the Records thereof would have been quite Cancell'd and taken off the Rolls whereas they still remain to be seen at this day and you see by this Act I now recited That the attainder of King Henry the 6 th is declar'd contrary to due Allegiance and all due order and all forfeitures and disablements of the said King and Prince are quite annull'd and made void M. I must confess you have so stagger'd me with this Act that I know not what to say to it but that it was made in the first Parliament of King Henry the 7 th and before he had married the Princess Elizabeth and consequently had no good Title to the Crown himself therefore till then I look upon him as an Usurper but I shall now proceed to shâw you that that very King nay even Richard the 3 d. himself chiefly relied not upon any Parliamentary Election but upon their own pretended Titles of being right Heirs by Blood for after the death of Edward the 4 th his Son Edward the 5 th was proclaim'd King and might have quietly enjoy'd it if his ambitious Uncle Richard Duke of Gloucester had not plotted to defeat him of it and knowing very well that he had no way to bring it about but by inciting a corrupt party of the Bishops and Lords together with the Lord Mayor of London and some of his Party in the City to set forth by way of Petition to the Duke then Protector of the King and Realm That all the Children of K. Edward the 4 th were Bastards supposing that King to have been Contracted with a certain Woman called Eleanor Boteler before he Married Queen Elizabeth moreover that the Blood of his Elder Brother George Duke of Clarence deceased was attainted so that none of the Lineal Blood of Richard Duke of York could be found uncorrupted but in himself and there was at the conclusion of that Roll an Address to him from the Lords and Commons of the Kingdom that he would take the Government upon himself this fine artifice assisted on one side with his feigned excuses which induced the less thinking sort of People to believe he desir'd not the Royalty and prompted on the other side with the fear of his power procured his accession to the Throne so that at last he and his Wife Anne were solemnly Crowned King and Queen at Westminster and by these steps did that inhumane Prince who had no Title to the Crown either by descent or by merit ascend the English Throne see you that not by Election but by pretence of blood and by bastardising and attainting his Nephews he set himself up for the only true Heir of the Crown and therefore in the Parliament he call'd immediately after his Coronation when they had declar'd almost the very same things as were before in the said Petition they proceed further To declare that the Right Title and Estate which King Richard the III d had to and in the Crown and Royal Dignity of the Realm of England with all things thereunto within the said Realm and without it annexed and appertaining was just and lawfull as grounded upon the Laws of God and Nature and also upon the antient Laws and laudable Customs of this said Realm as also taken and reputed by all such Persons as were learned in the above-said Laws and Customs and proceeds farther thus therefore at the request and by the assent of the three Estates of this Realm that is to say the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons of this Land Assembled in this present Parliament and by the Authority of the same it is pronounced decreed and declared that our said Soveraign Lord the King was and is the very undoubted King of this Realm of England with all things thereunto belonging within the said Realm and without it united annexed and appertaining as well by right of Consanguinity and Inheritance as by lawfull Election Consecration and Coronation So that you see tho' they put in his Election as also his Coronation as means of obtaining the
room of his supposed Father whom we will also suppose Civilly though not Naturally dead and till this be done unless you would have had him been declar'd King without ever examining the truth of the matter the Throne must have continued vacant till it could be decided whether he or his half Sister the Princess of Orange were to fill it and if so whilst the Convention remain'd in this suspence they could do no other than Vote the Throne vacant till they were sufficiently satisfied who had the best Right to it But to answer your argument that unless something could have been presently alledg'd against this Infant to have proved him not to have been born of the Body of the Queen he ought to have been declar'd King the Maxime you mention may be well allow'd in the case of Common Inheritances but not in that of Crowns for in those we have read that Common and violent presumptions have been looked upon as sufficient proofs to set aside a suppos'd Heir of the Crown as for example something above two hundred years since Henry King of Castile call'd the Impotent because he was not able to get his Queen or any other Woman with Child did out of hatred to his Sister Isabella permit a favorite of his to lye with his Queen and get her with Child she was brought to Bed of a Daughter but the Estates of the Kingdom would by no means admit her for Legitimate because the Queen had before declar'd her Husband to be Impotent and therefore they did not only protest against her Legitimacy in the Kings life time in an Assembly of the Estates but also as soon as he died they set this pretended Princess quite aside and declared the Sister of the Late King Queen of Castile who was Married to Ferdinand King of Arragon Now tho' I will not say that either the suspitions or proofs against the present Prince of Wales are as pregnant as those against that Princess yet certainly they were sufficient to debat him from being placed in the Throne till such time as it shall be made apparent that he is really Son to the Queen M. If the Convention had gone this way to work I grant there might have been some colour for what they have done but then they ought before they had placed any body else in the Throne to have first examin'd the Truth of the Queens being with Child and her being truly deliver'd of this Prince before ever they had declar'd the Prince and Princess of Orange King and Queen and till this had been done certainly the Throne should have still continued Vacant therefore I doubt your Convention have made more haste than good speed in this matter which certainly requir'd much more deliberation F. Come I will for once admit that they ought in the first place to have examin'd your Princes Title but this is still to be understood as far as it was possible for them to do it as it ought now pray tell me how this could be done when the Infant was not only carried away into a Foreign Kingdom but also the Midwife the Nurse and several other of the Queens near Servants and Attendants went away along with him who if they had been here to have been cross examin'd might have declar'd the Imposture if it be one M. But pray Sir are there not Protestant Ladies enough left behind who have already Depos'd before the Council as appears by their Depositions published by the Kings express command and enrolled in Chancery in perpituam Rei memoriam not only that her Majesty was with Child but that also she was really deliver'd of this Prince so that the Prince of Orange and the Convention ought to have in the first place summon'd those Witnesses you mention to be now in France to have appear'd before them and if they had not come then to have proceeded as the matter had required F. You must then grant that the Protestant Witnesses alone who are now in England were not sufficient for if they should have Depos'd that this Child had been an Impostor I suppose you would not have rested satisfied that they had spoke nothing but the Truth since the Witnesses now in France who best know the matter of Fact might have sworn the contrary but as for sending any Summons for them into France it was altogether in vain and also that which the Convention were not at all oblig'd to do it was in vain because neither King Iames nor his Q. did ever own the Power of the Convention to hear or determine this affair and therefore would not have let the Witnesses come over for after the Throne was declar'd Vacant the King must by sending those Witnesses have racitly own'd the Authority of the Convention in declaring himself to have Abdicated the Throne as also that they might place his Son therein so that any such Summons would certainly have been only rejected with scorn and we should gain nothing but the loss of so much time and hindred our present settlement and defence a whole Summer Nor was the Convention oblig'd to do it since the Parliament it self is not bound to take cognizance of any person or thing that is not within the Kingdom of England or the Territories belonging to it and therefore it was not their business to enquire without it had been brought before them what was become of this Infant whether he was legitimate or not or whether he was alive or else had been cast away at Sea or taken by Pyrates any of which might very well have been and therefore indeed this business could never have been decided unless the Infant himself were actually present and sufficient proof made not only that this was the same Child that was born of the Queen but which was also carried away into France all which could never have been examin'd as it ought without the Child 's personal presence here which I suppose you will grant that King Iames and his Queen would never admit of as things now stand therefore since a thorough examination into this business was impossible to have been perform'd The Convention have done no more than what can be justified in first declaring the Throne Vacant and then who should fill it M. Well but admit the case were so as you have put it the Kingdom ought however to have remain'd without a King till the succession had been duly setled since according to the act of recognition to King Iames I. The Nation did not only oblige themselves but their Posterity that is we that are now alive to that King and his Right Heirs and therefore till this Princes Right had been determined either the Convention should have Govern'd or else they ought to have made the Prince of Orange only Governour or Regent of the Kingdom and not to have placed him and his Princess in the Throne till the young Prince had died or else had been proved to be an Impostor F. I doubt not
if you say such a way of Election is now impossible I shall do so too but however it plainly shews the absurdity of supposing a King could ever now be fairly Elected were all the Blood-Royal totally extinct As for what you say concerning that Cession which the Princess of Denmark made of her Right to the Crown I never heard any thing of it before but admit it were so this could only serve in relation to her self and she could not give up the Right of her Brother the Prince of Wales no nor that of her own Children if God shall give her any F. This Objection concerning the total Dissolution of the Government proceeds from a wanâ of your consideration of what the antient Government of England was not only before but a good while after your pretended Conquest which was not a setled Hereditary Monarchy but a Testamentary or Elective Kingdom where the Kings being often recommended by the Testament of the precedent King were chosen out of the Royal Family though not according to the Ruler of Succession now in use and therefore in all such Governments it is very well known that there was at the first institution of Kingly Government among them a great Council or Assembly of Estates of the whole Kingdom appointed who upon the death of the last King and vacancy of the Throne were still to meet of course to appoint a Successor which was commonly one of the Sons of the last King or at least some other Prince of the Royal Blood Thus it was till of late years in Denmark and Sweâden and so it was antiently in France during the Succession of the first Race as also in Spain during the Government of the Vandals and so it likewise was in England during the whole Succession of our English Saxon Kings and so I have also proved it continued till Edward the First And though since his time that the Crown hath been claim'd by right of Inheritance yet in all times precedent it is apparent that the great Council of the Kingdom upon the deaâh of every King Assembled by their own inherent Authority to consider whom they should place in the Throne which they then looked upon as vacant And therefore though I grant in the case of Edward the First the Parliament did not only ordain him Successor to his Father but also recogniz'd his âight by Blood yet for all this they still remain'd their anâient Power of meeting without Summons from the King he being in the Holy Land and they not knowing whether he was alive or dead so that it is a false assertion to affirm that there can be no Government without a King since in all those vacancies of the Throne it is plain the Government devolved of course upon the geat Council of the Nation And though it is true there can be now no Parliament without a King according to the present notion and acceptation of that Term yet before that word was ever in use which is no older than about the middle of the Reign of Henry the Third it is plain that our great Councils often met by their own inherent Authority without any King and preserved the Peâce of the Kingdom till a new King was either chosen or declared And though 't is true the Crown hath been long enjoy'd by those who have claim'd by Inheritance yet there is no reason for all that if the like cases should fall out as have done in former times why the Government should devolve to the mix'd Multitude now any more than it did then since it may be as well suppos'd that the same tacit Contract still continues of maintaining the Original constitution of great Councils which I have proved to be as Antient as Kingly Government it self And though perhaps the Form of chusing or sending thâse Representatives of the Nation may have been alter'd in divers particulars by for âer Laws or received Customs yet this is nothing to the purpose as long as the thing it self remains the same in Substance as it was before for it can never be thought to have been the intent of the People who Established this form of Government that upon the extinction of the Royal Family the Government should be so quite dissolved as that it should be left to the confused Multitude to chuse what form of Government they should think fit Therefore to conclude I wish you would be perswaded to own this Government as it is now Established and to take ãâã Oath of Allegiance which is enjoyn'd by the Declaration of the Convention who are the only proper and legal Judges we can now have of conferring the Rights of those to whom our Allegiance is due And if in case a Dispute about the right Heir of the Crown the People of this Nation were not all bound to the decision of this Assembly we must necessarily fall together by the ears and fight it out as they do in the East-Indies where upon the death or deposition of a King he has still the Right who can Conquer his Competitors in Battel M. Well I wish there were not something very like it practised here of late for I think you will grant that if the Prince of Orange's Party had not prevail'd over the King 's the Convention would never have placed the Crown upon his head But I must beg your pardon if I cannot agree to your Proposals of taking the New Oath of Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary since I have already taken the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance to King Iames and I do not believe that any Power on earth can disengage me from that Oath as long as he and his Son the Prince of Wales are alive For as to your Doctrine of Abdication or Forfeiture they are too hard for my Reason to understand or for my Conscience to comply with and therefore it is all one to me whom your Convention places on the Throne since I am very well satisfied that none but the King can have a Right to it F. I wish I could see some better reasons for this opinion of yours than those you have already given for if you could convince that me the Nation hath done any thing in this Revolution which cannot well be justified by the Antient Customs and Constitution of the Kingdom I should come over to your opinion But if King Iames has truly Abdicated or Forfeited the Crown as I hope I have sufficiently made out and that your suppos'd Prince of Wales either is not really or else cannot now be proved to be the true Son of the Queen by reason of those Obstacles and Impediments I have shewn you I cannot see any thing to the contrary why you should not be wholly free and discharged from your former Oath of Allegiance to King Iames so that King William and Queen Mary being now placed on the Throne your Allegiance to King Iames and the suppos'd Prince of Wales is lawfully determined pray tell me therefore
of Succession yet even that will not hold in respect of the present settlement thereof by the Convention upon the Prince and Princess of Orange for their two Lives since you cannot but know that no Parliament yet was ever so presumptuous as to take upon them to settle or limit the Succession of the Crown without the consent of the King or Queen then in being Whereas the present Settlement was first made by the Convention upon the making of the Prince and Princess King and Queen tho' I grant it was afterwards confirmed by another pretended Act whereby all Princes that are or shall be Roman Catholicks when the Crown shall descend unto them are debarred from their right of Succession This though I grant to be made after the Prince and Princess of Orange took upon them the Title of King and Queen yet since that Statute was not made in a Parliament call'd by the King's Writs but in a Convention who owe their Meeting wholly to the Prince of Orange's Letters it is not only void in respect of the subject matter but also in the manner of making it and therefore I cannot believe that the Throne was ever vacant And I have as little reason to be satisfied that the Prince and Princess could be lawfully placed therein or that all Roman Catholick Princes can ever be barred from their right of Succession when ever it may fall to them F. If this be all you have farther to object I think I can easily answer it for in the first place I have already told you that the Convention did not take upon them to create or make any new form of Succession to the Crown but only to declare that the Prince and Princess of Orange are Rightful and Lawful King and Queen of England for upon supposition of King Iames's Abdication of the Crown and that the Prince of Wales cannot be taken for the lawful Son of the King 'till he can be brought over and that his Legitimacy be duly proved it must 'till then certainly be their right and no others and as for King William's holding the Crown during his own Life I have already told you it was not done without the tacit consent of the Princess of Denmark her self though I doubt not but it may also very well be justified upon those suppositions of the forfeiture of the Crown by King Iames and the Conquest the Prince of Orange made over him which are sufficient in themselves to barr any legal claim of those that either are or may pretend to be right Heirs But as for the other part of your Objection whereby you would prove that Popish Princes cannot be excluded from the Succession because the Act was made not in a Parliament but a Convention this wholly proceeds from your want of Consideration that at the first institution of the Government and long after whilst the Kingdom continued Elective there was no difference between a Great Council or Convention and a Parliament for pray call to mind the four first Great Councils after your Conquest reckoning that for one wherein King William I. was Elected or declared King whether it was possible for those Councils to be summon'd in the Kings Name before any body had taken upon themselves the Title of King the like I may say in the case of King Iohn and Henry the III d and that this continued after the Succession was setled in the next Heir by Blood appears by that Great Council that was summon'd after the death of Henry the Third which Recognized or Ordain'd his Son Prince Edward to be his Successor So likewise the Parliament that deposed King Edward the Second sate both before and after his deposition and resignation and elected his Son Edward the Third to be King and appointed his Reign to begin from the time of their Election and not of his Fathers resignation of the Crown so also upon the deposition of King Richard the Second the same Parliament that deposed him placed Henry the Fourth in the Throne and though the Writs of Summons were in the name of King Richard and they were never re-summon'd or new Elected in the Reign of Henry the Fourth yet did they still continue to sit and made divers new Acts and repealed several old ones all which hold good to this day And that the Parliament are the only proper Judges of the right of Succession even without the King you your self must grant or else how could they declare in the Thirty Ninth of Henry the VI th that the claim which Richard Duke of York made to the Crown could no way be defeated and certainly if that unfortunate Prince King Henry the Sixth had had sufficient Power or Interest in that Parliament they might and would have adjudged the Duke of York's Claim to have been groundless and contrary to Law and then I believe it would scarce have ever been heard of again But to make it out beyond exception that a Convention may become a Lawful Parliament though never call'd by the King's Writs when the King's Authority and Presence come once to be added to and joined with it appears by the first Parliament of King Charles the Second which though Summon'd in the Name of the Keepers of the Liberties of England yet nevertheless continued to Sit and make several Acts which hold good to this day and I doubt not but they might have made the like limitations of the Crown in respect of Roman-Catholick Princes as the Convention have now done and that it would have held good at this day since it is so much for the security of our Religion Liberties and Properties that it should be so since we have found by a dear bought experience in the Reigns of the four last Kings of the Scotch Line that still as they began to favour the Popish Religion and Interest in this Kingdom so did the Protestant and true English Interest in respect of our Religion Liberties and Properties still decline 'till at last they were like to be totally ruin'd and extirpated for that restless and dangerous Faction very well know that there is no means possible for them to re-establish their Superstition among us by due and legal Methods but only by introducing Arbitrary Power taking away Parliaments or else making them wholly to depend upon the King's Will as we see was labour'd and almost effected in the Reigns of the two last Kings and therefore I cannot but believe that the present Parliament has not only acted wisely but also legally to enact that for the future no Prince who is actually a Roman Catholick shall succeed to the Crown though he be next heir by blood M. I must still tell you I am as little satisfied with your suppositions of the forfeiture of the Crown by King Iames and the Conquest to the Prince of Orange as I am with your instances out of History concerning the power of the Great Councils meeting and chusing a King by their own inherent
from the constant practice of those times that the King de facto was always own'd as Lawful Sovereign and had Allegiance still paid him by all the People of this Kingdom except those who being the heads of one or the other Party were either attainted or else forced to âlye the Kingdom But as for all others though different and contrary Oaths of Allegiance were impos'd upon the People sometimes by the one and sometimes by the other of those Kings according as they got possession of the Throne yet I can no where find that ever any body suffer'd for barely swearing Allegiance to the King then in Being for it was always taken for Law that Allegiance was due to the King de facto since ordinary Subjects are not suppos'd to understand the legal right or justice of the Kings Title M. I must still say that there was some colour for the Peoples thus acting as you say they did during the contest for the Crown between the two Families of Yorke and Lancaster when I grant it was somewhat a difficult matter to judge which of the two had the best right to the Crown by reason that the House of Lancaster had held it for three descents as also from the speciousness of their Title since it was founded upon a pretended claim by right of blood upon supposing that Edmund Sirnamed Cronch-back who was one of the Ancestors of this House of Lancaster was the Eldest Son to Henry the Third which had it been true would have given Henry the Fourth a good right to the Crown not only against Richard the Second but his own Grandfather Edward the Third likewise had he been then alive and this descent falling out long before the memory of any man then living who could confute the falsity of this pretended Pedigree The People of England might very well be excus'd for owning an Usurper and paying Allegiance to him since they did not know but his claim might have been right especially since it was approv'd of in full Parliament without any contradiction as I have already shewn you at our last Meeting But what is all this to the matter now in debate between us when the Lineal Succession of the Crown has been so often declared to be the only means of acquiring a just Title to it and every one knows very well who was own'd for lawful King of England within these three Months and also who was pray'd for in all our Churches as his Son and Heir apparent and therefore I must still tell you that your parallel between those Kings de facto of the House of Lancaster and those Princes whom the Convention have now voted to fill the Throne does not at all agree since every Subject of this Kingdom who has but sence enough to go to Market can very well tell if they will deal sincerely to whom their Allegiance is due F. As to what you have now said it is no more than a repetition of what you have already urged to evade the force of these clear Authorities but indeed it was all one when a Prince had been once recognized for Lawful King by Act of Parliament whether the People knew his Title not to be good by right of blood or not And this I have plainly proved to you from the instance of Richard the Third who though both his Elder Brothers Children were then alive and the Eldest of them had been Proclaim'd King and also own'd for such by himself and whose Title he had also sworn to maintain in his Brother King Edwards life time as appears by the Clause Roll of the 11th of Edward the Fourth yet when he had once depos'd him and had call'd a Parliament which recognized his Title his Acts and Judicial Proceedings stand good at this day and though he himself was attained and declar'd a Tyrant and an Usurper yet all the Subjects who acted under his Authority and had taken an Oath of Allegiance to him never needed an Act of Indemnity for so doing whereas those that came over with Henry the VIIth were sain to have an Act of Pardon past to Indemnifie them for fighting against Richard the Third as I have now show'd you And though this Parliament of the first of Henry the Seventh agreed to repeal divers Acts which the King found fault with yet as for all other Statutes made in the Reign of King Richard the Third which have not been since repealed they are still in force without any confirmation likewise when Henry the Seventh had prevail'd over Richard the Third and that he was slain in the Field though all the Nation very well knew that Henry the Seventh could not be Heir of the House of Lancaster because his Mother was then alive and had never formally given up her right if she had any as certainly she could have none as being descended from Iohn Earl of Somerset who was base Son to Iohn of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster by Catherine Swinford whilst his Wife was alive and though I grant after his Marriage with the said Catherine the Children born of that Bed were made legitimate by Act of Parliament in the 20th of Richard the Second yet that legitimation only respects such private Priviledges and Inheritances which they might enjoy or succeed to as Subjects and not in respect of the Crown the Succession of which they were expresly declared uncapable of by that very Act of Legitimation still to be seen upon the Parliament Roll. But for all this when Henry the Seventh had called a Parliament and was therein recogniz'd for their Lawful Sovereign and that the Crown was setled by Statute on the King and Heirs of his Body without any mention of the Princess Elizabeth who ought to have been Queen by right of blood yet none of the Subjects of this Kingdom as I can find ever scrupled to swear Allegiance to him before ever he married that Princess though they as well knew that he could have no right by blood as you can suppose that the People at this day can know whether King Iames has abdicated or forfeited the Crown or not or whether your Prince of Wales be his true and lawful Son for since they are both nice and difficult Points and having been determined by the Convention the Supream Judges in this Case in favour of their present Majesties and that they also recognized their Title after they became a Parliament I can see no manner of reason why all the Subjects of this Kingdom may not as well justifie their taking this new Oath of Allegiance to them notwithstanding their former Oath of Allegiance to King Iames and his Right Heirs as well as the People of England could justifie their taking an Oath of Allegiance to Henry the Seventh notwithstanding their former Oath to Edward the Fourth and his Right Heirs before ever Henry the Seventh had Married the Princess Elizabeth the Heiress of the Crown especially since this Act of the 11th of Henry the
Cowardice of his Souldiers F. Methinks Sir there is no such great cause of wonder much less of concern in all this For who can much admire that a Prince should be thus used who had not only provok'd a Powerful Enemy to invade him from Abroad but by industriously labouring to introduce Popery and Arbitrary Government at Home had lost the Hearts of almost all except his Popish Subjects insomuch that many of his own Souldiers were so terrified with the Thoughts of being discarded like the Protestant Army in Ireland to make room for Irish and French Papists that they had very little Courage to Fight when they saw Casheering was the best Reward they could expect if they proved Victorious And who can much pity a Prince who would rather loose the Affections of his People than displease a few Priests and Jesuites So that if he suffers he may thank himself it not being Religion but Superstition which brought this Misfortune upon him Since the King having got a Prince of Wales and as it is highly suspected joined himself in a strict League with France for the Extirpation of Hereticks it laid an absolute necessity upon the Prince of Orange to come over that by the Assistance of the States of Holland he might not only relieve us but vindicate his own and her Royal Highness his Princessâs Right to the Succession and secure his Countrey from a dangerous and powerful invasion which it was threatned with both by Sea and Land whenever the Kings of France and England should be at leisure to joyn their Forces to make War upon them which you know all Europe hath expected for above these two Years last past M. These things were somewhat if they could be proved but indeed to deal freely with you I look upon this League and the Story of the Suppositious Birth of the Prince of Wales as meer Calumnies cast out of Wicked and Crafty Men to render the King more odious to his People F. Nay Sir you don't hear me positively affirm either the one or the other since I grant they are not yet made out but whatsoever will consider all the Circumstances of the Birth of this Child cannot but be strongly inclined to believe it an Imposture notwithstanding all the Depositions that are taken to the contrary And as for the French League you may be sure if there be any such thing it is kept very private and yet I must tell you there are very high and violent Presumptions to believe it true or else why should the King of France in a late Memorial to the Pope complain that his Holiness by Opposing his Interest in Europe had hindered him in those great Designs he had for the Extirpation of Heresie by which he must surely intend England or Holland Protestantism being sufficiently expelled out of his own Countrey already And he could not do it in either of the other without the Consent and Assistance of his Brother the King of England Or to what purpose should the King of England joyn with France to ruin Holland and his own Son in Law into the Bargain but to make a War meerly for Religion since neither the Dutch nor the Prince their Stadt-holder gave him till now any just Provocation M. Well however these are but bare suspitions and presumptions at most and not proofs and therefore in a doubtful matter as this is if we ought to judge favourably of the Actions of others much more of Princes whose Councils and Actions tho' private yet are still exposed to the Censure and Calumnies of their Enemies and therefore I hope you will not blame me if I freely confess that I am deeply concerned to see an innocent and Misled King forced to seek his Bread in a Forreign Land and the more since many of the Nobility Gentry and Common People have contributed so much to it by taking up Arms against him and that so great a part of his own Army and Officers should contrary to their Allegiance and Trust reposed in them run over to the Enemy Nay that some of our Bishops and Clergy-men should contrary to the so often acknowledged Doctrines of Passiveâ Obedience and Non-Resistance not only Countenance but be likewise active in such desperate undertakings and this in-direct opposition to the known Laws of God and this Kingdom which must needs make our Church a Scorn to our Enemies the Papists and a Shame and Reproach to all Protestant Churches abroad and render the people of England odious to all the Crowned Heads in Europe F. Well Sir I see you are very warm and I hope more than the cause deserves You may Judge as favourably of the King's Proceedings and as hardly of the Actions of the Nobility Gentry Clergy and People in this matter as you please But yet I think I can make it as clear as the Day that they have done nothing by joining in Arms with he Prince of Orange but what is justifiable by the Principles of Self preservation the Fundamental Constitutions of the Government and a just Zoal for their Religion and Civil Liberties as they stand secured by our Laws unless you would give the King a Power of making up Papists and Slaves whenever he pleased But as for your Doctrine of an Absolute Obedience without Reserve and the Divine Right of Monarchy and Succession you need not be much concerned whether the Papists laugh at you or no since there are very few of them if any who are such Fools themselves as to believe such futilous Opinions But indeed they have more reason to laugh at you whilst you maintain than when you quit them since as they have only rendered you a fit Object of their Scorn so they would have made you but a more casââ Sacrifice to their Malice For what can Thieves desire more than that those they design to Rob should think it unlawful to resist them And what could the Papists have wisht for more than that our Hands being fotterred by this Doctrine of an indefinite Passive-Obedience our Lives Religion and Liberties should lye at their Mercy Which how long we should have enjoyed whenever they thought themselves âârong enough to take them away the late cruel Persecutions and Extirpations of the Protestants in France Savey Hungary and other places have proved but too fatal Examples and therefore no wonder let your high-flown Church-men write or preach what they please if the Body of the Nobility Gentry and People of England could never be perswaded to swallow Doctrines so fatal to their Religion and destructive to their Civil Rights and Liberties both as Mon and Christians And as for the Antiquity of these Doctrines I think they are so far from being the Antient Tenets of the Church of England that they are neither to be found in its Chatechism Thirty Nine Articles or Book of Homilies taken in their true Sense and Meaning thô indeed there is something that may tend that way in some of the late Church-Canons about
so many Years until he finds that instead of a Son he proves an Enemy to his Family or hath so laid wait against his Life that as long as he lives he cannot be safe or else commits some of those heinous crimes which by the Laws of God and Nature do justly deserve no less punishment than Death in short when he ceases any longer to deserve the name of a Son Yet this Authority holds no longer than whilst the Son remains part of his Fathers Family and so Subject to his Power and this I take to be the reason why we do not read that Adam took any notice of Cains's murdering his Brother because he was before freed from his Power by setting up another Family which certainly had been Adam's duty to have done had he been then under his jurisdiction Murder being as great a crime before the Flood as aâter tho' the punishment of in by Death were not positively enjoin'd by God till then But I shall prove this point more particularly by and by as also that Adam's Children might enjoy or enclose some part of the Earth without any grant or assent from Adam to whom you suppose tho' without any proof as yet that the whole Earth was given by God To conclude I doubt you mistook me when you say I at first affirmed that all Civil Government was ordained by God for the benefit or advantage of the the Subjects rather than that of the Governours and therefore you undertake to shew me that in the first and most natural Government viz. that of a Family Children who are subjects in the state of Nature are ordained as much for the benefit and help of their Parents who are their Princes or Masters as their Parents for them in which assertion you fall in to more than on mistake for I do not assert that in Civil Government the benefit or advantage of the Subject is only to be considered For I shall easily grant that Princes may very well challenge a very great share in the honour and other advantages that may be reapt by their Government and yet for all that when the happiness and preservation of the Subjects is incompatible with that of the Prince the former is to be preferred and Bishop Sanderson is of this opinion when he tells us in his Lecture De Iuramento That the end of Civil Government and the obedience that is due to it is the safety and tranquillity of humane society and therefore the end is certainly to be preferred before the means when they cannot both consist together but this is no argument for the preferring the benefit or advantages of Parents before that of their Children since Paternal Government is not Civil Government nor are Fathers absolute Princes or Masters over their Children as you suppose and yet I think I may safely affirm that even in this Paternal Government tho' it be granted that Children are ordained for the benefit or help of their Parents yet when their happiness and preservation is inconsistent with that of their Children it may be a great doubt which is to be prefer'd since Gods chief intention in Parents was for the Preservation and Propagation of Mankind and therefore I cannot see how it could ever be any part of the Paternal Power for a Father to make his Child a Slave or to sell him to others at his pleasure as you suppose This being no part or end of the design or duty of a Father And whereas you lay to my charge my mistaking the true sense of those Civil Law Maxims you have quoted I think I can easily prove that the miââake lyes on your side and that you have misapplied them to make them serve your purpose For as to your first Maxim Partus sequitur Ventrem from which you infer that the Child ought to be of the same condition with the Mother this rule in your Civil Law relates only to Bastards and not Legitimate Children who follow the condition of the Father according to your Digest Qui ex uxore mea nascitur filius mariti est habendus so likewise in your Code Cum legitimae nuptiae factae sunt patrem liberi sequuntur vulgo quaesitus matrem sequitur Nor is your second Maxim more true for tho' I grant according to your Roman Law the Father might have absolute power over his Wife and Children yet I cannot see how this word and nascitur can be extended beyond those that are born of a man and his Wife and therefore can never concern Grand-children much less any more remote Descendants and this very Law that a Son or Daughter might be killed by a Father seem'd so cruel and odious even to the Antient Romans themselves that neither the Law of the Twelve Tables nor the Iulian Law of Adulteries which were provided against Fathers Sons and Daughters ever extended it to the Grand-Father Grand-son or Grand-daughter by Interpretation or argument à casââ consimili Nor do these words in Potestate mea est prove more than that all Children are born under the Power of their Parents tho' whether they shall always continue so as long as they live is not to be proved from this Maxim nor if it were doth that make it a Law of Nature For I must needs observe this of divers of you Civilians that what ever Maxim you find in your Civil Law Books that will make for your Notions you presently adopt them for Laws of Nature without ever enquiring by the strict Rules of Reason and the Good of Mankind by which alone any Law of Nature is to be tryed whether they are so or no. I shall not trouble my self to confute those false Conclusions you have brought from those weak Promises for if I have destroyed your Foundation I think your Superstructure cannot stand and therefore you must pardon me if I cannot find this Original Charter of Government and of all Civil Power to be derived from Adam by any Argument that yet you have brought either from Scripture or Reason only give me leave to observe thus much upon what you have said That if not only the Constitution of Civil Power in general but the special Limitation of it to one kind viz. Monarchy be the Ordinance of God I cannot see how any other Government but that can be lawfully set up or obeyed by Men since no Government can challenge this Priviledge against Divine Institution M. Since this Hypothesis doth not please you I shall be glad if you can shew me any better Original either of Adam's Paternal Power or of Civil Government than this that God gave Adam over Eve who indeed was as at the first Subject so the Representative of all that followed and it reaches not only to all her Daughters in relation to their Husbands but to all of them in relation to their Fathers and to her Sons too in relation to both their Father and their Eldest Brother after his Decease if no body
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 âives 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 Commonweatââ 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 aâsolute 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 Inâies 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 Reâaliation or Revenge may be also necessary you would have a great dââl of Reason on your side But pray shew me how a Father or Master of a Family can Condâmn 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 Commâssion as I suppose Adam had Since I own Revenge or Reâallaâion may âe used by private men in the State of Nature by the Right of Self defence ãâ¦ã 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
also for their own advantage and in hopes of having a share in what Goods of Estates they may leave behind them when they dye But if when they come to years of discretion they can better their condition by marrying and leaving their Fathers Family their Parents are bound in conscience to let tehm go since it is their duty to better the condition of their Children and not to make it worse Always provided that such Children either take care of their Parents themselves or else hire others to do it for them in case they want their assistance by reason of their old age Poverty or Sickness but if children may not quit their Fathers Families thô they are never so hardly or severly dealt with the consequence will be that Fathers may keep their children as Slaves as long as they live thô it were a hundred years or else may sell them to others to be used worse if possible the absurdity of which assertions and how contrary to the common good of Mankind I might leave to any indifferent Person to judge of Therefore I think I may very well according to the learned Grotius divide the lives of children into three Periods of ages The first is the Period of Infancy or imperfect Judgment before the child comes to be able to exercise his reason The Second is the Period of perfect Judgment or discretior yet whilst the child continues still part of his Fathers Family The third is after he has left his Fathers and entered into another Family or sets up a Family himself In the First Period all the actions of children are under the absolute Government of their Parents For since they have not the use of reason nor are able to judge what is good or bad for themselves they could not grow up nor bâ preserv'd unless their Parents judged for them what means best conduced to this end yet this power is still to be directed to the principal end viz. The good and preservation of the Child In the second Period when they are of Mature Judgment yet continue part of their Fathers Family they are still under their Fathers Command and ought to be obedient to it in all actions which tend to the good of their Fathers Family and concerns And in both these Ages I allow the Father has a Right to make his Children work as well ââ enable them to get their own living as also to recompence himself for the pains and care he has taken and the charge he may have been at in their Education and also to correct them in case they refuse to work or obey his Commands But in other actions the Children have a Power of acting freely yet still with a respect of gratifying and pleasing their Parents to whom they are obliged for their being and Education Since without their care they could not have attain'd to that age But this duty being not by force of any absolute subjection but only of Piety Gratitude and Observance it does not make void any act thô done contrary to their duty The third and last Period is when the Son being of years of discretion either by marriage or otherwise is seperated from his Fathers Family In which Case he is in all actions free and at his own disposal thô still with respect to those duties of Piety and Observance which such a Son must always owe his Father the cause thereof being perpetual M. I must beg your pardon if I cannot come over to your opinion notwithstanding all you have said in this long discourse since I cannot conceive how in any Case Children can naturally have a power or moral faculty of doing what they will without their Parents leave since they are always bound to study to please them and thô by the Laws of some Nations Children when they attain to years of discretion have a power and Liberty in many actions yet this Liberty is granted them by positive and humane Laws only which are made by the Supream Fatherly Power of Princes who can regulate limite or assume the Authority of inferiour Fathers for the publick benefit of the Common-wealth So that naturally the Power of Parents over their Children never ceases by any seperations thô by the permission of the transcendant Fatherly power of the Supream Prince Children may be dispens'd with or priviledged in some cases from obedience to subordinate Parents F. And I must beg your pardon Sir if I cannot alter my opinion in this matter for all that you have now said since you can give me no better Reasons than what you did at first and thô you say you cannot conceive how Children can ever in any case have a power or moral faculty of doing what they will without their Parents leave yet they may have such power in many cases whether you can conceive it or no. For thô I do grant that Children are always bound to study to please their parents yet doth not this duty of gratitude or complacency include a full and perfect Dominion of Fathers in the state of Nature over the persons of their Children and an absolute power over them in all cases whatsoever so that the Children can have no right to consult their own good or preservation however it may be endangered by their Fathers passion or ill nature since a Wife is always obliged to this duty of complacency to her Husband yet is not this so absolute but that in a State of Nature she may quit his Family in those Cases I have already mentioned and against which you had nothing to object and I deny your position that Children when they attain to years of discretion derive that power and liberty they use it many actions from positive Humane Laws only or that the power which Parents naturally have over their Children can never cease by any seperation but only by the permission of the Father For as for Bodin and divers others that have written on this Subject they do no more than follw others who have asserted this absolute power of Fathers upon no better grounds than the Civil or Roman Municipal-Laws without ever troubling themselves to look into the true Original of Paternal Authority or Filial Subjection according to the Laws of Reason or Nature And most Treatises of this Subject being commonly writ by Fathers no wonder if they have been very exact in setting forth their own power over their Children but have said little or nothing of the Rights of Children in the State of Nature and therefore I shall farther let you see that this duty of Children even of pleasing or obeying their Parents can only extend to such things as they may reasonably or Lawfully command For suppose that Adam had commanded some of his Sons or Daughters never to Marry you cannot deny but this command had been void that being the only means then appointed to propagate Mankind for when there then lay a higher obligation upon them to encrease and multiply than there is
with the Power of all such Masters of Families or Freemen taken together may for the sâme end viz. the good Government and Peace of âheir Families and Commonwealths make Laws under no less a Penalty than Death it self against such offences as by the Law of Nature do not deserve it since without such a Power the wickedness of Man being come to this height it is no Family or Commonwealth could be long preserved in Peace or safety And therefore I suppose you will not affirm but that such a Master of a Family may very well inflict any punishment less than Death for such offences which if they find too gentle to amend those crimes they may likewise for the same reason encrease the punishments ordained for it And therefore I yield that tho Theft doth not in its own Nature deserve Death yet if the Master of such a separate Family shall find his Children or Servants to be so addicted to this vice as not to be amended by any less punishments than Death he may for the quiet of his Family make a general Law that whosoever for the future shall commit Theft shall suffer Death and I doubt not but such a Law when promulged may be Lawfully Executed since this Master of a Family is intrusted by God with the sole Power of judging not only what are crimes but also what are fit punishments for them since both are alike necessary for the happiness and preservation of the Family And I so far agree with you that such Masters of Families have as much Power over the Lives of their Children and Servants as the most absolute Monarchs have over their Subjects that is for their common good and no farther And upon the same Principles do all Kings and Common wealths inflict capital punishments for the Transgression of all such Laws as do any way entrench upon the common interest and safety of their People and upon this ground they may justly inflict no-less punishments than Death for Coyning of false Money which is but a sort of Theft from the publick Treasure of the Commonwealth And the same may be said for all capital punishments ordained against other offences of the same Nature M. If Fathers or Masters of Families are endued by God as you your self now own not only with this Power of Life and Death for enormous crimes against the Laws of Nature but also to make new Laws or ordain what punishments they please for such offences as they shall judg destructive to the quiet and happiness of their Families I see no difference notwithstanding what you have hitherto said to the contrary between Oeconomical and Civil Power For if we compare the Natural Rights of a Father or Master with those of a King or Monarch we shall find them all one without any difference at all but only in the latitude or extent of them For as the Father or Master over one Family So a King as a Father or Master over many Families extends his care to Preserve Feed Cloath instruct and Defend the whole Common-wealth his War his Peace his Courts of justice and all his Acts of Soveraignty tend only to preserve and distribute to every Subordinate and inferior Father and his Children their Rights and Priviledges Hath a Monarch Power to make new Laws and appoint what punishments he will to enforce their Observation So also hath a Father of a Family Hath an absolute Prince Power to command or dispose of the Goods and Estates of his Subjects for their common quiet and security So also hath a Father or Master of a Family So that all the Duties of a King are summed up in this Universal Fatherly care of his People and if the Soveraignty be the same I cannot see and Reason why the Rights and Prerogatives of it should not be so too And therefore if non resistance against their Authority be an unseparable Prerogative of Soveraign Power then if a Father or Master of a Family be endued with it he ought no more to be resisted than the most absolute Monarch F. I perceive your Head is very full of this Notion of the idintity of Natural and Civil Power or else you would never insist so long upon it as you do after what I have proved to the contrary And therefore since I see you look upon this as your topping Argument I shall do my endeavour to shew you more plainly the difference between them For tho I grant that such Fathers or Masters of Families as we here treat of are indued by God with divers Powers which are Analogous or perhaps the same with those of a King or Monarch that is of defending their Families as far as they are able from Forreign force and Domestick injuries and of revenging and punishing all offences that may prove prejudicial or destructive to the Peace and Happiness of their Families yet doth it not therefore follow that the Government of private Families and Kingdoms are all one since they differ very much not only in their Institution but also in their End For first the Fatherly Power by the Law of Nature is ordained only for the Generation and Education of the Children till they come to be grown up and his Authority as a Father is ordained by God only for those Ends and therefore this Relation of a Father is so inherent in him that it can never be parted with or assigned over to any other so as to make the Child or Son so Assigned to owe the same duty to him as he did to his Father There is also besides the Power of a Father that of a Master or Head of a Family over his Children and Servants whilst they continue Members or Subjects of it which Power I grant may be assigned or made over to one or more Persons when ever such Master shall think fit to institute a Kingdom or Commonwealth Yet as Dr. Sanderson very well observes this Power of a Master differs very much from that of the Civil Powers of a Kingdom or Commonwealth as well in the object as end of this Power For first the Power of a Father is only over one single Family whereas that of a Commonwealth is over divers Families united under one Civil Head Secondly in respect of the end the Power of the Master is chiefly ordained for his own interest and advantage but that of the Civil Power chiefly respects the good of the whole People or Community Lastly the Power of the Master of the Family is only for the maintaining his own Natural Property in those things which he hath acquired in the State of Nature whereas one great end of Civil Government is to introduce and establish Civil Property in things according to the Laws of the Commonwealth and also to maintain it when so constituted To conclude Fathers beget their Children and Masters acquire to themselves Slaves and Servants but it is from the consent of Fathers or Masters of seperate Families that any sort of Civil
to Govern all Mankind when in a little time it became so multiplied and dispersed over the Face of the Earth and the Languages so confounded by the Act or Will of God that it was impossible for the Three Elder Sons of these three great Patriarchs to govern them But during the Life of Noah we do not read that any of his Children or Descendants withdrew themselves from him without his leave but rather the contrary for it is said The whole Earth was of one Language and of one Speech and it came to pass as they journeyed from the East that they found a Plain in the Land of Shinar c By which words it appears they kept well enough together and the very reason why they began to build the Tower was left said they We should be scattered abroad upon the Face of the whole Earth So that there was no disunion amongst them nor so much as a desire of it whilst Noah lived F. I pray give me leave to answer what you have said concerning this Distribution of the Earth by Noah's last Will and also his making all his Sons Lords or Monarchs alike both which favour so strongly of the Rabbinical Liberty of Invention that I wonder how any Learned Man can believe such idle Stories especially when the Scripture and the most Antient Histories and Records that are extant in the World mention no such thing and tho' Iosâphus may in the place you have cited suppose that every one of the Patriarchs he mentions were Princes or Monarchs yet he doth not say any thing like it concerning the Three Sons of Noah's being Monarchs or of this Partition of the Earth between them but maketh them to live together in those Mountainous parts till they descended from thence into the Plain so that it was impossible for Noah to make a Distribution of those parts of the Earth which were not yet discovered and it is apparent by the Scripture it self that a considerable time after Noah's Death all Mankind lived together and therefore there was no impossibility as you suppose why Noah's Eldest Son could not have commanded his Brethren and their Descendants they being not as yet dispersed or separated from each other as you may see by the first Verses of ãâ¦ã of Genesis which you cited but now So that if Noah's Eldest Son was disinherited of his Right of Governing his Brethren and their Descendants that could not be the cause of it which you assign and if Primogeniture be a Divine Right appointed by God himself and unalterable by Humane Laws as you suppose I cannot see how the Will of a Father which is but a Humane Institution can ever alter it For I remember you laid it down as a Maxim at our last meeting That the Divine Right of the Right Heir never dies can be lost or taken away so that if there hath been any such thing as a Divine Right of Primogeniture belonging to the Eldest Son of Noah it is not likely that he would have permitted his two Brothers to have usurped it from him M. I shall not insist longer on this Tradition concerning the Distribution of the Earth amongst the Sons of Noah but certainly it is not a thing to be made so slight of as you do since Cedrenus a Modern Greek Historian is very particular in it besides so many other Learned Men and the great Selden among the rest have given countenance to it And tho' I grant that Primogeniture is of Divine Right yet that might very well be altered by Noah's Will especially since his Children might be satisfied that he being a Prophet and Preacher of Righteousness might make this Division of his Paternal Power by a Divine Command But I shall not dwell longer upon this but proceed to the next Period of Time viz. that of the Confusion and Dispersion of Tongues in which there are more evident Footsteps of this Right of Primogeniture as also of the Patriarchal Power I maintain And therefore pray turn to the 10th of Genesis and there you will find after the Recital of the Genealogy of every one of the Sons of Noah whose Desâendants are there particularly set down these words in the fifth verse By these were the Isles of the Gentiles divided in their Lands every one after his Tongue after their Families in their Nations And likewise in the 20th verse These are the Sons of Ham after their Families after their Tongues in their Countreys and in their Nations And in the last verse These are the Families of the Sons of Noah and their Generations in their Nations and by these were the Nations divided in the Earth after the Flood So that if we consider the first Plantations of the World which were after the Building of Babel and the Confusion of Tongues we may find the Division of the Earth into distinct Kingdoms or Nations by several Families and Languages whereof the Sons or Grand-children of Noah were the Kings or Governours by a Fatherly Right And for the preservation of this Power and Right in these Fathers God was pleased upon several Families to bestow a Language on each by it self the better to unite it into a Nation or Kingdom So that it becoming impossible as I said before for the Elder Sons or Descendants of these Three great Patriarchs to Govern all Mankind who now no longer understood each other's Language it was absolutely necessary that the Heads of the several Families should take that care upon them and their Children submit to them wherein they had the direction of God Almighty who had commanded them to obey their Parents and a miraculous declaration of his Will for their Dispersion by the confounding of their Language and that so ordered by God too that the Descendants of the same Person and Family spoke one Tongue was not this a declaring these Fathers Princes of these several Families and Tongues by God himself who by his Providence had thus confounded their Tongues and dispersed them by Families that they could no longer be governed by Three or Four Patriarchs but must have as many distinct Governments as there were different Tongues there being no means at present of any intercourse or correspondence one with another or with their former Governours So that however in this Confusion of Tongues by which as Iosephus supposes there were Seventy two distinct Nations erected yet were they not confused Multitudes without Heads or Governours and at liberty to chuse what Governours or Government they pleased but were so many distinct Families which had Fathers for Rulers over them of the same Speech Whereby it is manifest that even in the Confusion God was careful to preserve Fatherly Authority and Monarchical Power entire by distributing the diversity of Languages according to the diversity of Families which shews that God was still for Government and that Paternal too since it is evident that every People followed their Ancestor or Patriarch as their Prince or
a like Soveraignty by Right of Fatherhood over the same People divided into so many distinct Governments either then these seventy two Fathers were actually Rulers just before the Confusion and then they were not one People but an Aristocratical Common-Wealth and then where was your Monarchy Or else these seventy two Fathers had Paternal Authority but knew it not which is hard to suppose And if these seventy two Grand-children of the Sons of Noah had a Right to divide this Supreme Paternal Authority of Adam into as many distinct Governments as there were Heads of Families why might not their Sons have done so in infinitum And then there could never be any Common Prince or Monarch set over them all but by Force or Conquest or else by Election Either of which destroys your Notion of the Divine Right of Primogeniture M. 'T is a very pleasant Notion methinks this of yours that the Posterity of the first Planters of the World should follow their Ancestors not as Children or Subjects but as Volunteers and from a Reverence forsooth and Affection to their Age Wisdom and Experience Indeed I am thus far of your mind that these Children followed their Fathers freely and were not driven afore them nor dragged after them with Chains But to infer from hence that they owed their Father none of this Service or Attendance but out of meer good Nature and Gratitude which are due to Strangers that have obliged us by being our Benefactors is a Notion that only becomes one that owns no Right to be derived from Patriarchal or Paternal Power and since there was none of these Patriarchs who were the Leaders of Mankind in this Dispersion but might be one or two hundred years old if not more can any thing in Nature look more ridiculous than for the Children and Descendants of these Old Men to elect them who begat them to be their Leaders and Governours at a hundred years of Age And to give you an Answer why Governments might not upon my Principles crumble into new ones in infinitum I think it may be sufficient to tell you that First God prevented it and that for the most part by Monarchs ever since the Creation of the World and altho' he was pleased to permit many Divisions after this time yet he would never suffer Mankind to be crumbled into such small Divisions as to make every distinct Houshold an Independent Government Secondly Those Monarchs prevented it who would be sure to reduce to their Subjection any person that should attempt to divide himself or Family from the rest and set up for an Independant State without his leave and liking Thirdly The necessity of Mankind prevented it such small parcels of Men not being able to preserve themselves but by uniting with the rest for their Support and Protection So that if you could never so clearly prove that here was no Subordination to the Eldest Son or Heir of Noah yet this signifieth nothing for God ordered it so to be and if these Grand sons of Noah were Independant Governours of their own Families with any Subordination to the Eldest Son's Son or Heir of Noah yet were they still Soveraign Princes and much less had any dependance upon their own Children and Descendants So that hitherto the Multitude were kept under Subjection and could not set up a Common-wealth without rebelling against those Independant Governours Now if in this horrible Confusion of Tongues the People by the Will of God still fell under the Monarchical Government of these Fathers of Families I desire to know when they could obtain their Freedom and in what Age it began F. I must confess you had some Reasons to look upon my Notion of the Descendants of the Sons of Noah following their Ancestors in this Dispersion not as Children or Subjects but as Volunteers to be as ridiculous as you are pleased to make it could you have any way proved at our last meeting that the Power of Parents over their Children and Grand-children to all Generations is as absolute and perpetual as that of a Master over his Slaves and that a Son and a Servant were all one at the first but since you failed in that Proposition which is the ground-work of all the rest I must beg your pardon if I cannot found the Descendants of Noah following their Fathers or Ancestors in the Dispersion upon any higher ground than meer Gratitude and Esteem I mean for all such of them who were themselves at that time Masters or Heads of separate Families and I desire to know of you by what other Motive or Obligation a Great Grand-son for Example was obliged to follow his Great Grand father to the World's end as his Prince or Leader when perhaps his own Father thought fit to lead him another way and I desire you to shew me if they had as they might very well have commanded different things which was to be obeyed And how Disobedience to a Man 's own Father in this case would have consisted with that Law of Nature which you so much insist upon of honouring a Man's Father But indeed all this mistake proceeds from your first false Notion which I see you cannot yet be quit of in still supposing the Obedience and Subjection of Children to their Fathers to be absolute and perpetual The contrary to which I have already made out at our last meeting And therefore I must tell you again that this Notion of these Grand-children or Descendants following their Fathers or Ancestors not out of Duty but Choice is not so ridiculous as you are pleased to make it and tho' I do not suppose that they Elected these Ancestors of theirs for their Leaders by a Balotting-Box yet this much I am sure of that they might prefer if they pleased the following of their Father or Grand-father rather than their Great Grand-father if they perceived that he had doted through Age or else by Weakness or Infirmities was unable to lead them or that his natural temper was so Imperious and Tyrannical that there was no living under his Government Neither doth the Scripture it self any where declare the contrary only says in general that by these Grand-sons of Noah the Isles or Countreys of the Gentiles were divided according to their Families and Nations without particularly telling us who were the Princes or Leaders of each Tribe or Family And to instance if this Division happened in the time of Peleg or Phaleg as the Greek LXX makes it then not Arphaxad the Great Grand-father or Selah the Grand-father but Heber the Grand-son was the Prince or Leader of his Family at this Division Since it is from him that Iosephus supposes the Hebrews not only to have descended but to have taken their Names Nor do you any better answer the other Difficulty how all these Seventy two Patriarchs or Great Grand-fathers could all of them claim alike Regal Power from Adam or Noah whose Right Heir could be but one Person
the sole Will of the first Princes in which the People had no hand for in the most Antient Monarchies there was a time when the People of all Countreys were Governed by the Sole Wills of their Princes which by degrees came to be so well known in several instances that inferior Magistrates needed not resort to them in those cases and the People being for a considerable time accustomed to such Usages they grew easie and Familiar to them and so were retained tho the Memory of those Princes who first introduced them was lost and after Kings finding it better to continue what was so received than to run the hazard and trouble of changing them were for their own ease and the good of their Subjects contented they should be still from Age to Age so continued Which custom may hold as well in Laws about Succession as other things And therefore we find that even in those Monarchies where the People have nothing to do in making Laws Women are excluded which could proceed at first from nothing else but the declared Will or Law of the first Monarchs So likewise the Original of the Salique Law is wholly ascribed to Pharamond the first French King and Mariana whom you lately cited tells us that Alphonso King of Arragon made a Law that where Heirs Male were wanting the Sons of a Daughter should be preferred before the Aunt which Law is wholly attributed to the King for he adds presently after Sic saepe ad Regum arbitrium jura regnandi commutantur F. Granting all this true that you have said you cannot but confess that the Laws of God and Nature have established nothing in this matter or else it could not be in the Power of Kings to make or alter Laws concerning the succession as your last Quotation intimates they may yet even in the most absolute Monarchies the Laws about the Succession of the Crown must wholly depend upon the Consent of the People who are to see them observed or else every Monarch might alter these Laws of Succession at his pleasure and the Great Turk or King of France now the Assembly of Estates is lost might leave the Crown to a Daughter if either of them pleased and disinherit the next Heir Male. But as for the Original of this âalique Law in France you 'l find your self much mistaken if you suppose that that Law was made by the Sole Authority of Pharamond for the Antient French Histories tell us that the Body of Salique Laws which are now extant were made by the Common Consent of the whole Nation of the Francs who committed the drawing of them up to three Judges or Commissioners and which Laws Pharamond did only confirm and any one that will but consult those Histories may see that Kings were so far from having the Sole Legislative Power in their own hand that they were frequently Elected by the Estates nor is it truer that you suppose from Mariana that the Kings of Arragon had Power alone to make Laws it appears quite contrary from the Constitutions of that Kingdom where the King could do nothing of this kind without the Consent of the Estates and was not admitted to the Crown without taking an Oath to the Chief Justice in the name of the People that he would observe the Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom otherwise that they would not be obliged to obey him But at once to let you see that about the Succession of the Sons or Descendants by Daughters the Cases are much more nice and intricate and that when such Cases happen in limited Monarchies where there is an Assembly of Estates they are the Sole Iudges of such differences may appear by two famous examples in modern History The first is in Scotland about four hundred years ago when after the Death of King Alexander III who died without Issue when two or three several competitors claim'd a Right to the Crown as descended from several Daughters of David Earl of Huntington great Uncle to the last King the Chief of which being Iohn Bayliol and Robert Bâuââ the Estates of the Kingdom not being able to decide it they agreed to refer it to Edward I. King of England who adjudged the Crown to Bayliol yet did not this put an end to this great controversie for not long after Bayliol being deposed Bruce revived his Title and the States of Scotland declared him King whose Posterity enjoy it at this day A like Case happened in the last Age in Portugal after the Death of Henry surnamed the Cardinal without Issue when no less than four Eminent Competitors put in their Claim some claiming from the Daughters of Don Durate youngest Brother to the last King Henry But the King of Spain and other Princes as Sons to the Sisters of the said King Henry dying without Issue left ten Governours over the Kingdom to decide together with the Estates the Differences about the Succession who quarrelling among themselves as also with the Estates before it was decided Philip the second King of Spain raised an Army and soon conquered Portugal And yet we have seen in his Grand son's time that the Estates of Portugal declared this Title void and the Crown was settled in the Posterity of the Duke of Braganza who still enjoy it And how much even Kings themselves have attributed to the Authority of the Estates in this matter appears by the League made between Philip the Long King of France and David King of Scots wherein this condition was exprest That if there should happen any Difference about the Succession in either of these Realms he of the two Kings which remained alive should not suffer any to place himself on the Throne but him who should have the Judgment of the Estates on his side and then he should with all his Power oppose him who would after this contest the Crown To conclude I cannot see any means how if such Differences as these had arisen in the first Generation after Adam I say how they could ever have been decided without a Civil War or else leaving the Judgment thereof to the Heads or Fathers of Families that were then in being Which how much it would have differed from the Judgment or Declaration of the States of a Kingdom at this day I leave it to your self to judge M. I shall not trouble my self to determine how far Princes may tye up their own hands in this matter of the Succession and leave it to the States of the Kingdom to limit or determine of it but from the beginning it was not so and therefore give me leave to trace this Paternal Government a little farther For tho' I grant that when Iacob and his twelve Sons went into Egypt together with their Families they exercised a Supreme Patriarchal Jurisdiction which was intermitted because they were in Subjection to a stronger Prince Yet after the return of these Israelites out of Bondage God from a special
extended beyond this is accountable to him alone so that Princes are bound to treat their Subjects as their Children with Mercy and Lenity as far as they are capable of it and not as their Brutes And granting that Subjects and Servants or Slaves were at first all one yet I think even they ought to be treated only as Younger Children yet as Children still Nay even conquered People that are in some Countries treated as Slaves and but a little better than brutes have certainly a very good appeal to the Tribunal of God against their Princes who will undoubtedly right them in another World if they suffer patiently in this If it be the Character of a good Man that he is merciful to his Beast I doubt not but the very Brutes have a Right to be Governed with mercy and Justice and that God who is their Creator as well as ours will punish cruel men if they Tyrannize over them and much more if any man shall exercise Cruelty on another man who is of the same not only Nature but Blood Whereas all other Hypotheses leave the Prince at Liberty to make his Bargain with his Subjects as well as he can and if they be brought by force or fraud to an entire Submission at Discretion they may then be treated accordingly and must stand to their Compact be the terms never so unequal and then the Case of a Man and a Brute may differ very little and if the Subject may resist the Prince may take care to prevent it and the War may be just on both sides which is impossible I could likewise shew you many other Benefits that would accrew both to Princes and Subjects were this Hypothesis but once generally taught and believed by both of them F. I pray Sir spare the giving your self that trouble for I will not dispute how honestly this Hypothesis may be designed or what mighty Feaâs it might do were it once universally received But this neither you nor I can ever expect will come to pass because neither Princes nor People will ever believe it to be true For in the first place the People will never be convinced of it it being above a vulgar understanding that their Princes whom they are very well assured are not their Fathers nor yet right Heirs to Adam or Noah should notwithstanding lay claim to a Paternal Authority over them In the next place Princes can never believe that they are Fathers of their People for the same Reason I grant indeed that they may be very willing to believe one half of your Hypothesis that they are Absolute Lords and Masters over them and so would be willing upon that account to use their Subjects like Slaves but that they should look upon themselves as Fathers of their People and the Heirs or Assigns of Adam or Noah I think no Prince in Christendom can be so vain to believe So that whatever Power Adam or Noah or any other Father might be intrusted with by God because of that Natural Affection which they were supposed to bear toward their Children yet sure Princes at this day can lay no claim to it since none but true Fathers can be endued with this Paternal Affection And whereas you suppose that Princes ought to treat their Subjects nay even those that are conquered like Children and not like Slaves or Brutes This can have very little effect upon them who can as little believe it as the People for if Monarchical Power is not Paternal as I think I have clearly made out then there can lye no obligation upon Monarchs to treat their Subjects like Children and therefore Since the Despotical or Masterly Power only remains which is ordained Principally for the good and Benefit of the Master and not of the Servant or Slave Who can blame Princes if they exact the utmost of their due Prerogatives and so treat their Subjects like Slaves whenever it serves their humour or interest so to do nor are they any more to be blamed for thus exerting their Power than a Master of Negroes in the West-Indies is for making the best of the Service of those Slaves whom he hath bought with his Mony or are born in his House Whom tho I grant he is not to use like Brute Beasts for the Reasons you have given Yet doth it not therefore follow that he is obliged to use them like his Younger Children for then sure he could not have a Right to keep them for Slaves as long as they lived to let them enjoy nothing but a bare miserable Subsistance and there is very good reason for this for almost every Planter in Barbadoes knows very well the difference between the Relations of a Father a Master and a Prince and that the one is not the other and it is from your jumbling together these three different Relations of a Son a Slave and a Subject that hath led you into all these mistakes For tho' it should be granted that the right of a Master over his Slaves may be acquired by Conquest or assigned to or usurped by another yet certainly the Authority or Relation of a Father and the Monarchical or Civil Power of a Monarch can never be acquired by Conquest nor yet usurped without the Consent and Submission of the Children and Subjects And therefore to conclude I do not think your Hypothesis one jot the better by your founding it upon an Imaginary Paternal Power rather than upon Compact which I am sure can never be made upon so unequal termâ as to render the Case of a Man and a Brute very little different since it would be to no purpose for any Subject to make a Bargain with their Monarch or Conqueror and yet to leave themselves in as bad or worse condition than they were in the State of Nature So that however convenient your Hypothesis may be either for Prince or People it signifies no more than the Popish Hypothesis of the Infallibility of the Pope and General Council which because they suppose necessary and is indeed very beneficial for the Church therefore God hath conferred it upon them But how false a way of reasoning this is hath been sufficiently demonstrated The Application of this Comparison is so obvious that I leave it to you to make M. I cannot but think for all you have yet said that God hath endued all Princes with a Paternal Authority and for this I have the Church of England on my side which in its Catechism in the Explanation of the Duties contained in the 5th Commandment Honour thy Father c. doth comprehend under that Head not only to Honour and Succour our Fathers and Mothers but also to Honour and Obey the King and all them that are put in Authority under him as if all Power were originally in the Father So that this Command gives him the Right to Govern and makes the Form of Government Monarchical And if Obedience to Parents be immediately due by a Natural Law and
and Subjection to Princes but by a Humane Ordinance what reason is there that the Laws of Nature should give place to those of Men I can easily reply that the Power of a Father over his Child gives place and is Subordinate to the Supream Powers because they are both ordained so by God in the Law of Nature it being highly reasonable that the good of a private Family should give place to the common good of the Common-Wealth which is a sufficient reason and extends to all Nations which never so much as heard of the Ten Commandments But to come to your Quotation out of Seneca I think this hath a great deal less weight in it than your Argument from the Fifth Commandment For tho' this Philosopher writ to the Emperour to perswade him to Clemency yet this I am sure of that as he never dreamt of this Notion of Adam's Soveraignty or believed that every Prince was endued with Paternal Authority because amongst other Titles he was stiled Pater Patriae And therefore what this Author here says is to be looked upon only as a Rhetorical flourish or at the most to be understood but in a Metaphorical sense the Arguments of this Author not being to be always taken strictly as a Logician but only as an Orator who was to make use of all appearances of Reason to perswade a young Prince to Mercy and Clemency and yet all this was not sufficient as Seneca himself found before he died by woful experience And Seneca very well knew that Tully was stiled Pater Patriae by the Senate tho' he was never endued with your Imperial or Paternal Authority But to reply a little to your Answer against my last Argument that Princes not being our Natural Fathers must often want that Natural and Fatherly Affection towards their Subjects and therefore may Tyrannize oveâ them I think the first part of your Reply will make nothing in confutation of what I have said For tho' I will not deny but God who hath the hearts of Princes in his hands may sometimes endue them with such Affections as he thinks fit not only towards the People in general but towards each particular person yet this may be as well evil as good Affections As God is said in Iudg. 9. To have sent an evil Spirit between Abimelech one of your usurping Monarchs and the Men of Sichem his Subjects And therefore God may as well send the one for the punishment as the other for the benefit of a Nation And that God is more likely to incline the hearts of Princes to such evil than good Affections towards their Subjects may appear from Mankinds more often deserving God's Anger for their evil deeds than Favours for their good ones And I desire you would shew me in how many Absolute Monarchies now in the World God Almighty is pleased to declare this wonderful Operation of these Fatherly Affections towards their People I pray deal ingenuously and tell me is it to be found in our European Monarchies where most Princes do not only miserably harass and oppress their Subjects by intolerable Taxes and standing Armies till they reduce them to the Lowest condition of Beggary and Desperation and where for the least differences in Religion they take away their Subjects lives by that Cruel Tribunal of the Inquisition without any Fair or Legal Tryal or else where notwithstanding all Edicts Oaths and Vows to the contrary they seize upon and spoil their Subjects of their Estates and imprison and torment their persons by those Booted Apostles the Dragoons because Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks or else in another Country where the Prince took upon him a Prerogative to dispense with all Laws at his pleasure and to imprison and turn men out of their Freeholds contrary to the known Laws of the Kingdom Or to conclude must we look for these Divine Operations amongst the Eastern Monarchy where they treat their Subjects like Slaves and allow them no Property either in Lands or Goods farther than they think sit and to have their persons and lives wholy at their mercy to be castrated made Slaves of or killed as often as it shall please their humour or passion And I doubt if you will but read Antient as well as Modern Histories and also survey the State of Mankind in all the Absolute Monarchies between France and Iapan you will find more frequent Examples of the evil than good Affections of these your Artificial Fathers towards their Adopted Children M. I cannot deny but you have given a very Tragical Account of the Tyranny and Oppressions under divers Absolute Monarchies now in the World yet this is not the fault of the Government but of the Evil Principles bâd Education or Temper of those Monarchs as also often times from the unquiet and rebellious disposition of their Subjects from the distrusting of which they place all their security in standing Armies and Guards so that I must grant that all those Governments that are maintained by Armies too strong for the Subjects in general are ãâã and degenerate into Despotick Monarchies and are unsafe both to the Princâ and People And to let you see that it is not my intention ãâã maintain or defend Oppression or Tyranny I must freely assert with Sir R. F. whose Principles I here take upon me to maintain that all Princes are bound to treat their Subjects as their Children and that it is contrary to the Nature of Mankind to make their Off-spring Slaves and that all Kings nay Conquerors too are bound to preserve the Lands Goods Liberties and Lives of all their Subjects not by any Municipal Law but by the Natural Law of a Father which binds them to ratifie the Acts of their Fore fathers and Predecessors in things necessary for the publick good of their Subjects But yet you have not done fairly not to take notice of the great Oppressions that are exercised in some Common-wealths likewise towards their Subjects which if you would please to consider and weigh the fewness of these against the great number of Monarchies now in the World I believe you will have good cause to confess that there are many more good Monarchs than Equal Common-wealths and I do believe there was as much Tyranny exercised in these Three Kingdoms during our late Civil Wars and afterwards under the Government of the Rump and Cromwell till the return of the late King Charles as in all the Absolute Monarchies between France and China or from the North to the South Pole And it is very remarkable that when Oliver Cromwell set up the most Absolute and Tyrannical Government that ever was in this Island there was yet no noise of any Fears or Jealousies of it in all his times F. I am very well pleased to find you so heartily agree with me in condemning of Tyranny and oppression in all sorts of Governments whatever and I do assure you I do as little approve of it if
it be any where exercised in Common-Wealths as you can do in Monarchies only I must needs tell you I am not at all of your Opinion that the Oppressions or abuses committed by the Magistrates in Common-Wealths are to be compared with the Tyrannies and Cruelties exercised by absolute Monarchs and their Subordinate Ministers For tho' I grant they often lay very severe Taxes and impositions upon their Subjects especially such as they have acquired by Conquest and so act like absolute Monarchs over them Yet are these oppressions not at all to be compared to those under Arbitrary Monarchies for tho' perhaps divers Common-Wealths may impose greater Taxes upon their Subjects than some Neighbouring Monarchs yet doth it not follow that their Government is more severe for all that since the People having an opportunity by free Trade Liberty of Conscience in such Common-Wealths to acquire a greater share of Riches are also thereby enabled to Contribute more to the maintenance of the Government by which they reap so great Benefits Thus we see a Citizen of Amsterdam is able to pay six times the Taxes of one of Antwerp and Therefore I dare for all that appeal to any Common Subject tho' a Papist of the United Provinces whether he had not rather live under the States of Holland than under the French King or to any Subject of the Common Wealths of Venice Genoa or Luca whether he doth not prefer his Condition as bad as it is to that of any of the Subjects of the Pope Duke of Florence or any other Italian Prince not to go over into Turkey and those other Eastern Monarchies where the Yoke of Slavery lyes yet more heavy upon the Subjects than in Europe And as for what you say in the comparing of those Illegal Arbitrary Proceedings that were exercised in England during the late Civil Wars and afterwards till the Kings coming in I must beg your pardon if besides the great Hyperbole in your expressions on that occasion which I am sure are very far from Truth I impute those Miscarriages not as the fault of this or that âort of Government but rather to a Powerful Faction Backt by a Standing Army which was more like a Tyranny or corrupt Oligarchy than any Settled Government Nor is what you say concerning Oliver's Government more true than the former for all men except his own Faction were not only afraid but really sensible of the loâs of their Liberties under his Tyrannical Usurpation Tho' indeed there was a very good reason why there should be fewer fears or Jealousies of it than in his late Majesties time when his Government began to grow uneasie through the Peoples fear of Popery and Arbitrary Government which the former People had no Jealousie of in Cromwel's time and as for the latter they had no occasion to fear that which was already happened But that you may not mistake me for a Common-Wealths Man I must so far agree with you that to condemn Monarchy as such were to repine at the Government of God himself so that I also grant that the fault lies not in the form of Government but in the Frail Nature of Men which can rarely administer that great Trust committed unto them as becomes what they take upon them to be God's Vicegerents upon Earth And I must own that I esteem Monarchy limited by known Laws as the best and most Equal Government in the World and under which both Prince and People may live most happily and easily if each of them will be but contented with their due share But I beg your pardon for this digression and to come to a conclusion I must freely tell you it is not a Straw matter what yours or Sr R. F's Principles are concerning the Fatherly Power of Princes for as long as there is no ground for it in Scripture or Nature you cannot expect that either Princes or People will ever believe you neither is it true that Princes as Fathers are bound to treat their Subjects in all things like their Children for then Princes ought to maintain their Subjects and not Subjects their Princes since it is the Apostles Rule That Children ought not to lay up for the Parents but the Parents for the Children And tho' you pretend not to plead for Tyranny or Arbitrary Government yet I cannot at all understand why if it were not for this end you should assert not long since in your answer to me that God thought fit to change Paternal Government into Hereditary Monarchy because of the excessive Wickedness of Mankind before the Flood proceeding from tho too great Lenity of those Patriarchal Princes in not punishing the disorders of their Subject Children which is a very bold assertion Since you know no more than I what that wickedness was in particular for which God drowned the World much less what was the occasion of it And therefore if God thought fit to change Paternal Power into Hereditary Monarchies which as I have proved do not at all proceed from Paternal Power it will also follow that the Government of your Patriarchs was not sufficient for the well-being and happiness of Mankind or else God would never have thought fit to have altered it for a more Cruel and severe way of Government But as for what you say concerning those Princes that place all their security in Guards and Armies too strong for the Subjects that they are uneasie and degenerate into Despotick Monarchies you might better have said Tyrannies and that they are unsafe both for Prince and People is very true and I altogether agree with you in it But those of your Principles have no reason to find fault with Princes for so doing for since they do but use their just Prerogative over their Slaves or Vassals it is but fit that they should be made to undergo that Yoke whether they will or no which they would not bear willingly and as long as Princes look upon themselves to be what they really are upon your Principles the Masters and not the Fathers of their People as they suppose the Goods and Estates of their Subjects to be wholly at their disposal So can they never command them as they please without the Assistance of Standing Armies nor have you any reason to complain of those Princes for keeping them too strong for the Subjects since upon your Principles be they Strong or Weak the Subjects are not to resist them but if Princes without your extraordinary fondness of using their People like Children would but always use them like Subjects with ordinary Justice and Moderation and not oppress them with excessive Taxes and unnecessary Penal Laws about Religion you would find there would be no need of Standing Armies to keep the People in awe who would themselves be the best defence not only against Domestick but Forreign Enemies and this I 'll assure you is a much better receipt against Rebellion than all your new Recipe's of Paternal Power in Monarchs which
is not only without all ground of reason but above common apprehensions M. You have made a long Speech in answer to my Hypothesis which since you are not satisfied with I can likewise shew you another very good reason why the People should love and reverence their Princes and that is those great Liberties and Concessions that all the Monarchs of Europe have granted their Subjects which are now past into the settled Laws and Customs of those Kingdoms with which the People ought to be very well contented nor ought they to rebel or resist tho' they may sometimes out of wantonness and necessity infringe or intrench upon those Priviledges which they or their Ancestors have conferred upon them since they can never forseit that Power they have originally over them F. I do not very well understand what you mean for I have hitherto supposed that all Subjects have a Property in their Estates and a Freedom for their Persons by the Laws of Nature and which no Civil Power whatever could deprive them of without their Consent And therefore I desire you would shew me that if Children Subjects and Slaves were all one at the first how we in this side of the World came to be in a better condition than those in Asia and Africa Or that we English-men can claim a Property in our Estates and a Right to our Lives which the Prince cannot take away but according to some known Laws M. I think I can easily do this not only in Relation to England but any other Kingdom which is now governed by known Laws and that upon Sir R. F's Hypothesis which I shall do as near as I can remember in the words of that excellent person the late Earl of Clarendon in his Survey of Mr. Hobbs Leviathan who supposeâ according to this Hypothesis That some one of Noah 's Descendants was an Absolute Monarch at first over all his Posterity which might continue in his Line for some Ages till at last their Relation by Blood to their Subjects was removed at so great a distance that the Account of their Kindred or Relation to each other was scarce remembred whereby they who had the Soveraign Power still exprest less Paternal Affection in their Government looking upon those they Governed as meer Subjects and not as their Kinsmen or Allies till by degrees according to the Custom of Exorbitant Power they considering only the extent of their own Iurisdiction and what they might rather than what they should do treated them who were under them not as Subjects but as Slaves who having no Right to any thing but what they permitted them they would allow them to possess nothing but what they had no occasion to take away Estates they had none that they could call their own because when their Prince called for them they were his their Persons were at his command when he had either occasion or appetite to make use of them and their Children inherited nothing but their Fathers Subjection so that they were happy or miserable as he who had the Power over them pleased to exercise it with more or less Rigour or Indulgence yet they submitted alike to both acknowledging his Dominion to be naturally as absolute as their Subjection and Obedience These Princes might for some Ages have pleased themselves with this Exorbitant Exercise of their Power which tho' it had been always the same yet the exercise of it had been very moderate whilst there remained the tenderness or memory of any Relation But these Princes began at lest to discern and be convinced that the great strength they seemed to be possest of would in a short time degenerate into weakness and the Riches they seemed to enjoy would end in want and necessity as well in themselves as in their Subjects since no Man would build a good House that his Children could not inherit nor cultivate their Land with any good husbandry and expence since the profit thereof might be given to another Man And that if the Subjects did not enjoy the Conveniences of Life they could not be sure of their help and affection whenever they should have War with another Prince as absolute as themselves but they would rather chuse to be subject to him under whose Government they might live with greater Liberty and Satisfaction And lastly That if they ingrost all the Wealth and Power into their own hands they should find none who would defend them in the possession of it And that there was a great difference between that Subjection which Love and Duty pays and that which results only from Fear and Force since Despair often puts an End to that Duty which Reason and it may be Conscience would otherwise have perswaded them still to continue And therefore that it was necessary that their Subjects should find ease and profit in Obeying as well as Kings pleasure in Commanding these wise and wholesom Reflections might prevail with Princes for their own as well as Subjects benefit to restrain their Power and to make it less absolute that it might be more useful and to give their Subjects such a Property in their Goods and Lands as should not be invaded but in such cases and on such occasions as the necessities of the Government really required But as they found the benefit arising from these Condescensions highly tend to the Improvement of the Riches and Civillity of their Subjects with all those additions of pleasure and industry which render Man's Life as well as the Government easie and pleasant they still in several Generations enlarged these Graces and Concessions to their Subjects yet reserving all in themselves that they did not part with by their voluntary Grants or Concessions And if we take a View of the several Kingdoms of the World we shall see another face of things both of Power and Riches in those Governments where these Condâscensions and Concessions have been best observed than in those Kingdoms where the Soveraigns either retain or resume to themselves all those Rights or Prerogatives which are invested in them from the Original Nature of Government so that there still remains enough in the Princes hands to be made use of for the preservation of his own Power and the defence of his Subjects for whose benefit it was intrusted with him by God So far the late great Chancellor And these Priviledges and Condescensions being once past into constant and standing âaws by the Princes that gave them and also solemnly sworn to by their Coronation Oaths do for the future bind not only those Princes that granted them but also their Successors to their observation And I then look upon them bound under pain of Damnation not to break or infringe them without very great necessity But however if they shall happen so to do since they were matters of meer Grace and Favour at the first and not of Right the Princes that thus transgress them are only accountable to God and punishable by him and not by
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 Meâs 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
no Exorbitant heighth I think I am able to prove from many passages in his Patriarcha as well as other Works that no Author hath made bolder Assertions to render all Mankind Slaves instead of Subjects and all Princes Tyrants instead of Kings and that his Principles are so far from being safe that if they are duly lookt into and weighed they will prove destructive as well to the Rights of Princes as to the Liberties of the People M. I should be very glad to see that proved for I must always believe till you shew me to the contrary that this Excellent Author lays it down for a Ground that Princes being as Fathers to their People are bound to treat their Subjects as Children and not as Slaves and therefore waving this last Controversie which we have argued as far as it will go pray make out what you say from his own words and I will give up the Cause F. I wonder how you can be so partially blind as not to see this since you your self have already made use not only of a great deal of his Doctrins but also of his very words And therefore pray see his Obedience to Government in doubtful times as also in his Preface to the Observations upon Aristotle's Politicks where you will find he asserts That Adam was the Father King and Lord over his Family a Son a Subject and a Servant or a Slave were one and the same thing at first The Father had power to dispose of or sell his Children or Servants Whence we find that at the first reckoning of Goods in Scripture the Man-servant and the Maid-servant are number'd among the Possessions and Substance of the Owner as other Goods were So that then if the Power of a Father and of a Monarch be all one and that all Monarchical Power is Despotical the Consequence is also as evident that all Subjects are also naturally Slaves unless their Princes shall please to lay an easier Yoke upon them M. Perhaps Sir R. F. may have carried this matter a little too far yet if you please to look into his Patriarcha Chap. 3. Par. 1. you will find that he hath this passage which plainly speaks the contrary The Father of a Family Governs by no other Law than by his own Will not by the Laws and Wills of his Sons and Servants There is no Nation that allows Children any Action or Remedy for being unjustly Governed and yet for all this every Father is bound by the Law of Nature to do his best for the preservation of his Family but much more is a King always tyed by the same Law of Nature to keep this general Ground That the Safety of his Kingdom be his Chief Law Whence you may observe that tho' he takes away all Remedy from Children against their Parents for being ill Governed yet doth he not set the Father free from all Obligation to preserve the Good of his Family of which sure a Man's Children are a principal part And if you please to look back to the second Chapter Par. 3. you will find these words To answer in particular to the first Text it may be said the sense of these words By the Law of Nature all Men are born free must needs mean a Freedom only that is opposite to such a Subjection as is between Father and Son This is made manifest by the Text of the Law For Ulpian in this place speaketh only of Manumission which is a setting at Liberty of Servants from Servitude and not of Emancipation which is the freeing of Children from the Fathers Tuition Servitude as the Law teacheth is a Constitution of the Law of Nations by which a Man is subject to the Dominion of any other Man against Nature So not every Subjection is Servitude but Subjection contrary to the Law of Nature Yet every Man is born subject to the Power of a Father This the Law it self saith In Potestate nostra Liberi nostri sunt So that you see here be maketh a difference between Servitude and that Subjection that is due to Fathers F. Give me leave to answer these two Instances before you proceed any farther and I shall in the first place make bold to answer your last Instance first because I shall be much shorter upon it But pray take notice by the way that this Author is very high and rigorous for the Absolute Power of Life and Death in all Fathers over their Children in the State of Nature and that they may exercise it for very slight Offences and therefore in this Chapter you have last quoted he seems very well satisfied with the Example of Cassius who threw his Son out of the Consistory for publishing the Agrarian Law for the Division of Lands and I think this was no such great Crime for which a Father might justifie the putting his Son to Death And in the Section before this he justifieth the Power of Fathers amongst the Romans as being ratified and amplified by the Laws of the XII Tables enabling Parents to sell their Children two or three times over So that these things considered I cannot see how this Distinction of Sir R. F. out of the Civil Law will do him any service For tho' I grant indeed that Manumission and Emancipation are two different words yet do they both signifie the same thing and tho' for the greater respect which they would shew to the Condition of Children above that of Slaves they were pleased to make use of different expressions yet whoever will look more closely into the Nature of the Subjection that Children were in under their Parents by the Roman Law will find that the Condition of Children was no better than that of Slaves For First The Father had such an Absolute Power over the Person of the Son that he could sell him three times whereas he could sell a Slave but once Secondly He had such an Absolute Power over his Life that he could take it away whenever he pleased Lastly A Son could have no Property in any Goods without his Fathers Consent till he was emancipated or made free So that if his Father were harsh and ill natured the Condition of a Son was worse than that of a Slave as long as his Father lived And therefore I am still of the Opinion of the Antient Civil Lawyers which assert the Natural Freedom of Mankind according to the Maxim you have now cited And they acknowledge that the Servitude or Absolute-Subjection of Children to their Fathers was not by the Law of Nature but by the Civil or Roman Law peculiar to themselves as I have already proved at our last meeting But to come to your first Quotation whereby you would justifie Sir R. F. for maintaining any unjust Severity in Fathers or Tyranny in Princes because they are both to endeavour the Common Good of the Family and Kingdom t is very true he says so but of this Common Good they themselves are the sole Iudges So that if
the Father please to sell one or two of his Children whom he least loveth to provide Portions for the rest he may lawfully do it for any thing I see to the contrary So likewise immediately after he asserts the Superiority of all Princes above Laws because there were Kings long before there were any Laws And all the next Paragraph is wholy spent in proving the Unlimited Iurisdiction of Kings above Laws as it is described by Samuel when the Israelites desired a King So that it signifies little what Laws Princes make or what Priviledges they grant their Subjects since they may alter them or abrogate them when ever they please M. But pray take along with you what he says in the next Paragraph you quote where you may see these words It is âhere evidently shewed that the scope of Samuel was to teach the People a dutiful Obedience to their King even in those things which themselves did esteem Mischievous and Inconvenient For by telling them what a King would do he indeed instructs them what a Subject must suffer yet not so as that it is Right for Kings to do Injury but it is Right for them to go unpunished by the People if they do it So that in this point it is all one whether Samuel describe a King or a Tyrant for patient Obedience is due to both No Remedy in the Text against Tyrants but in crying and praying unto God in that day And that Sir R. F. is very far from justifying Kings in the unnecessary Breach of their Laws may farther appear by what he says Chap. 3. Par. 6. of this Treatise where pray see this passage Now albeit Kings who make the Laws be as King James teacheth us above the Laws yet will they Rule their Subjects by the Law and a King Governing in a Settled Kingdom leaves to be a King and degenerateth into a Tyrant so soon as he leaves to Rule according to his Laws yet where he sees the Laws rigorous or doubtful be may mitigate and interpret them So that you see here he leaves the King no Power or Prerogative above the Laws but what shall be directed and employed for the general Good of the Kingdom F. But pray Sir read on a little farther and see if he doth not again undo all that he hath before so speciously laid down and if you will not read it I will General Laws made in Parliament may upon known respects to the King by his Authority be mitigated or suspended upon Causes only known to him And altho' a King do frame all his Action to be according to the Laws yet he is not bound thereto but at his good Will and for good Example Or so far forth as the General Law of the Safety of the Common-Weal doth naturally bind him for in such sort only Positively Laws may be said to bind the King not by being Positive but as they are naturally the best or only means for the preservation of the Common-Wealth So that if the King have this Prerogative of mitigating interpreting and suspending all Laws in Cases only known to himself and that he is not bound to the Laws but at his own good will and for good example I desire to know what greater Prerogative a King can desire than to suspend the Execution of any Law as often as he shall think fit For tho' I grant the Suspension of a Law differs from the Abrogation of it because the former only takes away the force of it in this or that particular case whereas the latter wholy annuls the Law yet if this Suspension be general and in every case where the Law is to take effect it amounts to the same thing with an Abrogation of it as may be plainly seen in the late King 's Dispersing Power For tho' it be true he pretended to no more than to dispense with this or that Person who should undertake a publick Employment either Military or Civil without taking the Oaths and Tâst yet since he granted this Dispensation generally to all Papists and others that would transgress this law it amounted to the same thing during his pleasure as an Absolute Abrogation of it And therefore I do very much wonder why divers who are very zealous for the Church of England and the King's Prerogative should be so angry with him for erecting that Power which not only this Author but all others of his Principles have placed in him And if the King may suspend this and all other Laws upon Causes only known to him I do not see how he differs from being as Absolute and Arbitrary a Monarch as the Great Turk himself and may when he pleases notwithstanding all Laws to the contrary take away Men's Lives without any due Forms of Law and raise Taxes without Consent of Parliament M. But pray read on a little farther and you will find that he very much restrains this Absolute Power in these words By this mean are all Kings even Tyrants and Conquerors bound to preserve the Laws Goods Liberties and Lives of all their Subjects not by any Municipal Law of the Land but by the Natural Law of a Father which binds them to ratifie the Acts of their Fore-fathers and Predecessors in things necessary for the publick good of their Subjects F. Were I a Monarch limited by Laws I would desire no greater a Power over them than this you have here brought out of this Author For he says Positive Laws do not bind the King but as they are the bâst or only means for the preservation of the Common Wealth In the next place you see that all Kings are bound to preserve the Lives and Estates of their Subjects not by any Municipal Law of the Land but by the Natural Law of a Father which binds them to ratifie the Acts of their Predecessors in things necessary for the publick good of their Subjects Now this Paternal Power is large enough of all Conscience to discharge Princes from any Obligation to the Laws farther than they please For it before appears that the Father of a Family governs by no other Law than by his own Will and not by the Laws and Wills of his Sons or Servants therefore if the Power of the King be wholy Paternal he may alter this Will of his as often as he please Nor can his Subjects who are all one with Sons and Servants have any reason to find fault with it For he says There is no Nation that allows Children any Remedy for being unjustly Governed And tho' it be true that he restrains this Prerogative both in Fathers and Kings to the publick good of their Children and Subjects yet as long as he is left the sole and uncontroulable Judge of what is for the publick good all these fine Pretences will signifie nothing For he is bound to observe or ratifie no Laws or Acts of his Predecessors but what he is satisfied tend to this End So that if he thinks fit to Judge that Magna
tho' gathered together from the several Corners and remotest Regions in the World but that in the same Multitude considered by it self there is one Man amongst them that in Nature hath a Right to be the King of all the rest as being the next Heir to Adam and the other Subject unto him every Man by Nature is a King or a Subject So that I think no Kings in the World being able to deduce their Pedigree from Adam of whom there can be but one Right Heir they all or at least all but one are only Kings de Facto and not de Iure and Usurpers upon this Heir of Adam So that if God would but be pleased to reveal who this next Heir is all the Kings of the Earth were bound in Conscience to lay their Crowns at his Feet tho' he were but a Cobler or a Link-boy How ridiculous a Notion this is I leave it to any indifferent Man to Judge M. I hope this opinion is like to have no very ill effect unless any Prince by vertue of this Title of Adams Right Heir should pretend a Right to an Universal Monarchy and then I think it were but reasonable he should be put to make out his Title but seeing no body doth so to the best of my Knowledge it is but reasonable that all Princes should in the mean time enjoy what they are in lawful Possession of till this Heir of Noah hath made out his Title and then they may consider farther of it F. And it is very well that this Right Heir is not to be found for if he were all Princes would be Usurpers who did not immediately resign to him But this Doctrine is of more fatal consequence than you imagine For it doth not only concern Princes in respect of Adam's Right Heir only but also of any other Right Heirs to Princes who have lost their Right to a Crown never so many Ages ago For look into his Directions for Obedience in doubtful times and read this Passage By humane Positive Laws a Possession time out of Mind takes away or Bars a former Right to avoid a general Mischief of bringing all Right into a Disputation not decideable by proof and consequently to the overthrow of all Civil Government in Grants Gifts and Contracts between Man and Man but in Grants and Gifts that have their Original from God or Nature as the Power of a Father hath no Inferiour Power of Man can limit nor make any Law of Prescription against them Upon this ground is built that Nullum tempus occurrit Regi no time Barrs a King And a little before he gives us this reason of it For tho' by humane Laws a long Prescription may take away Right yet a Divine Right never dies nor can be lost or taken away By which Principle he renders the Titles of most if not all of the Princes of Europe at this day very weak and disputable whenever any other Person shall set up a Title against them M. But Sir R. F. hath found a very good Expedient for this for he tells us in the last cited Discourse that the Paternal Power cannot be lost tho' it may either be transferred or usurped and in his Anarchy of a limited Monarchy he thus more at large expresses it Many times by the Act either of an Usurper himself or of those that set him up the true Heir of a Crown is dispossessed God using the Ministry of the wickedest Man for the removing and setting up of Kings in such Cases the Subjects Obedience to the Fatherly Power must go along and wait upon Gods Providence who only hath right to give and take away Kingdoms and thereby to adopt Subjects into the Obedience of another Fatherly Power And Lastly in his Discourse of Obedience c. he more clearly fââtleth this Point in answer to an Objection there made that most Kings now in the World have no other Titles to their Crowns but Conquest or Usurpation he replieth That tho' all Kings were Usurpers yet still the first Usurper hath the best Tale being in Possession by the Permission of God and where an Usurper hath continued so long that the Knowledge of the Right Heir is lost by the Subjects in such case the Usurper in Possession is to be taken and reputed by such Subjects for the true Heir and is to be obey'd by them as their Father And I think you your self will not deny but that Kingdoms may be transferred from one Prince to another by Conquest or a long Usurpation and that when there is no other better Title extant the King in Possession or his Heirs may have a good Title by a long Possession tho' it began by Usurpation at first F. I have not now time to answer all that your Author hath as falsly as incoherently said concerning this Subject of Usurpation and I should be glad to hear you or any man else that will undertake to defend him make him consistent not only with reason but with himself in this Discourse you quote concerning Obedience to Government in doubtful times For to pass by his unintelligible Notion of supposing two supream Paternal Powers subsisting at once and each of them laying claim to the Obedience and Submission of the Subjects the former that of the Usurper Wâo being in Possession of the Crown by the permissive Will of God who hath thought fit to adopt the Subjects into a Fatherly Power and the latter that Paternal Right which he supposes still to remain in the expulsed Prince and his Heirs for ever By which means the Allegiance of the Subjects is so divided and perplext that they can never be able to tell when the Allegiance to the Right Heir is to take place before that of the Usurper M. But if you had been pleased better to observe this Discourse you would find that Sir R. F. hath very well obviated this Objection as appears by these Words The Right of Fatherly Government was ordained by God for the Preservation of Mankind if it be usurped the Usurper may be so far obeyed as may tend to the Preservation of the Subjects who may thereby be enabled to perform their Duty to the true and right Sovereign when time shall serve in such cases to obey an Usurper is properly to obey the first and Right Governour who must be presumed to desire the safety of his Subjects The Command of an Usurper is not to be obeyed in any thing tending to the Destruction of the Governour whose Being in the first place is to be looked after F. This is I confess a very pretty distinction to make the Usurper who governs whether the right Heir will or no yet to do it by his Consent and that the Subjects when they Act thus do but still obey their rightful Governour which supposition would be contradictory to what your Author hath already laid down of the Subjects being adopted into the Obedience of another âatherly Power by the Usurpaâion for if
Men may have proceeded not from their own Right or Possession but from the Assignment of their Chief Captain or Leader Yet are not the Estates which such particular Men enjoy to be look't upon only as the meer Grace or Favour of such a Prince since most of those who followed him in this Conquest or Expedition did it not as Subjects but as Volunteers and without whose Assistance he could never have Conquered at all So that they have thereby acquired to themselves a certain Portion or Share in the Land so Conquered tho' for avoiding Dissentions and Quârrels amongst them it was left to the Disposal of this New Prince as a publick Trustee to Distribute to each person what share he should have But in the other Case when Fathers or Masters of Families before Free and Possest of Hereditary Estates do submit themselves to the Command of one Man Voluntarily or by Election Those Estates do much less depend upon the Will or Favour of that Prince And therefore if such a Prince should without their consents go about to take away their Property in their Estates he might very Iustly be Resisted by them since a quiet enjoyment of these in Peace and Safety was one of the chief reasons that made them chuse him for their Prince and was certainly one of the Original Compacts of the Government And that in Absolute Monarchies where the Subjects were not Slaves they look't upon themselves to have such a settled Property in their Persons and Estates by Compact That Seneca boldly pronounced Errat siquis existimat sutum âsse ibi Râgem ubi nihil à Regetutum est Securitas Securitate mutua paciscenda est And Mr. Hobbs himself as much a Friend as he was to the Arbitrary Power of Monarchs and an Enemy to the Natural Rights of Subjects yet is forced in his Leviathan to confess that the Riches Power and Honour of a Monarch arises only from the Riches Strength and Reputation of his Subjects for no King can be Rich nor Glorious nor Secure whose Subjects are âââher poor or contemptible Tho' how this Riches and Strength of Subjects can consist with that Absolute Power which he gives his Sovereign over the Persons and Estates of his Subjects I cannot understand since he will not allow of any Compacts or Conditions between him and them But that their Propriety may very well consist with the Power of the Prince Seneca shews us Iure Civili says he omniâ Râgis sunt tamen illa quorum ad Regem pertinet universa possessio in singulos Dominos descripta sunt unaquaeque res habet possessorem suum Itaque dare Regi donum mancipium pecuniam possumus nec donare illi de suo dicimur Ad Reges enim Potestas omnium pertinet ad singulos Proprietas And the Earl of Clarendon in his Survey of the Leviathan makes this excellent remark upon this Passage of Seneca And that Prince who thinks his Power so Greââ that his Subjâcts have nothing to give him will be very unhappy if he hath evern nâed of their Hands or their Hearts So that notwithstanding this Universal Power or Supereminent Dominion of the Emperour over all things which Seneca there supposes yet if he should have gone about to have Invaded all Men's Properties and reduced all Men's Estates into the Publick Treasury I doubt not but he would soon have had not only his own Legions but the whole Empire about his Ears And tho' I have heard that the French King doth by his Exâroitant Taxes and Gabels raise more Mâney out of the Kingdom of France and the Territories annexed to it than the Ottoman Emperour doth out of that vast Empire of which he hath the Sole Propriety of the Lands in himself Yet if the French King should indeavour by the Power of his Standing Army to take away all Men's Hereditary Properties in their Estates and make them all to be holden at Will I doubt not but he would not only be Opposed by his Subjects and perhaps ruined in the Attempt but also if he should Succeed in it would be so far from being the Richer or more Powerful that he would become the Poorer and Weaker when he had done Since no Man would take the Pains to build till or improve their Estates any more than they do in Turkey when they were not sure ãâã soon they might be turned out of them or at least could hold them no longer than for their Lives or a few years So prevalent a thing is this empty shadow and bare Name of Property that is now left in France being often charged with ãâã to above half the value of the Estates to encourage the People to beautifie cultivate and improve a Country abounding with all those Riches that Nature or Art can produce And to let you see I am not at all partial I think I may safely affirm the same of the Legislative Power in this Kingdom so that if it should happen which tho' highly improbable yet it is not impossible that the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament should so far abuse the Trust reposed in them as to give up all their Civil Properties in their Estates into the Kings Fâands to be disposed of as he should think fit and that the King should thereupon go about to turn all the People out of their Estates I doubt not but they might in that case resist the King if he went to do it by force Notwithstanding this Act of Parliament and my reason it that a ãâã Hereditary Property in Estates being an Antient if not more than Parliament themselves in this Nation must consequently be a Fundamental Law of the Government and so cannot be altered by its Representatives For tho' it be true the People have given them a Power to dispose of what part of their Estates they should think ãâã yet did they not make it absolute to extend either to their Liberties I mean in respect of Slavery or their whole Properties in their Estates And if the King may be resisted if he invade them by his own Sole Authority the reason would be the same why he might be also resisted tho' back't by an Act of Parliament Since the taââing away of Civil Property would prove as distâuctive to the Peopleâ Liberties and Happiness in the one case as in the other and as great an abuse of the Trust reposed ãâã them that were designed to protect it M. I cannot except against your distinction between those Governments where a Property in Estates did precede the Institution of the Government it sell for there I grant that such a Property may be a Fundamental Law of the Government but in those Monarchies that have begun by Conquest under the Command of a King or absolute Prince over an Army of his own Subjects in that case upon the Conquest of a Kingdom or forreign Nation not only the Prey or Goods of the ãâã but also their Estates were
a farther end than this to bless and reward a virtuous Nation or to punish a loose and degenerate Age and there cannot be a greater Blessing than a Wise and Virtuous Prince nor a greater Plague than a merciless Tyrant And therefore the Providence of God is as much concerned in setting a good or a bad Prince over any People as in rewarding or punishing them Upon this account God calls the King of Assyria the Rod of his Anger whom he raised up for the punishment of an hypocritical Nation Secondly I have already proved that by the Powers in this Text the Apostle means the Persons of Soveraign Princes and therefore according to his Doctrine those Princes who were then in Being that is the Roman Emperours were advanced by God the Powers that be that is the Princes and Emperours who now govern the World are ordained and appointed by God and that thus it is God himself tells us I have made the Earth and given it to whom it seemed meet unto me and now I have given all these Lands into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon my Servant This was also the Belief of the Primitive Christians under Heathen and persecuting Emperours Tertullian who wrote his Apology under Severuâ asserts that Caesar was chosen by God and therefore that the Christians had a Peculiar Propriety in Caesar as being made Emperour by their God So likewise St. Augustine de Civitate Dei speaks to this purpose as I remember God giveth Happiness in the Kingdom of Heaven to the Godly alone But this Earthly Kingdom both to the Godly and Ungodly as it pleases him He that gave the Government to Marius gave it also to Caesar He who gave it to Augustus gave it also to Neroââ He who gave it to the Vespasians Father and Son most beloved Emperours gave it also to the most cruel Domitian and not to recount the rest of them He who gave it to Constantine the Christian gave it also to the Apostate Iulian. These things without doubt the only True God governed as he pleased by Causes tho' hidden yet not unjust So likewise almost all the rest of the Fathers do own that Wicked and Tyrannical Princes are given as Punishments to the People for their Sins and so upon this account are to be endured and not resisted since it is God's Will to have it so But as for Usurpers I think I can give you a very satisfactory Answer for the most prosperous Rebel is not the higher Power while our natural Prince to whom we owe Obedience and Subjection is in being And therefore tho' such men may get the Power into their hands by God's Permission yet not by God's Ordinance and he who Resisteth them doth not Resist the Ordinance of God but the Usurpations of Men. Whereas in Hereditary Kingdoms the King never dies but the same Minute that the Natural Person of a King dies the Crown descends upon the next of Blood And therefore he who Rebelleth against the Father and murders him continues a Rebel in the Reign of the Son which commences with his Fathers Death It is otherwise indeed where none can pretend a greater Right to the Crown than the Usurper for there the Possession of Power seems to give a Right Thus many of the Roman Emperours came to the Crown by very ill means but when they were possest of it they were then the higher Powers For the Empire did not descend by Inheritance but sometimes by the Election of the Senate sometimes of the Army and sometimes by Force and Power which always draws a Consent and Submission after it And therefore the Apostle doth not direct the Christians to inquire by what Title the Emperours held their Crowns but commands them to submit to those who had the Power in their hands For the Possession of the Supream and Soveraign Power is Title enough when there is no better Title to oppose against it for then we must presume that God gives him the Irresistible Authority of a King to whom he gives an Irresistible Power which is the only means whereby Monarchies and Empires are transferred from one Nation to another There are two Examples in Scripture which manifestly confirm what I have now said The first is in the Kingdom of Israel after the Ten Tribes had divided from the Tribe of Iudah and the Family of David where God had not entailed the Kingdom upon any certain Family For after Ieroboam the first King it is plain by the Story in the Books of Kings and Chronicles that for some Successions there was nothing but Rebellion and the Murder of one King by another so that the Kingdom rarely descended from the Father to the Son and in the whole Succession of these Kings it only remained in the House of Ieâu for four Generations and then it returned to its former uncertainty as you may see in the 15 th Chap. of the 2 d. of Kings All which plainly shews that where there is no regular Succession to a Kingdom there Possession of Power makes a King who yet cannot afterwards be resisted and opposed without the Guilt of Treason And this was the Case of the Roman Empire at the Writing of this Epistle And therefore the Apostle might then very well say that the Powers that be are ordained of God and that whoever had the Supream Power in his hands was the Supream Power that might not be resisted But it was otherwise in the Kingdom of Iudah which God himself had entailed on David's Family as appears from the Examples of Ioash and Athaliah which we discoursed of at our last meeting but one which Examples plainly shew that no Usurpations can extinguish the Right and Title of a Natural or Hereditary Prince such Usurpers tho' they have the Possession of the Supream Power yet they have no Right to it and tho' God for wise Reasons may sometimes permit such Usurpations yet whilst his Providence secures the Persons of such deposed and banished Princes from Violence he secures their Title too But to prove more plainly that no Resistance is to be made against the Persons or Authorities of the Supream Powers let them be never so Cruel and Tyrannical as it is evident not only from what St. Paul hath here written but I shall crave leave to insist farther on that Text of St. Peter before cited in his 1 st Epistle 2 d. Chap. Submit your selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as Supream or unto Governours as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of Evil Doers and for the Praise of them that do well where by Ordinance of Man whether we understand as some do every Human Law or with others more justly ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã every human Creature as it is in the Original that is every man endued with Supream Power it comes all to the same sense and the King as the
Supream Power where ever it is placed you dissolve human Societies or at least expose them to perpetual Disorders and Convulsions Factious and Ambitious Men will still find Pretences to resist good Princes as well as bad and no Government can be any longer secure than whilst ill-designing men want power to resist Now then to pass a true Judgment on this whole Matter we must not only consider what present Inconveniences we may suffer from the irresistible Power of the worst Tyrant but also what an irreparable Mischief it is for ever to unsettle the Foundations of Government We must consider whether Civil Government be the greater Blessing to Mankind or a Tyrant the greater Curse whether it be more desirable to endure the Insolence and Injustice of the greatest Tyrant when the Power falls into such a hand or for ever to be deprived of the Security of Government and the Blessings of Peace and Order And therefore there is great Reason why God should so severely forbid the Resistance of all Princes tho' the Cruellest Tyrants you can imagine and why we should quietly and contentedly submit to this Divine Appointment because the Resistance of the Supream Powers were it once allowed by God would weaken the Authority of all Human Governments and expose them to the Rage and Frenzy of Ambitious and discontented States Men or wild Enthusiasts And this I think is a sufficient Answer to this Pretence that the Apostle limits our Subjection to Princes to the regular Exercise of their Authority F. I see we are ev'n come where we set out to the necessity of an Irresistible Power and the mischief that must follow if the People ever Iudge for themselves which indeed is but the same Argument in Politicks which the Church of Rome makes use of for the necessity of an Infallible Iudge in spirituals because otherwise if the People should judge for themselves in matters of Religion there would nothing follow but Anarchy and Confusion in the Church and that there would be as many Religions as there are Men And so you likewise urge that if the People may ever once come to Iudge when they are assaulted enslaved or opprest and should have a Right of making Resistance nothing but Anarchy and Confusion must follow in the Common wealth And truly I think the Argument is as good for the one as the other and as I hope we may be always good Orthodox Christians without such an infallible Iudge in matters of Faith so I think we may be Loyal Subjects to our Prince without investing him with an Irresistible Power of doing with us what ever he hath a mind to But since you have only repeated what you have said at our last meeting when we first began to debate this Question so I must beg you pardon if I refresh your Memory and again repeat my Answers In the first place I deny that it must follow that if once it be made Lawful to resist the Supream Power where ever placed this must dissolve Civil Societies or expose them to perpetual Disorder because forsooth some Factious and ambitious Men will find Pretences to Resist good Princes as well as bad For first I have all along supposed the Civil Society as good as dissolved before such Resistance is Lawful And therefore the Convulsions or Disorders of a Civil War can scarce be worse than such a State and until the People are under this Condition I grant factious and ambitious Men may make Pretences to Resist good Princes as well as bad and may find some followers as wicked as themselves to take theâ part Yet this Infection seldom or never seizeth upon a whole Nation who hath always Power and Affection enough for the Supream Powers to joyn with them to Suppress such Rebels I grant we ought always to consider whether Civil Government be the greater Blessing to Mankind or a Tyrant the greater Chrsâ But I do never suppose such Resistance to be Lawful but when the Power falls into such hands that tho' they may call themselves a Civil Government yet the People are almost as totally deprived of all that Security and those Blessings of Peace and order which they may justly expect from it as if they were in a State of War And therefore as you suppose that God Almighty forbids the Resistance of the most cruel Tyrants because this Resistance were it once allowed by giving the People a Power of Iudging would weaken the Authority of Human Governments and expose them to the Rage and Frenzy of Ambitious and discontented States-Men or Wild Enthusiasts And this you think a sufficient Answer So on the other side if this Resistance be in no case lawful tho' in never so great Extremities and that the People must not judge when they are so cruelly used as that it is no longer to be endured not only the Persons of Princes are Sacred and irresistible but also all those Instruments of Tyranny whom they may hire and employ to that purpose by which means all Government whatsoever will not only be Absolute but Arbitrary and without any sufficient Obligations to other Mercy Justice and the Common Good than what the Tyrannical Will or Humour of one or more men shall please to allow So that the Lives Liberties and Estates of a free People or Nation shall be in as bad or a worse Condition than if they were Slaves if all means of defending themselves by their own Resistance or joyning with those that would assist them be wholly denyed them And whether God can ever be the Author of such an Institution I appeal to your own Reason to judge when you are in a more sedate and equal Temper M. I see 't is in vain to argue this Matter any longer with you And therefore I must tell you that I cannot but look upon these Doctrines of Passive Obedience and Non-resistance as true Christian Doctrines since the Antient Fathers of the Church and Primitive Christians did always both believe and practise them and in imitation of whom our own Church of England which I think of any in the World comes nearest to the Primitive doth likewise maintain it in her 39 Articles Canons and Homilies whereas you can shew me no Express Text of Scripture nor Testimonies of the Fathers nor Examples of the Primitive Christians to justifie this Resistance which when ever you can do I shall be of your Opinion and if you doubt the Truth of what I say I have here by me the Lord Primate Usher's Book of the Power of the Prince and Obedience of the Subject which you may if you please take home with you and consult at your Leisure in which I doubt not but you will meet with full Satisfaction in this matter F. I have already proved at our last meeting that Resistance for self-defence against those who have the Power of the Sword is a Right of Nature conferred by God on all Mankind and unless you can shew me ãâ¦ã place of
refer but to this very Letter which was assented as well per procuratores Communitatis Regni as by your Barons here called Nobiles Regni And this Application thereof is given by Mr Pryn himself when he makes use of these Records But to let you see farther that the Lords and Commons for all this Author Opinion to the contrary might joyn in a Letter ro the Pope I shall shew you by that which was writ in the Name of the whole Parliament to the Pope in the 17 th of Edw. III. about the Provisions of Benefices which then grew so exorbitant that Walsingham tells us in his History Quod Rex tota Nobilitas Regni pati noluit c. which Phrase the Letter it self will best explain The beginning and conclusion of which I shall give you in English as you may find it in Mr. Fox's Book of Martyrs To the Most Holy Father in God Lord Clement by the Grace of God of the Holy Church of Rome and of the Universal Church Chief and High-Bishop His humble and devout Children the Princes Dukes Earls Barons Knights Citizens and Burgesses and all the Communalty of the Realm of England assembled at a Parliament holden at Westminster the 15 th Day of May last past c. In witness whereof we have hereunto set Our ãâã Given in the full Parliament at Westminst on the 18th Day of May Anno Drâ 1343. And it still appears by the Parliament Roll of this Year viz. 17th Edw. III. n. 59. that the Commons petitioned the King that the Lords might stay at the Parliament till they had perfected and seal'd this Letter And that there was such a Letter then written by the Parliament appears by the King's Letter to the Pope about the same Matter still among the Tower Records In which he imitated his Grandfather Edw. I. and Great Grandfather Hen. III. who also seâ Letters to the Pope on such like occasions but in those to excuse the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury from being the Author of those Complain he had this Passage that since it was the Judgment tam Procerum Nobilium quaâ Communitatis Regni in ultimo Parliamento contra Provisorum Exercitum To conclude I think nothing is plainer than that under the Universitas Regââ in the first Letter to the Pope 29th Hen. III. and under the Communitas Regni mentioned in the Letter of the 29th Edw. I. were meant the same Estates or Orders of Men as were more particularly recited in this present Letter viz. The ãâã Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled M. I must freely tell you I am not yet satisfied with the Sense you now put âpon these Words Universitas and Communitas Regni before the Commons were summoned to Parliament for you your self must grant that as the word Universitas Regni takes in the whole Representative Body of the Kingdom so likewise the word Communitas signifies no more than the same whole Body or Community thereof Therefore if I prove to you that in those times this Universâây or Community consisted only of the Earls Barons and Tenants in capite that word Communitas Regni ought never to be interpreted by the English word Commoââlty or Commons of England till after the time that I allow the Commons were admitted to make a constituent part of the Great Council or Parliament nor always then neither And Mr. P. in his Book which we have so often cited hath done very unfairly to make the Universitas and Communitas Regni to comprehend the Commons of England before they everappeared in Parliament at all and so hath he likewise abused the Word Populus as I have already observed to signifie the Commons when indeed there is no more thereby meant than the whole Assembly of the Laity which at that time consisted of no more than the Earls Barons or other Tenants in Capite And tho I grant that by Communitas Praelatorum or Baronum are often understood the Body of the Prelates or greater Barons only called by way of Eminency Proceres Magnates yet most frequently these with all the other Tenants in capite did make the whole Body of the King 's immediate Tenants in Military Service and were altogether called the Baronage of England the Community of the Land or Community of the Kingdom and for this I think I shall give you undeniable proofs by and by F. I am very well aware that the Word Populus often signifies the whole Body of the Laity yet not excluding the Commons as I have already sufficiently proved For then the word must signifie quite contrary to its genuine Signification instead of People the Greater Nobility only yet that when it is put after as distinct from Magnates it must mean the Commons as now understood I shall shew you by and by But that this word Populus does not always signifie the whole Body of the Nobility only but takes in oftentimes the Commons too pray see Matt. VVest who tells us King Edw. I. in the 34th year of his Reign making his Son a Knight Pro hac melitia silii Regis concessus est Regi zomus Denarius a Populo Clero Mercatores vero vicesâmum concesserunt Upon which your Dr. in his Glossary very well remarks that it is evident upon Record who were the Populus meant by the Historian viz. the Comites Barones alii Magnates nec non Milites Comitatuum So that unless the Knights of Shires were Lords it is plain Populus takes in the Commonâ too But Universitas Regni and Communitas Regni called in French le Communâ Dangletterre is often taken for the whole Community or Body of the whole Parliament and this Sir Edward Coke owns expresly in his 2d Instit. upon these Words In Articulis supââ Chartas Thus here Le Commune is taken for People so astout le Commune is here taken for all the People and this is proved by the Sense of the Words For Magna Charta was not granted to the Commons of the Realm but generally to all the Subjects of the Realm viz. to those of thâ Clergy and to those of the Nobility and to the Commons also And this is a Rational as well as Grammatical Interpretation For as the Word Universitas is derived from the Adjective Universus which signifies the VVhole ãâã Universal So the Word Communitas is derived from the Adjective ãâã Common or General So that these two Words when used simply in a Political ãâã Legal Sense ought to take in the whole Body of the Kingdom or all sorts and conditions of Freemen appearing themselves or their Lawful Proxies or Representatives in Parliament But I have already sufficiently proved that under those General words used in our Historians and Records viz. Principes Proceres Nobiles Magnates Barones alii de Regno were then comprehended either all the considerable Freeholders oâ Lords of Manners or else the Knights of Shires Citizens and Burgesses So
I. it signified onely the Body of the lesser Tenants in Capite till after the 18 th of that King F. I am sorry to see Prepossession and Prejudice has so much overrun you as to hinder you from closing with the Truth for pray tell me if this Author could in the 49 th of Henry the 3 d when the Commons were summoned without dispute comprehend all the Estates of that Parliament under the General Words of Proâeres and Magnates and the Knights of Shires are understood by the same Word in the next Passage cited out of the same Author why might not other Writers do so too in other Parliaments as for your next Exception it is a very small Cavil for it appears that this Summons of the Citizens and Burgesses at the Translation of King Edwards Relicks was to a Parliament by the Words that follow Nobiles ut assolent Parliamentationis genere de Regis Regni negotiis pertractare and why these Citizens and Burgesses should not be as well Elected by their respective Cities and Burroughs this Year as well as the last as it appears they were by the Writ to the Cinque Ports which the Dr. and Mr. Pryn has given us I desire you would give me any satisfactory Argument to the contrary As for you Objection against the Words Communitas Regni being to be understood for the Body of the Commons in 54 th Henry 3 d it is altogether as unreasonable since this is to make the Constituent parts of the Parliament alter not onely when Writers shift their Phrases but when they do not and that without any other Reason but because the Writs of Summons and Parliament Rolls of those times are all perisht and to deny the Commons were there onely for that Reason is altogether as unjust as for any Court of Justice to turn a man out of the actual and long Possession of an Estate meerly because his Writings and Evidences by the carelessness or roguery of his Servants have happen'd a great many of them to be lost or burnt But fully to convince you if possible that Dr. Bradyes Opinion of the Commons not being again summoned from the 49 th of Henry the 3 d till the 18 th of Edward the first is a meer Fancy of his own and contrary to the express Authorities both of Historians and Records And to come to plainer proofs pray in the first place take notice that it appears by a Writ of the 11 th of King Edward the I. to the Archbishop of Canterbury acquainting him with the Rebellion of Lewellyn Prince of Wales that he had de Consilio Praelatorum Procerum Magnatum Regni nec non totius Communitatis ejusdem resolved God willing to put an end to this Welch Rebellion so that this war seems to have been resolved upon at the Parliament held the Year before and now mentioned in this Record a War which that Valiant and Fortunate Prince effectually concluded by the total subduing of Wales and killing of Lewellyn whose Head was cut off and sent to London the particulars of which War Knighton as well as other Historians relate at large and also that presently after David the Brother of this Lewellyn the cause of all these Mischiefs was as this Author shews us in Magno Parliamento at Shrewsbury Condemned and afterwards hang'd drawn and quarter'd Walsingham is more short in the Relation of this Parliament onely says that in the 11 th of Edward the I. Habitum est Parliamentum at Shrewsbury in which this David was Condemned and Executed as before But Thomas Wikes who lived at this very time in his Chronicle but now cited will better instruct us than either Walsingham or Knighton and his account of this Parliament is as follows Anno 1282. Circa festum sti Michaelis Rex convocari fecit apud Salopesberiam Majores Regni sui Sapientiores tam de Civibus quam de Magnatibus fecit illuc addaci David qui apud Rothelan fuerat captivatus ut super exigentiam Delicti ' sui corpore subiret Iudicium c. and then relates at large the manner of his Execution from which Passage we may observe that this Author makes it plain who were the Communitas Regni mentioned in the Record of the 11 th of this King and who constituted this great Parliament at Shrewsbury viz. Majores Magnates Regni which last as I have now often proved takes in the Knights of Shires and the wisest of the Citizens M. But yet this Author says no more but that the Majores Regni sapientiores tam de Civibus quam de Magnatibus were called to this Parliament wherein Lewellyn was condemned Now it doth not appear that these Ciâes were Elected or that there were any Burgesses chosen for the Burroughs or that there were any Knights chosen by the Counties there were indeed Magnates called to this Parliament but they might be all Tenants in Capite F. Well then since you will not be satisfied without direct and evident proof such as neither your self nor Dr. B. will I hope deny pray take this which Mr. Petyt has not long since communicated to me and which he has lately discovered in Rotulo Walliae in a bye Roll not taken notice of by any Body as I know of before it is a formal Writ of 11 th Edward I. for summoning the Temporal Lords to be with that King at a Collequy or Parliament opud Salop in Crastino Sti. Michaelis and there is in the same Roll a second Writ directed to several Cities and Burroughs for Electing two Citizens and two Burgesses to this Parliament with a void space to insert more Names And also a third Writ is there directed to the Sheriff of every County in England to cause to be chosen two Knights pro Communitate ejusdem Commitatus And lastly there is a 4 th Writ directed to the Justices and others of the Kings Learned Council With the same Preambles to each of them all being commanded to appear at the same time and place now what can Dr. Brady say to this that he who was so long Keeper of these Records and sure ought to have perused them as he did many others of the same Reign yet has either willfully or carelesly passed by this so memorable a Record And so I hope this will convince you for the future of the danger of being over positive in an Opinion because it could not presently be confuted and let you see that it is not at all improbable but that the like Writs of Summons would appear as well before the 49 th of Henry the 3 d as in the rest of the Years of his own and his Sons Reign had not those Records been lost and destroy'd which considered we have Reason to thank God for those that the Iniquity of the times have yet leât us M. I must confess you have told me more than ever I yet thought could be
his Father and to be Exiled from the Realm of England and that therefore the King that now is and the Queen his Mother being in so great Jeopardy in a strange Countrey and seeing the destructions and disinherisons which were notoriously done in England upon holy Church the Prelates Earls Barons and the Commonalty of the same by the said Spencers Robert Baldock and Edmund Earl of Arundel by the Encroachment of Royal Power to themselves and seeing they might not remedy the same unless they came into England with an Army of Men of War and have by the Grace of God with such puissance and the help of the great Men and Commons of the Realm vanquished and destroyed the said Spencers c. therefore our Soveraign Lord the King by the Common Council of the Prelates Earls Barons and other great Men and of the Commons of the Realm have provided and ordained c. as follows That no great Man nor other of what Estate Dignity or Condition soever he be that came in with the said King that now is and with the Queen in Aid of them to pursue their said Enemies and in which pursuit the King his Father was taken and put in Ward c. shall be impeached molested or grieved in person or in goods in any of the King's Courts c. for the pursuit and taking in hold the body of the said King Edward nor for the pursuit of any other persons not taking their goods nor for the death of any Man nor any other things perpetrated or committed in the said pursuit from the day of the King and Queens Arrival until the day of the Coronation of the said King This Act of Indemnity is so full a Justification of the necessity and lawfulness of the Resistance that was then made against King Edward the Second and his wicked Councellors the Spencers that it needs no Comment And tho' King Edward the Third took warning by the example of his Father and was too wise then to follow the like Arbitrary Courses yet Richard the Second his Grandson being a wilful hot headed young Prince fell into all the Errours of his great Grand-father and found the like if not greater Resistance from his Nobility and People for when he had highly mis-governed the Realm by the Advice of his favourites Alexander Arch-Bishop of York the Duke of Ireland and others a Parliament being called in the 10th Year of his Reign the Government of the Kingdom was taken out of their hands and committed to the Bishops of Canterbury and Ely with Thomas Duke of Gloucester the King's Uncle Richard Earl of Arundel and Thomas Earl of Warwick and nine or ten other Lords and Bishops but notwithstanding this the King being newly of Age refused to be governed by the said Duke and Earls but was carried about the Kingdom by the said Duke of Ireland and others to try what Forces they could raise and also to hinder the said Duke and Earls from having any Access to him But see what followed these violent and arbitrary courses as it is related by Henry de Knighton who lived and wrote in that very time and is more exact in this King's Reign than any other Historian he there tells us that when Thomas Duke of Gloucester and the other Bishops and Earls now mentioned sound they could not proceed in the Government of the King and Kingdom according to the Ordinance of the preceding Parliament through the hinderance of Mich. de la Poole Robert de Vere Duke of Ireland Nich. Brembar and Robert Tresillian Chief Justice and others who had seduced the King and made him alienate himself from the Council of the said Lords to the great damage of the Kingdom whereupon the said Duke of Gloucester and the Lords aforesaid with a great Guard of Knights Esquires and Archers came up towards London and quartered in the Villages adjacent and then the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury the Lord Lovat the Lord Cobham the Lord Eures with others went to the King in the name of the the Duke and Earls and demanded all the persons above-mentioned to be banished as Seducers and Traitors to the King and all the Lords then swore upon the Cross of the said Arch-Bishop not to desist till they had obtained what they came for the conclusion of this Meeting was that the King not being able to withstand them was forced immediately to call that remarkable Parliament of the 11th Year of his Reign in which Mich. de la Poole and the Duke of Ireland were attainted and Tresillian and divers other Judges sentenced to be hanged at Tyburn upon the Impeachment of the said Duke of Gloucester and the Earl of Arundel for delivering their Opinions contrary to Law and the Articles the King had not long before proposed to them at Nottingham I shall omit the Resistance which Henry Duke of Lancaster made after his Arrival by the Assistance of the Nobility and People of the North of England against the Arbitrary Government of this King being then in Ireland not only because it is notoriously known but because it was carried on farther than perhaps it needed to have been and ended in the Deposition of this King Only in the first Year of Henry the 4th there was the same Act of Indemnity almost word for word passed for all those that had come over with that King and had assisted him against Richard the Second and his evil Councellors as was passed before in primo of Edward the Third I shall not also insist upon the Resistance of Richard Duke of York in the Reign of King Henry the 6th who took up Arms against the Evil Government of the Queen and her Minion the Duke of Suffolk because you may say that this was justifiable by the Duke of York as right Heir of the Crown nor will I instance in the Resistance made by the Two Houses of Parliament during the late Civil Wars in the time of King Charles the First since it is disputed to this day who was in the fault and began this Civil War whether the King or the Parliament Only thus much I cannot omit to take notice of that the King in none of his Declarations ever denied but that the People had a right to Resist him in case he had made War upon them or had introduced Arbitrary Government and expresly owned in his Answer to one of the Parliaments Messages that they had a sufficient power to restrain Tyranny but denied himself to be guilty of it and still asserted that he took up Arms in defence of his just Right and Prerogative to the Command of the Militia of the Kingdom which they went about to take from him by force M. I have with the greater patience hearkened to your History of Resistance in all the Kings Reigns you have mentioned because I cannot desire any better Argument to prove the unlawfulness of such Resistance than those Acts of Pardon and Indemnity You cannot but confess have
him more irresistible than he was unless you will suppose that the King may not rob with a few without resistance but may justifie the doing of it with an Army and if so pray tell me what number they must be to render the King and all those with him thus irresistible And therefore it is no wonder if our Law has made no express Provision for resisting the King's Person since it had so high a regard for his Honour as not to suppose He could be guilty of making War upon his People But if the King shall be among such wrong doers either by Force or Fraud the case will be otherwise Thus when K. Edward and Richard the Second joyned their own presence to the Illegal Actions of the two Spencers and Robert de Vere Duke of Ireland yet the Nobility and People took no notice of that but prose cuted them notwithstanding the Kings personal joyning himself with them and Thomas Earl of Lancaster tho' he had the worst of it and was taken and executed yet was his Attainder reversed in Parliament as I have already said and his Quarrel with the Spencers declared to be good and just as the like resistance was also declared to have been for the safety of the King and safeguard of the Realm in the Parliament of 11th of Rich. the Second wherein the Duke of Ireland and the rest of his Faction were Conâemned as I have already shewn you and tho' I grant that in such a division between the King and his People his Person may run a great hazard yet it is his own fault and not theirs if it so fall out and they are not to lose their Lives Liberties and Properties in case the King will fully joyn himself with Murderers or Robbers since this is not to resist Royal Authority but Illegal Force without any Authority at all and if he will thus expose himself to the mercy of blind Bullets charge is to be given to all not to kill him wilfully or wittingly since we are never to despair of his Repentance till he absolutely renounces all reconciliation with his People and thus even in the midst of such a resistance the King's person may be as safe as he can be in such Circumstances though not so safe as if he were in his own Pallace But if an Army of wicked and lawless men must not be resisted because they have got the King's person on their side then Prince Edward afterwards K. Edward the First could not have justified his fighting with Simon Montfort and those of his Faction who had as you your self acknowledged ãâã the Person of King Henry the Third into their Power and acted all things in âis Name and by his seeming Authority as the Historians of those times expresly tell us and the King being in Montfort's Army at the Battel of Evâsham was in great Danger being then wounded in the Neck with an Arrow So that if this Oath had been then to be taken in this sense this rescuing of the King by his own Son out of the hands of these wicked Councellors had been taking up Arms by his Authority against his Person M. Pray give me leave to answer this instance you have now brought because I think it does rather make against than for your Opinion I grant Prince Edward might well justifie his fighting with Simon Montfort tho' he had the King's Person then in his Power because the Prince very well knew that his Father was carried about with them as a Prisoner against his will and therefore ought to release him tho' with some hazard to his Father's Person since it could not be otherwise brought about But sure there is a great deal of difference between fighting to release my Prince when made a Prisoner against his will and fighting against him to take him away from Evil Councellors whether he will or not as the Long Parliament did against King Charles I. tho' they knew he was in the Head of his Army with his own consent and this was sure taking up Arms by the King's Authority against his Person and is that which is to be expresly disclaimed by this Oath and will be also Treasonable if done in any Case whatsoever where the King shall think fit to be at the Head of his Forces whether the thing be lawful or unlawful for which they are raised F. Well then it seems the fear of endangering the King's Person is nothing if the end for which it be done be lawful And why it may not hold in other Cases as well as this I can see no reason I grant that what the Parliament did was unlawful because the Occasion of the War began on their side as it was then said but supposing the King made War upon the People I doubt not but the Case had been otherwise And for proof of this pray give me leave to put you a Case which may well happen now we have a Standing Army distinct from the Militia Suppose that in a Suit with a great Favourite of the King 's a Man recovers a House and Lands against him by a Judgment at Law and he also by Course of Law put into Possession thereof by the Sheriff afterwards the King's Commission is obtained by the Interest of this Favourite to Command an Officer and some Companies of Souldiers of the Standing Army to take Possesion of this House and deliver it back to the person who first had it The Man in Possession being a stout and powerful Person in his Country hearing of it resolves to maintain the Possession of his House according to Law and therefore gets in good store of his Tenants Neighbors to defend it The Officer comes with his Soldiers Summons the House they within refuse to yield up the Possession whereupon an Assault ensues in which a great many are Killed The Man in Possession is by the King's command Indicted for Treason or Murder for fighting against those commissioned by the King Now pray tell me whether the Judges ought according to their Oaths to direct the Jury to find this Man and those of his Party guilty of the Crimes above mentioned or not and whether the Officer and his Souldiers are not rather to answer for this Offence M. Truly I cannot deny but this Military Commission to put a Man out of his Freehold is Illegal and consequently void and so may be resisted since I know the Law says That a man's House is his Castle and he may justifie the defence of it against all Subjects whatsoever but what is this to resisting the King's Person who was not there for if he had I doubt not but this Person ought to deliver it up to the King rather than endanger His Majesties Sacred Person Nor is this resistance considerable it being only in a particular Case which can no way by a general Rebellion alter this Government over the whole Nation F. You speak agreeable to your own Principles Well but suppose the King
against the Tyranny of the Duke D'Alva in the beginning of the Belgick Wars and it was soon after seconded by the revolt of divers other Cities and Towns in those Provinces till the Spaniards were quite driven out M. I do not deny but you speak more moderately on this Subject than most of your opinion who think every private man has a right to take up Arms and raise a Rebellion whenever he judges his Person or Estate is invaded or injured by the Government And indeed this remedy of Resistance seems at first sight prety tolerable if it were not that we very well knew that this many-headed Beast the Multitude is very apt to be deluded by the cunning Speeches and sly Insinuations of factious and ambitious Men whose Interest it will always be to fish in troubled Waters and raise Disturbances to make themselves the Heads of a Party Thus in the Year 42. what Lies and Stories were there raised to incense the People against that good King to make them take up Arms against him as an Invader of their Liberties and one that was about to make War upon them And who that is not over-partial to his own Opinions does not see that the Nation has been blown up into a flame by the lying Reports of a French League and a Supposiâirious Prince of Wales neither of which I durst pawn my life have the least tittle of truth in them so that this Doctrine can scarce fail almost every time it is put in practice to bring all Government to Anarchy and Confusion F. I have already in part answered this Objection at our Third Meeting but since you will urge it over again I shall in the first place admit the Matter of Fact to be as you say that the People may by some turbulent Demogogues be sometimes so far incensed as to take up Arms when there is no just Occasion but let me tell you I doubt that neither of the Instances you have given will make good your Assertion for in the first place as to King Charles the First it is said by all Writers on the Parliaments side that the King by leaving his Parliament and going to York and there taking a Guard when no Enemy was near and when the Parliament had as yet raised no Forces at all as also by his going to Hull to remove the Magazine of Arms that lay there in order to put them into the hands of an Army to make War upon the Parliament who then demanded the Settlement of the Militia to be in Commissioners of their Nomination that he thereby broke his Coronation Oath whereby he was Sworn to Govern according to Law and not by force But as for what you say as to the present juncture of Affairs I never can desire a more plain proof of the Peoples necessity of âaking up defensive Arms since admitting that neither of the Reports concerning the French League and the false Birth of this supposed Prince be true yet I think the Nation has had sufficient Provocations to rise as one man and joyn with the Prince of Orange for the obtaining of a free Parliament to set all things right which the King 's violent illegal Administration has so much discomposed But admitting the utmost you can suppose that sometimes the people may Judge amiss as well as the King and through that mis-information may take up Arms against their Prince when there is no real Occasion shall this abuse of a right be a sufficient cause against there ever exercising of it at all I am sure this is no good Argument against the natural Right of Self defence between private persons in the state of Nature that some men do often abuse it nor can I see how upon these Grounds even Soveraign Princes may be allowed to make so much as Defensive Wars as I said but now since they may pretend that themselves are wronged and invaded or at least are like to be so when no such thing was really done or intended and so by their mis-judgment or false pretences many millions of Lives may be lost What then must no Princes ever make War at all till all the World be satisfied of the Justice of their Quarrel If so I doubt the last War of King Charles the Second made against the Dutch and this late War the King of France has now made upon the Empire should never have been by your Principles so much as begun much less carried on with so great an Effusion of Blood and the Destruction of so many Cities and Towns and whether this as well as Tyranny at home is not more often put in practice by Princes than any Resistance this Nation or all the Subjects of the World have made against such Tyranny and Arbitrary Power I leave it to your self or any indifferent Person to judge M. I doubt not but I may very well join issue with you upon this point for I think that upon those very conditions and grounds you have now laid down the Clergymen Lords Gentlemen and Commons of this Kingdom who have either come over with the Prince of Orange or have taken up Arms in defence of his Late Declaration cannot justifie themselves by any of the Instances you have given for joyning themselves with him in Arms for tho' I grant His Majesty by hearkning too much to Popish Counselâ may have done many things which in strictness of Law cannot be justified yet since they do not strike at that which you call the fundamental constitution of the Government and has been also done without any force on the People of this Nation but hath been either transacted by Judgment of Law or the colour of it at least viz. by the opinion of all or the Major part of Judges all the Parties above mention'd ought according to your own Principles to have waited for the meeting of the next Parliament to whose determination they ought by the Law of the Land to have referred all such grievances and violations of Laws which they had to complain of and if then the King had refused to have remedied them they might have had some colour I do not say right for taking up Arms and doing what they have done whereas I cannot see how you can even upon your Principles defend the late risers from wilful Rebellion against the King And for proof of this I need go no farther than the Prince of Oranges Late Declaration which being drawn by the best advice of the Male-contents then in Holland would not fall to mention all the violations of Law which they thought his Majesties Government had been guilty of ever since his coming to the Crown and therefore not to insist upon the want of right which I conceive the Prince had to concern himself with the affairs of another Kingdom which he had no right to I shall however mention every Article in which his Highness conceives the Religion Laws and civil Liberties of this Nation to be endangered In the first
to hinder Free Elections and due returns of Parliament Men by making either Popish or Fanatical Sheriffs and putting Mayors and other Officers of the like Principles into most of the Cities and Corporate Towns in England nor can I tell but that force would also have been used if they found they could not have compassed their designs without it in those places where Souldiers were Quarter'd since I am credibly inform'd that at the late intended Elections of Burgesses for Northampton and Brackly the Officers and Souldiers Quarter'd at those places declar'd that none of the Towns-men should be admitted to give Voices at the Election unless they would promise to Vote for those that the Court would set up and the like instances I beleive I might give you of other places had I time to enquire into it and as for the house of Peers pray consider how many of the Bishops and temporal Lords the King might have gain'd either by threats or fair promises to the Kings party or at least prevail'd upon to stand Neuters and not to oppose his designs and if these had fail'd it had been but calling up some Popish or high Tory or Fanatick Gentlemen to the House of Lords and to have sate their as Barons Peers pro tempore till this Jobb was done and I doubt not but there would have been enough found out of each sort for that purpose and that I do not speak without Book I have had it from persons of very good Intelligence that such a design was lately on foot and the Court party thought they had very good Authority for it since Mr. Pryn and Sr. Will. Dâdgdale pretended to show us several examples of this Kind as low as the Reign of King Henry the 4th and a great part of the design of your Dr. Bs. late Books seem to have been only to prove that the King might not only have Summon'd to Parliament what of the Commmons he pleased but what Lords too and have omitted the rest as I have already shown you at our two last meetings and sure if the King had such a prerogative two or three hundred years ago these Gentlemen would not have deny'd his Present Majesty the like Power Since they have in all their Writings and addresses declar'd him as absolute as any of his Predecessours But to make an end as for what you say of the Kings Redressing the Grievances of the Nation before the Prince of Orange came it is very true he did by the advice of some of the Bishops endeavour to put things into the same state they were in at his first coming to the Crown but I very much mistrust the sincerity of his Majesties intentions since it is plain he never offer'd to do it till the Prince of Orange was âust upon coming and that his Declaration had been spread about the Kingdom and then he did it so unwillingly that when the news came of part of the Princes Fleets being Shipwrack'd and that his design was quite put off the Bishop of Winchester who was then but newly gone down to restore the President and Fellows of Magdalen Colledge was immediately call'd back under pretence of being present as the Examination of the Birth of the Prince of Wales and did not return again to finish that business till such time as fresh News came that the Prince was certainly come notwithstanding his late disaster And which is also more remarkable His Majesty in none of His Declarations ever disowned his Dispensing Power or so much as put out Father Peters from the Council or Disbanded one Popish Officer or Souldier out of his Army which is another great Argument of the Sincerity of his intentions So that I think this was sufficient to convince any reasonable Man that there was no other means left us but Resistance and that by Force and a hearty Joyning with the Prince of Orange at his Landing Since this resistance was not made either in Opposition to the King or the Laws but for defence of both against a Standing Army kept up contrary to Law and headed by Officers the greatest part of which by not taking the Sacrament and Test according to the Act made for that purpose had render'd themselves wholy uncapable of holding those Commissions and consequently whilst in Arms were to be look'd upon as common Enemies to the Nation But as for his Majesties Gracious and mercifull disposition as I shall not make it my business personally to Reflect upon him so I must needs tell you the Execution of Mr. Cornish Mrs. Lisle Mrs. Gaunt for Treasons falsly alledg'd or else for such as Women could scarce be capable of knowing to be so were no great Evidences of such highly Merciful Inclinations M. I confess you have taken a great deal of pains not only to set forth the Late Miscarriages of the Government but also to prove that the Army which the King raised upon the Duke of Monmouth's Rebellion and which he hath since kept up to prevent either fresh Rebellions at home or Invasions from abroad has been meerly maintain'd to support all these Late breaches upon our Laws and Civil Liberties which you say were made upon them now this is very uncharitably done for as His Majesty was Forc'd to raise that Army at first because the Late Rebellion in the West was too powerfull to be quell'd by the ordinary Train'd Bands of the Kingdom whom he had too much reason to suspect by the running over of several of them to the Rebels not to be so Loyal as they ought to have been and if His Majesty had not had a small body of an Army on Foot the last Summer before the Prince of Orange came over he must upon his Landing have Yielded to his terms had they been never so unreasonable and though I will not defend the Listing of Popish or Irish Souldiers or the Granting Commissions to Popish Commanders yet it is very hard to prove this to be a making War upon the Nation unless you can suppose there may be War made without Fighting and as for those Violations of the Laws which you suppose were made only upon the presumption of this standing Army this is likewise very hard to affirm since how can you tell that the Judges and Ministers would not have given the same Opinions and advices concerning the Dispensing Power Chimney Money the Ecclesiastical Commission had there been no Army at all rais'd since they might for ought I know have presum'd that the People of this Nation had been sufficiently convinc'd of the truth of the Doctrines of Passive Obedience and Non-resistance as not to have needed a Standing Army to back what he had already done tho' contrary to Law but as for the latter part of your Dicourses say the People ought to have waited till the King had call'd a Parliament and then if they had betray'd their trust and given up our Religion and Liberties as you suppose they would have done it had been
little value for those things which are the foundations of our happiness as to desire they should be Sacrificed to an Arbitrary Power nor on the other side have I so great a value for them as to endeavour their preservation by Rebellion and deposing the King which since I look upon as altogether unlawful we are then to follow the Apostles Rule and not do Evil that Good may come of it but as for what I have urged in excuse of the Conquerors Perjury and breach of Laws I confess I have said more than the matter will well bear but I hope you will excuse it since I confess the argument is none of mine but the Doctors from whom I borrowed it and I did not consider the bad consequences of it yet this much I must still freely affirm that neither King William the Conqueror nor his present Majesty who is his heir by an Hereditary Right of Succession either could then or can now at this day be lawfully resisted much less can be deposed or can forfeit their Royal Dignity for any Male administration or Tyranny whatsoever F. Pray give me your reason for that since I think you may be very well satisfied that this Kings Title by Conquest from King William his Ancestors can signifie nothing tho' I should grant the utmost you can demand and therefore tho' I am as much against Rebellion and Deposing of Princes as you can be and doing of evil that good may come of it yet the question remains still to be decided between us whether that resistance I maintain be Rebellion or not and whether it be Treason to deny obedience to a Prince who hath done his utmost to lose the very name of King by not observing those conditions on the performance of which he can only keep his Royal Dignity now since I think I have fully proved the two Points I undertook viz. both that of the Kings forfeiting the Crown in the cases I have put as also that of the matter of Fact whereby you would maintain that the King has an indeseasable Right to the Crown of this Realm âas an Absolute Monarch by the Conquest now since you decline arguing this Point any farther because you find it is not to be maintained pray let me know what other reasons you have why you cannot come over to my opinion M. Though I am not yet satisfied but that a great deal more may be farther urged by those who are better versed in this controversie to prove that his Majesty hath an unforfeitable Right to our Allegiance by the Conquest of King William and his Predecessors yet I shall not now insist any longer upon that Title which tho' our Kings have by so many gracious condescentions to the People of this Nation seemed to wave yet have they never renounced it as I know of but since his Majesty was setled in the Throne as an Absolute and Lawful King without any Competitor by a long series of aâ Hereditary Succession of above six hundred years standing and confirmed by the Oaths of Allegiance of the People of this Nation both to him and his Ancestors he is not only our King by the Laws of Man but God also to whom and not to the People he owes his Crown and can therefore neither forfeit it nor be accountable to them for it and when you can prove the contrary you may then convince me to be of your opinion F. We have already partly argued this Point at our third and fourth discourses concerning the lawfulness of resistance but since perhaps you may have still somewhat farther to urge upon so important a question I desire to hear the utmost you can say to prove that Kings owe their Crowns to none but God and therefore ought never to be resisted neither can forfeit their Crown upon any pretence whatsoever and therefore pray appoint me some other time when I may wait on you again and fully discuss this Point since it is now very late M. I am sorry I cannot appoint you any certain time for since I see so great a confusion reigns every where and that there is like to be no Term and consequently no business for men of my Profession I am resolved to retire for two or three months into the Country till I see things a little better setled than they are at present and I heartily wish that the Convention which I hear is like to meet in some time may endeavour the Peace and Settlement of the Nation by sending for the King and the Prince of Wales out of France since I do not desire any more Conquests nor the Government of a Foreign Prince as long as we have a lawful King of our own who will govern us again if he might but as soon as I return to Town you shall be sure to know it In the mean time I am your Servant F. I am yours and wish you a good Journey FINIS Bibliotheca Politica OR A DISCOURSE By WAY of DIALOGUE On these following Questions 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 Collected out of the Best Authors as well Antient as Modern Dialogue the Eleventh LONDON Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane near the Oxford-Arms where also may be had the First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth Ninth and Tenth Dialogues 1694. Authors made use of in this Dialogue and how denoted in the Margin The History of the Desertion H. D. The Desertion discussed D. D. Some Observations upon the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of the Kings of England O. E. I. A Discourse of the Illegality of the Late Ecclesiastical Commission I. E. C. ADVERTISEMENT ON tke first Day of the next Term will be published the Twelfth and Last Dialogue and also a large Index to the whole Work THE PREFACE TO THE READER BEing almost arrived at the end of my intended design I thought fit to let you know that I hoped to have made this the last Discourse that I should have troubled the World with upon these Subjects but when I came to reduce my Notes into form I found that these few sheets would not contain all that could well be said on either side upon the foregoing questions and therefore am forced to refer what remains to be said concerning the Vacancy of the Throne and Their Present Majesties Title thereunto till the next Dialogue which I intend shall be the last And which I should not have drawn to that length had it not been for the benefit of those Gentlemen and others who have not Time or Money to buy or peruse the vast
quantity of Pamphlets that have been written upon these Subjects as also that such as have perused them may find together in this and the following Discourse all that hath been urged on the one side or other upon these important Subjects And since the great number of Treatises of this kind have rather served to confound than instruct ordinary Readers I resolved to make use of the words of very few of them only to take the chiefest and strongest Arguments on either side and fairly to represent them at once to the Readers View who I hope hath the discretion to judge which are best since I declare I write for no Party but purely for Truth and therefore I have now and shall still endeavour to avoid all Personal Reflections in this as well as the ensuing Dialogue not only on Their Present Majesties but also on King James since I remember he was a Crowned Head and is still the Father of our Illustrious Queen let his failings have been what they will But I hope the Reader will not be scandalized if I have so far followed the opinions of the ablest Divines as well as Lawyers of this and other Nations in making one of the Parties in this Dialogue assert the consent of the People us the only just and natural means of conferring a just right to Civil Power since the learned Mr. Hooker in his first book of Ecclesiastical Policy lays it down as a Principle that in every Politick Societyââât is impossible that any should have compleat lawful Powââ buâây the consent of men or the immediate appointment of God and Chancellor Fortescue in his Discourse de Laudibus Legum Angliae 12 and 13. Chapters supposes all Kingly âower as well what is Absolute as that which is Politick or limited by Laws to have proceeded at first from the Peoples consent not that the Power it self is otherwise than from God only he has made use of the People as an Instrument whereby to convey it and I hope none of those who are still for King James's Interest will be offended at this Doctrine since those that have writ with the greatest Iudgment for his absolute indefeasible Title to the Crown have placed it in his Legal Right to it by the Laws of the Land which all must own could not have been made without the Peoples Consent I have but one thing more to desire of you which is your Patience and Attention if some of the Speeches in this Dialogue are longer than ordinary since they are upon subjects that would not well bear interruption and to tell you farther the Press staying for the Sheets I had not time to make them shorter THE Eleventh Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. MEANWELL a Civilian AND Mr. FREEMAN a Gentleman F. DEar Sir you are welcome to Town you have been absent a long time and indeed I wonder how you could stay away so long when such greaâ things as the King to have Abdicated and placing his Son and Daughter in the Throne have been transacted M. I thank you kindly Sir but yet I must tell you that I have been so little satisfied with what your Convention has done in these matters that the very hearing of it hath been a great affliction to me and it would have certainly been a much greater had I been upon the place and seen such horrid things as the Deposition of a King the disinheriting of his right Heir and the setting up the Prince and Princess of Orange who certainly could have no right to the Crown as long ãâã the King lives nor yet after his death as long as the Prince of Wales is in being F. I confess these are very high Charges if they would hold but if you please to consider the Hypothesis I proposed at our last Meeting That the King had by breach of the Original Contract made between his Ancestors and Predecessors and the People of this Nation to observe the Fundamental Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom forfeited his Right to the Crown All that hath been done in this great Affair I suppose may be very well maintain'd and justified from the necessity of the thing and of maintaining the Fundamental Constitution of the Government and therefore pray give me leave to put you in mind how far I have proceeded in the pâooâ of this Assertion First I have made out that the King of this Realâ is not the sole Supreme Power thereof neither ever was so from the very Institution of Kingly Government in this Island Secondly I have also prov'd that the King not having the sole Power must hold that share thereof which he enjoys upon this imply'd or tacit condition that if he usurp what do's not belong to him and the People do assert their Right by opposing his Unjust Violence and Usurpations and that he still obstinately persists in this Violation he certainly thereby loses and forfeits not only that part of the Power which he so unjustly usurped but also his own too and for this I gave you the Authority of the Learned Grotius at our last Meeting Thirdly I have also answered your main Argument of King William the Conquerors obtaining by the Sword and Conquest of King Harold an Absolute Right and uncondition'd Power foâ himself and his Successorâ descended from him over the People of this Kingdom for I think I have sufficiently made out that King William had no other Right to the Crown of England than by the Testament of King Edward the Confessor and the Eâection and Recognition of the People and this I have prov'd from the unexceptionable Authorities of the best Historians of that Time so that if he afterwards acted otherwise and contrary to his Coronation Oath it was not as a Lawful King but as a Tyrant and an Usurper on the Rights and Liberties of the People and could not by his own Unjust Act acquire any Lawful Power so to Govern this Kingdom and therefore whatever Title King William or his Successors can pretend to it must be by vertue of the Election of the first King of the Saxon Line from whom all the Kings of England since Henry Y. are descended and consequently aâe oblig'd to hold the Crown under the same Conditions on which it was first conferr'd And tho' I grant that ever since the Reign of Edward I. the Crown has been no longer claim'd by Election but by Succession of him that really was or else was presum'd to be the Right Heir yet this different way of acâuiring the Crown do's not at all alter the condition or manner of holding it sââe ouâ Kings have always after that time as before been tyed to the same or rather âââcter Terââ in their Coronation Oaths to observe and keep the Laws and Customs of this Realm and also that the Power of the Great Council of the Kingdom or Parliament making Laws raising Taxes and redressing of Grievances arising ãâã the Unjust Exercise and Illegal Encroachments of the Kings Prerogative hath been exerted
ever since the Crown became Elective as much as ever it was before Lastly I think I have sufficiently made out that King Iames hath violated the Fundamental Constitution of the Kingdom in those several Instances I have already given and am also ready farther to make it out if you require it so that this being the case I can see no reason to the contrary why the Crown or Legal Authority should not become forfeited to the People who at first conferr'd this Power on the first King of the West Saxons M. I must confess you have done your indeavour to prove those Assertions you have now laid down but I am not yet satisfied that you truly have done it But however not to run into unneccessary disputes and repetition of what has been already argued and which I see you are too obstinate to recede from I shall now only oppose what you last asserted concerning the Crown 's being forfeited to the People upon the King 's pretended Breach of the Original Contract for besides the absurdity of making the Crown forfeitable to the People who are and ever were Subjects and not Princes or Governours whereas all forfeitures still supposed a Right in the persons who are to take it as superior to the party forfeiting there is also a greater error and mistake in your supposing all Civil and Legal Power to be deriv'd from the People and by them conferr'd upon their Kings or Governours whereas the Scriptures plainly affirm and all Divines so interpret them that all Civil Power and Authority is wholly from God and not from the people who even in Elective Kingdoms though they may name and design the Person whom they will have to be their King yet is the Power wholly from God who alone hath right to Govern Mankind and therefore as the people do not confer the Power so neither can it be forfeitable to them from whom it was never derived and so much I told you at the Conclusion of our last Meeting though I had not then time fully to urge this Argument as now I have and this will press the more upon you because you your self have already granted at several Meetings that all Civil and Regal power is deriv'd from God and not from the people and therefore your notion of a Prince or Monarchs forfeiting to them is wholly false and precarious F. If this be all that you have to object against our Assertion of the King 's forfeiting his Royal Authority to the people I think I can easily answer those Objections for as to the first absurdity which you lay to our charge how an Authority can be forfeited by a King or Superior to his Subjects or Vassals the absurdity lies on your side for I do not suppose this forfeiture to be made to the people as Subjects but to them consider'd as a Community of Masters of Families and Freemen who as the Descendants and Representatives of those who made the first King upon a certain Contract or Condition upon the non-performance of this Original Contract do thereupon cease to be Subjects as a Servant ceases to be so and becomes again sui furis upon his Masters non-performance of the bargain made between them and so this Authority thus forfeited returns to the Community of Masters of Families and Freemen who once conferr'd it upon the first King nor needs this forfeiture any more suppose a Superiority in the persons who are to take it over the Prince that commits it than when by the Law of England Tenant for Life aliens in Fee He in reversion may immediately enter upon the Estate as forfeited to him though the person that held it was perhaps his own Father M. But is not this then to recede from your former concession whereby you grant that Civil Authority is deriv'd from God and not from the people at all whereas you now suppose them the only Original or Fountain of Civil Authority and from them to be deriv'd to all Princes and Monarchs F. This difficulty wholly proceeds from your not rightly understanding the manner of God's conferring Civil Power or Authority upon those that exercise it For the better clearing of which difficulty pray let me ask you two or three Questions First pray tell me whether you are still of the Opââion that Monarchy is so much of Divine Institution as that no Government but that may be lawfully Instituted by Men M. I will not now affirm that Monarchy is of Divine Right but this much I may safely over by what we can find in Scripture that God instituted no sort of Government but that and he did not make Saul or David to be only like those Equivocal Kings who might be deposable at the will of the Estates but conferr'd part of his own Divine Power upon them without any conditions or limitations whatsoever but as for those Governments call'd Common-wealths though without doubt they are not of Divine Institution yet certainly the power of Life and Death which they exercise is wholly from God since as I have already said a Man not having power over his own life cannot confer that upon another which he had not in himself F. Well I am glad we are so far agreed that Common-wealths are endued with real Authority or Majesty as well as Monarchs and that from no less Author than from God himself so that whatever you have said concerning God's Institution of no other Government than Monarchy is either not true or not to the matter in hand for in the first place I have already prov'd at our thiâd Meeting that the first Government God Instituted among the Jews was an Aristocraây under Moses Ioshua and the Judges reserving the Kingly Power over them to himself And though it is likewise true that God divested himself of great part of this Kingly Power when he anointed Saul King yet God's Institution of Monarchy among the Jews do's not render it unlawful for other Nations to institute such other sorts of Government as may best suit with the Geâius of the people and the publick good and safety of the whole Community But as for your Argument whereby you would prove the necessity of all Civil Powers being deriv'd from God because otherwise they could not be endu'd with the power of life and death over their Subjects I have sufficiently taken off that difficulty at our second Meeting and shewn you that a Man in the state of Nature has not only power over another Man's life but also over his own not only to hazard it but also to lay down or lose it for some greater publick benefit to Mankind which is also acknowledged by the Apostle Paul himself For a good man some would even dare to die But further to shew you the absurdity of this Principle let me put you this case suppose that a Kingdom or Common-wealth were so instituted at the first that no Subject or Freeman should suffer death for any Crime how great soever which that
wanting to the making such a Master of a Family a lawful and absolute Prince provided he was endued with such power as to be able to protect them yet all this while without supposing any new Divine Authority to be infused by God upon his accession to this Dignity M. I confess you have given me a more exact account concerning your sense of this matter than ever I had before and therefore I shall not further dispute this point with you only let me tell you that upon this Hypothesis of yours is founded that desperate Opinion concerning the real Authority or Majesty of the People which the Common-Wealths men suppose still to reside in the diffusive body thereof after the Government is Instituted And by vertue of which they suppose there still remains a power in them to call their Kings or Governours to an Account and punishing them for Tyranny or any other supposed Faults against the fundamental constitution of the Government or the Original Contract as those of your party are pleased to term it F. Well then to let you see I am none of those Common-Wealths men who maintain any such desperate Doctrine Here I do freely own that where the People have parted with their whole Power either to a Monarch or else to a Supream Council or Senate from thenceforth they have nothing at all to do to call such Governours to an Account or to punish them for the highest Tyranny or Oppression they can commit The utmost I have allowed as lawful to be done in this case in all the Conversations we have had is no more than this That the People in case they see themselves like to be destroy'd and ruin'd both in their Persoââ Consciences and Estates may even under the most Absolute Governments stand upon their own defence and prevent their being thus totally ruined and may also cast off all Allegiance to such Powers in case they refuse to treat them with greater justice and moderation for the futureâ But as for such limitted or mixt Governments as ours are where the People have still retain'd a share in the Legislature and also in the raising of publick Taxes yet since the King is by Law exempted from punishment or rendring any account of his Actions either to the People or their Representatives the utmost that I contend for is that since the King receives only a Limited Power of ruling according to such and such Laws and will Usurp that share of the Government that do's not belong to him In such cases if he refuse to amend then they may resist his Officers and Ministers nay himself in Person in the executions of such Violent and Illegal Actions And if he still prsist and rceâuse to amend that then at last they may proceed to Declare that he hath forfeited his Crown or Regal Right of Ruling over them And then in such Case I hold that it again devolves to the People from whom it first proceeded and that this is no new Doctrine I have the Authority of Fortescut on my side who in his Treatise De Laudibusâ Legum Angliae Where after having shewn that all Political or Limited Governments proceeded at first from the consent of the People proceeds thus Addressing himself to Prince Henry Son of King Henry the VI. For whom he composed this work Habâs ex hâc ãâã Princââs institutionis Politici Regni formam ex qââ metiri poteris potestatem quam Rex ejuâ ãâã legis ipsius aut subditos valeat exercire Ad Tutelam âamous legis ac subdit orum âârum Corporum âonorum Rex hujuâmodi erectus est ad hanc Potestatem a Populo affluxam ipsi habet quo eiânoâ licât potestate aliâ suâ Populâ Dâminarâ From whence we may observe that he calls the Government of this Kingdom not Regnum Simply but Regnum Politicum that is a Politick or Limited Kingdom in opposition to Regnum Absolutum made up of divers parts This he calls a âower flowing or proceeding from the People and if it thus proceeds from the People it must certainly return to them again upon the failure of the conditions to be performed on his part Noâ do's this suppose any real Majesty or Authority in them who take this forfeiture any more than is âo's suppose it in the People according to your own Hypothesis when the Civill Authority do's again devolve to them upon the Death of a King without Lawful Heirs M. I do now very well understand your Hypothesis but I think Princes are not thereby in a better condition by being thus unaccountable to and unpunishable by the people But that they are father in a much worse since you say they may resist nay kill them when they are once entered into a state of War against them For whereas where Princes are accountable to their People or Senate they may then be admitted to be heard to make their defence in case of any Oppression or Misgovernment laid to their charge As the King of Poland may at this day to the great Assembly of Estates or Dyeâ of the Nation Whereas in the case of the King as you have put it though he is not accountable to the Parliament yet he is still lyable to that which is more dangerous viz. To be Judged Censured and Declared forfeit by every âonsiderable fellow of the Rabble on pretence of violating this Original Contract and having broken the fundamental constitution of the Government and so shall be condemned unheard and perhaps without any just cause So that I think a man had as good be a Bââward as a King upon such Term. F. The men of your Principles I see are not to be pleased unless Princes may do whatever they have a mind to without controul or any mans judging or opposing the Illegality of their Actions For if a Parliament takes upon its self to judge of the Kings Actions this is calling their Princes to an Account and a thing against the Laws of the Land as also that of Nations If the whole Body of the People take upon them to judge when he has violated the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom and broken the Original Contract and thereupon resist him This is making the King liable to be Judged and Censured by every mean fellow of the Rabble But to let you see that both Judging and Disobeying the Kings commands if contrary to Law is not a thing of such dangerous consequence as you would make it appears by the late Petition of the Seven Bishops wherein they take upon them to Judge that the Kings ãâã Declaration of Liberty of Conscience being against several Acts of Parliament they cannot with a safe Conscience Publish it or agree to the Reâding of ât in the Churches Now I desire to know whether this be ãâã a making the Kings Actions liable to be Judged and Censured by every one of the Rabble since these Bishops acted thus neither as Privy Councellors noâ as Peers in Parliamentâ for by the
same right by which they took upon them to make this Declaration by the same right not only every Curate of a Parish but also every Layman in England was free to Judge of the Kings breach of this Law and consequently of denying obedience thereunto which disobedience if it once prove general will quickly make the Kings personal commands wholly insignificant So that it seems it is not the Peopleâ Judging of the Illegality of the Kingâ Actions and Commands which is the thing you ãâã fault with since when these Bishops acted thus all the high men of the Church of England praised it to the Skie So that it seems it is now the bare Censuring and Disobedience that makes it a crime but it is the iâsisting such Violent and Illegal orders and commands and at last Declaring that Power void and forfeited by which they were made That sticks in your stomach which is as much as to say that this Judging and Disobedience in its self is no Crime but the pushing it home and doing it in such a way as that it may be mended for the future though this is never lawful to be done but when things come to that extremity that all milder remedies are become ineffectual But to answer your Objections a little more closely the consequences of my Opinion are not so dangerous as you suppose them if you will please to consider what I have already laid down at our last Meeting As first That this Resistance is never to be made but when this violent breach of the Laws becomes evident and undeniable not to the Rabble alone but to the whole Nation that is all sorts and degrees or men and as long as there is any question about it I acknowledge it is by no means to be used And lastly As to declare the Regal Power forfeited this likewise is never to be done but when the King becomes so obstinately resolved to pursue those evil and illegal coââes as that he is utterly irreclaimable and refuses all propositions and terms of amending or redressing them And as to what you say that the King is hereby depriv'd of all means of justifying himself or vindicating his Actions that is not so since if a War be once begun he may do this either by Declaration or Treaties as King Charles the First did in his War with the Parliament by which means he gain'd a great many both of the Nobility Gentry and Commonalty to his Party who were before absolutely set against him But if you will needs have a Parliament to Judge and examine the reality of this forfeiture I so far joyn with you that though every private man may first judge thereof yet is it not become absolute and an Act of the whole People till the Estates of the Kingdom have by some solemn Vote or Declaration made it so M. Well I see you do all you can to make the best of a bad Cause but though I think nothing of what you have said can give Subjectâ any right to resist much less to cast off all Allegiance to their Natural Prince yet I shall not now dispute this point any longer with you but will proceed to the merits of the Cause and shall lââ you see that even upon your own principles the King has not been dealt ãâã in all this whole transaction either like an Ally by the States General of the United Provinces or like a near Relation or a Son in-law by the Prince of Orange or like a King by his own Subjects To begin with the Estates in the first place it is apparent that they have acted treacherously with the King and contrary to the last Treaty of Peace and Alliance in furnishing the Prince ãâ¦ã their Captain General and ãâã holder both with Ships Men and Money and make this late Expedition against England without so much as ever declaring the cause of their Quarrel or demanding any satisfaction if any occasion of difference had been given But the Prince of Orange his dealing with the King his Father-in law has been much less justifiable for in the first place he is not only guilty of the same fault with his Masters the Dutch in beginning a War without ever declaring the causes of it or demanding any satisfaction or âeparation if he had been injur'd till it was too late to go back and that his Fleet was ready and the Army shipt for the Expedition but which was more unkind from a Nephew and a Son-in-law who had reason to expect all the satisfaction which a King an Uncle and a Father-in-law could give though indeed to speak the truth the whole War was in my Opinion altogether unjust on the Pâânces side since his chief pretences were to redress Grievances and to re-establish the Bishops and Church of England with the Colledges in their just Rights and also restore the whole Nation to the just Execution of the Laws by a Free Parliament and Priviledges Now I desire to know what the Prince of Orange had to do either as a Neighbour or a Son-in-law to concern himself with the Mis-government of the Affairs of England much less to countenance and take the part of those many Male contents and Traitours who have ever since the Duke of Manmouth's Rebellion gone over into Holland So that upon the whole matter I can find but one thing which he had so much as a pretence of making War about if it had been real viz. the pretended suppoâââtioâs Birth of the Prince of Wales and yet even for this he ought not to have made War till such time as all reasonable satisfaction in this matter had been demanded and denied him and that the next Parliament which the King had before declared should meet in November last had been either hindered from medling in it or that they had faââ'd to make a due enquiry into it But if we look home F. Pray Sir before you come to consider what has been done here give me leave to iustifie the late proceedings of the States General and the Prince of Orange in this matter First as to the Estates it is a very great mistake for you affirm that they made this War upon the King in their own names or furnish'd the Prince of Orange with Ships or Men as their Sâadt-holder or General but only as a free Independent Prince whom they looked upon to have a good Cause of making War against the King of England as one they had great cause to believe was so far engag'd in the France interesâ as instead of standing ãâã in this War with the Empire which they every day expected when he would joyn with France and declare War against them as they had reason to âear by several angry Memorials which the French King's Eâvoy in Holland had not long before given them so that indeed it was but according to the Rules of Self-preservation to begin first especially when it might be done without their appearing in it at allâ but granting
their Judgments And as for what you say that the Prince ought first to have tryed whether the King and Parliament would give him that satisfaction he demanded This was very dangerous for him to hazard for supppose the King would never have permitted this affair to have been impartially inquired into by them or that the Parliament had been as it was very likely to be packt and made up of Papists Fanaticks and Time-servers who either would not or else durst not have examined this matter as they ought His Highness had been then to play an after-game the next year and what might have happened in the mean time God knows And therefore he had all the reason in the World whilst the French Kings Arms were imployed in Germany to demand satisfaction with the Sword in his hand This is what I have to say in justification of His Highnesses Arms which if they are just on his side I think I can as easily prove what has been done for his Assistance by the Nobility Gentry and Commons of this Nation to have been so too M. I shall not any longer dispute whether the Dutch and the Prince of Orange may not make some fair pretences for what they have done since making War for security by way of Prevention is no new thing in the World though I confess what you say in respect of the Prince of Wales had been a sufficient cause of War had there been any true grounds for that suspition but since there was no just cause given why his Highness should suspect his Birth not to be Genuine and that even in the present Convention it self there could be no proof made to the contrary I think it is now evident that it was a wicked and unjust Calumny upon his Majesty and the Queen since he himself in the last Paper he left behind him at his going away Appeals to all that know him nay even to the Prince of Orange himself that in their Consciences neither he nor they can believe him in the least capable of so unnatural a Villany nor of so little common Sence to be impos'd on in a thing of such a nature as that But as for those noble Men and Gentlemen who have declar'd for the Prince of Orange since his expedition I think that they are no way to be justified since granting them to have been satisfied that the Princes demands were lawful and reasonable yet sure they ought not to have taken up Arms on behalf of a Forreign Prince against their Natural Sovereign but if in their Consciences they had believed his quarrel to have been just the utmost they could have done had been to have stood Neuters without concerning themselves either with the one or the other party and then if the Prince had gain'd his point either by Arms or Treaty they might have enjoy'd the good effects of it without breaking in upon the Church of Englands Principles of Passive Obedience and Non-resistance and so many Acts of Parliament made but as for those Officers and Souldiers who so basely and perfidiously Deserted the King at Salisbury and ran over to the Princes Army with their Commissions in their pockets they cannot possibly be justified either by the Law of the Land or that of Nations since certainly they acted contrary to both F. Before I speak any thing concerning the business of the Prince of Wales give me leave to say something in Justification of those Noblemen and Gentlemen you so highly accuse and though we Discoursed something of this matter at our last meeting yet since you have again renewed the charge against them I cannot but again vindicate them in what they have done in the first place pray call to mind that it has sufficiently appear'd by the small Forces his Highness brought over with him that he never intended to Conquer this Kingdom or impose any thing upon it contrary to the known Laws and Customs thereof and therefore as appears by his Declaration his chief hopes of Success against so Numerous an Army made up of the flower of three Nations depended on that assurance he had of some Considerable Assistance from the Nobility and Gentry of Eng. and perhaps from some of the Officers of the Kings own Army and that this was lawful in both of them I thus prove you may remember I made out at our last meeting but one that when the Nation lay under any great intollerable Oppression by reason of the violation of their Just Rights and Liberties the Clergy Nobility and Gentry thereof did always look upon it as their Right and Duty to vindicate the same by a vigorous Resistance when no gentler means could suffice Secondly I have proved that it neither was nor could be the intent of those Oaths and Declarations made in the two first Parliamenâs of King Charles the Second to deliver up their Lives Liberties and Estates wholly to the Kings Mercy let him use them as he pleased and if they did not it must necessarily follow that upon the Kings Violation of their Religion Liberties and Properties they had still a Right left them to defend themselves from such Oppression and Tyranny Lastly I have also proved as the Convention also lately declared that the King by his exercising his Dispensing Power by Committing and Prosecuting the Six Bishops by setting up an Ecclesiastical Commission contrary to Law by Levying Mony by his Prerogative without or contrary to express Acts of Parliament and by Raising and keeping up a standing Army in time of Peace Commanded by Officers who had never taken the Test appointed by the Statutes for that purpose and consisting of so many Popish Souldiers who having never taken the Oathâ of Supremacy and Allegiance were altogether uncapable of serving in his Majesties Army and by doing divers other things contrary to the known Laws Statutes and Freedom of this Realm too long now to particularize had broken the Fundamental Constitution of the Kingdom This being the Case I desire to know of you how it was possible for the Nation to have a firm and setled Redress of these Grievances without a Free Parliament Or how it was possible to obtain this Parliament the late taking away of Charters and Regulation of Corporations considered unless those Obstacles had been first removed And how could they be removed without some force proportionable to what the King had raised to hinder it I cannot tell And therefore it is a very vain Project of yours to suppose that those Noblemen and Gentlemen should have stood Neuters and not have declar'd themselves some way or other in this quarrel which is all one as to say they ought to sit still and see a Generous Prince ruin'd who had come in for their Redemption and to have then expected a remedy for all these illegal Violations and Oppressions when the King had kill'd or destroy'd the Prince of Orange and his Army or that the King would then have yielded to all the same Conditions that
the Prince had demanded This would have been not to have been parralel'd any where but in a Romance But as for those Officers and Souldiers who you say Deserted the King and went over to the Prince from Salisbury though I grant they make a great noise yet were they not a Thousand Men Soldiers Officers and all as I am Credibly inform'd which was but a small number in comparison with the Kings whole Army and yet these may very well be defended upon the same principles with the former for if the Violations of our Liberties were so great and dangerous as I have now set forth those Gentlemen were certainly oblig'd to prefer the common Good and Preservation of their Religion and Liberties before any private interests or Obligations whatsoever though it were to the King himself therefore it was more his than their fault if they Diserted him and as for their going away whilst they were his Souldiers and with their Commissions in their pockets I suppose you cannot expect that the King should have ever given them leave to have quitted his Service or have accepted of their Commissions if they would have surrender'd them unless at the same time he had clapt them up in prison for offering of it and if then they were perswaded that it was theiâ Duty so to do it is but a Punctilio of Honour whether they went away with their Commissions in their pockets or had left them behind them since their going off was a Surrender of their Commissions and a sufficient Declaration ââat they could not with a safe Conscience serve the King any longer in this quarrel and you see that the going off of these few had such a fatal effect that it cast such a panick Terrour upon the King and the whole Popish Faction about him as to make him run away to London without striking a stroke But that the Prince of D. with the Dukes of Grafton and Ormond Lord Churchill were convinced of the danger this Kingdom was in both in respect of their Religion and Liberties appears by their leaving the King and going over to the Prince where they could never expect to be put into higher places of Honour or Trust than what they enjoyed already under the King and therefore that expression of the Lord Churchill's in his Letter to the King is very remarkable That he could no longer joyn with self-interested men who had framed designs against His Majesties true Interest and the Protestant Religion to give a pretence to Conquest to bring them to Effect And one would be very much inclin'd to believe so considering the great number of Irish Papists which have been brought over and listed here though with the turning out and disbanding of a great many English Officers and Souldiers out of several Companies But to come to the business of the Prince of Wales which you say was a meer calumny and an unjust suspition on the Princess side though I will not affirm any thing positively in so nice a matter since the Convention has not thought fit to meddle with it I shall only say this much that if there have been any jealousies and suspitions raised about it the King may thank those of his own Religion who were intrusted with the management of the Queens Lying-Inn For in the first place it looked very suspicious to us Protestants who do not put much faith in the Miracles of the Romish Church that immediately after the presenting of the Golden Angel to the Lady of Loretto and the Kings Pilgrimage to St. Winifreds Well the Queen after several years intermission should again be with Child and when she was so should have two different Reckonings Which though it may be forgiven Young Women of their first Children yet those who have born so many Children as Her Majesty are commonly more experienced in these matters M. What is all this to the purpose Was it not proved by many credible Witnesses and those of the Protestant Religion before the Privy-Council that they were not only present in the Room when the Queen was Delivered but that they had seen Milk upon Her Linnen before Her Delivery and that they had also felt Her Belly immediately before it and found that Her Majesty was Big with Child and ready to be Delivered And the Midwife Swears that she actually Delivered Her So that since every person is to be presum'd to be the true Son of those Parents that own him for theirs So nothing but a direct proof to the contray and that by undenyable Evividence ought to make any Man believe otherwise much more in the concern of the Heir apparent to the Crown and therefore I know not what you would have to been done which has not been observed in this nice matter F. And Sir let me tell you because it was so nice a matter and concerned no less than the Succession of Three Kingdoms therefore the whole Nation as well as the Prince and Princess of Orange were to be fully satisfied of the reality of the Princes Birth since they were all suffiâiently sensible that there wanted nothing but a Male Heir to entail Popery on us and our Posterity And therefore there ought to have been present such Persons as had no dependance upon the Court and who ought to have been deligated by the Prince and Princess of Orange since the Princess of Denmark could not be there in Person but instead of this the only two Ladies who as I am informed were trusted by the Princess to be present at the Queens Labour were never sent for till she was brought to Bed and the Child Drest And as for the rest of the Witnesses they were either Lords or other Persons who only Swear they stood in the Room at a distance and heard the Queen cry out and immmediately after the Child cry sometime before they saw it And as for the Ladies the greatest part of them Swore no further than the Lords So that notwithstanding all that they have Sworn in this matter there might have been a trick put upon them and they never the wiser Since you may Read in Siderfin's Reports of a Woman who pretended to have been delivered of a Child by a Mid-wife within the Bed and yet many years after this was proved to be a suposititious Birth by the Deposition of the Mid-wife and the poor Woman who was the real Mother of the Child and others that had been of the Conspiracy And what has been done once may be done again 'T is true the King himself with one or two Ladies Deposed something further as to Milk and the feeling of the Child immediately before the Birth but his Majesty if it be an Imposture is too deeply concerned in it to be admitted as a competent Witness And as for the rest of the Ladies they are likewise being as the Queens Servants and having an immediate dependance upon her to be excepted against and under too much awe to speak the whole Truth
Popish Faction instead of suffering the Elections for Parliament-Men to proceed as he had promised and as was hoped for by us all on a sudden he order'd the rest of the Writs for Elections that were not sent down to be burnt and a Caveat to be entred against the making use of those that were sent already into the Country and at the same time he sent Order to the Earl of Feversham to disband the Army and dismiss all the Souldiers with their Arms. But I had forgot to put you in mind that just before this the King had sent away the Queen with the Prince into France and that she carried the Great Seal of England along with her whereby it was plain the King intended to put it wholly out of his power to Issue out any Writs or Pass any publick Act wherein the Great Seal should be used and that this Seal was carried away appears by its being not long since drawn up out of the Thames by a Fisherman's Net near Lambeth Bridge where it 's supposed to have been thrown in by the Queen or some of Her Attendance in Her passage over the Water and farther that the King was resolved wholly to quit the Government of this Kingdom at least for the present appears by his so speedy following of the Queen within three days after stealing from his Pallace by Night in a Boat to Gravesend and from thence in a small Vessel to Feversham where how he was seis'd by the Mob of that Town and afterwards return'd to London as you have set forth I need take no further notice Now this being a true and fair Narrative of the whole Matter I shall only offer two or three questions to your consideration and desire you would give me a fair and satisfactory answer to them First pray tell me whether it was not the Kings fault that it was rendered impossible for Parliament-Men to be elected by burning of the Writs and sending away the Great Seal Secondly whether the King by first stealing away did not plainly confess himself conquer'd by the Prince and did thereby Abdicate the Government also by his obstinate refusal to redress the Grievances of the Nation hath forfeited his Crown and all Allegiance from his Subjects and was not after this to be own'd as King of England either by the Prince of Orange or any body else and therefore whatever treatment he after this received from the Prince it was not to be looked upon as done to a Lawful King but a Conquered Prince and his Highness might not only justly refuse to treat with him any more as a Crowned Head but might also have justified not only the taking him Prisoner but sending him into Holland if he had pleas'd but instead of this the Prince only desir'd his removal out of Town from that conflux of Papists that flocked to him and by securing his Person to put it out of their power to play an after-Game and rally the late disbanded Army of whom there was at least twenty thousand of the Scotch Irish and English who would have stood by the King till the last and therefore the English as well as the Dutch Counsel about the Prince did not think it safe for him to come to Town as long as the King had his Guards about him at White-hall since they might have been increased to an Army whenever he pleased And though I grant good breeding and manners especially to Kings as also respect from a Son-in-law to a Father are duties incumbent upon Princes as well as private Men yet when these lesser things stand in competition with their own welfare and safety as also of the whole Nation for which the Prince was now engaged if he might for these ends justly require the removing and securing the Kings Person it was no great matter what time of night he had notice to remove though this was not done neither with any design to affront or surprise him but happen'd indeed through pure accident for when it was resolved that the Princes Guards should March to London and secure White-hall it was also resolved that the King should have notice to remove and since it was not thought fit to let him know it till the Posts were all secur'd the ways being very deep and dirty between Windsor and London the Dutch Guards commanded by Count Solms could not reach the Town till past ten at night and after that it was near twelve before the English Guards about White-hall could be drawn off without fighting and till that was done it was not thought at all proper or safe to deliver to the King the Princes message for his departure so that indeed it was not of any design that either the Prince and his Counsel who ordered it or of these Lords who very well understand good breeding thus to deliver their message to him at that time of Night But tho he was in Bed yet that he was not a sleep is very probable since he had not been above half an hour in Bed and it is not very likely he should be a sleep when he very well knew before of the arrival of the Princes Troops about White-hall and therefore could not be without too much concern about it presently to compose himself to sleep But as for his removal from London it is plain that his Highness was so far from owning or receiving the King in the same capacity he was in before his departure that as soon as ever he heard he was at the Earl of Winchelsea's and about to return to London he sent away Monsieur Zulestein with a Letter to let him know that he desired him not as yet to come to London but to stay at Rochester till he himself should come to Town but Monsieur Zulestein missing of the King by the way he came to White-hall yet could not but know that his being there was not with the Princes consent since the same Gentleman followed him thither and there delivered him the Princes Letters so that this second Message by these Lords could be no new thing or surprise to him yet that his Highness never intended or acted the least violence towards the Kings Person may appear by this that he left it to the Kings choice what place he would go to as also what Guards or other Attendance he would take with him and the King refused to take his English Guards with him though they were offer'd him and indeed these Dutch Guards that attended him might in his Majesties judgment be very well trusted they being as well as their Officers for the most part Papists but that the Prince did not intend either to detain his Majesties Person as a Prisoner may appear in this that whilst he remain'd at Rochester none that would were debarr'd from access to him and that the Officers and Souldiers of the Guards were order'd to be under his command and every Night to take the Word from him and had it not been for the Kings
a generous Prince a Nephew and a Son-in-law and one who was bound in Conscience and Honour to consult the lasting Peace and Happiness of the Nation more than his own private interest or the ambition of wearing a Crown F. You have made the utmost defence that I suppose can be brought for the King 's first going away yet if it be better consider'd I doubt it will not serve the turn I see you are forc'd to lay the whole fault of the Kings departure in the midst of the Treaty with the Prince and his refusing to call a Parliament according to his own Promise and Proclamation upon his want of security for himself the Queen and Prince if he had stay'd by reason of the want of fidelity in his Army the general prejudice of the Nation against him and the great firmness and resolution there was in the Princes Army to adhere to him Now I shall shew you that every one of these were but pretences and that the real cause of his departure was because he fear'd to leave the inquiry into the Birth of the Prince of Wales and the free examination and redress of our grievances and those violations he had committed upon the fundamental constitution of the Government to the impartial judgment of a free Parliament For in the first place as to want of fidelity in his Army that can be no just excuse for his deserting and disbanding them as he did without any pay since he himself in his said Letter to the Earl of Feversham expresly owns that there were a great many brave men both Officers and Souldiers among them and therefore if he was satisfied of this he ought to have first sent for all his Officers both Collonels and Captains and have examin'd them how far they would stand by him in the Defence of his Person and Cause against the Prince of Orange and he might have also order'd those Officers to have examin'd every Regiment Troop and Company in his whole Army how far they would engage in his defence and if he had proceeded thus at Salisbury before he fled away in that confusion to London I have been credibly inform'd by divers Officers of that Army that the King might have found above Twenty Thousand men that would have stood by him to the last man in his Quarrel against the Prince and therefore I impute his going away as he did from Salisbury to some strange pannick fear that God had cast upon him and all the Popish Faction about him since he has been known not to want sufficient courage upon other occasions but though he had omitted it there yet he certainly ought to have tryed this last experiment after he came to London rather than have quitted the Kingdom so dishonourably as he then did and thereby giving the P. of Orange's Friends an opportunity of seizing or getting delivered into their power all the Garisons and strong places in England besides Portsmouth in those three or four days time that he was not heard of besides great part of the Army that was not disbanded had in that time gone in to the Prince in hopes of their pay and future preferment now that the King might with safety have resided with his Army somewhere about London he himself grants in his Proposals to the Prince to this effect That in the mean time till all matters were adjusted concerning the freedom of Elections and a security of their sitting the respective Armies may be retained within such Limits and at such distance from London as may prevent all apprehensions that the Parliament may be in any kind disturbed which Proposals being made not long after the Kings arrival at London we may reasonably suppose that he was then well enough satisfied with the fidelity of the greatest part at least of his own Army to him and if he were not he might have been better satisfied if he pleased but as for the next difficulty the Nations being poisoned and prepossessed against him admit it were so as long as he had a sufficient Army about him as I suppose he might have had he need not have feared any thing the People could do but indeed this was a needless fear for before the Parliament could sit it was not the Peoples Interest to hinder it or to fall upon the King or his Army when matters were in a fair way of accommodation so after the Parliament sate there would have been less cause of fear since the reverence of that Court would have kept them in awe but as to the firmness and resolution of the Princes Army the fear of that was also as needless as long as the Kings Army continued as firm to him and if the Princes Army had been the first Agressors I doubt not but the People would have taken part with the King against them but after all it was certainly and you must grant it so much more safe and honourable for the King to have treated with the Prince and held a Parliament with an Army about him than to have yielded the same things as you suppose him willing to have done after his return to Town when his Army was disbanded and London had received the Prince and had joined with him and when almost all the strong places of England were in the Princes power so that upon the whole matter it evidently appears that the King chose to trust his own Person together with that of the Queen and Prince to a Foreign Monarch rather than he would relye upon the justice or fidelity of his own Nation You say in the next place that nothing the King has done in all these exorbitances he committed that can in any wise amount to a Forfeiture or Abdication of the Government not to the former because the King redress'd all our Grievances before he went away 't is true I grant he redressed some of them by putting divers things in the same State they were before yet for all this the greatest still remained unredressed viz. the Raising of Mony contrary to Law and the Dispensing Power both which as I have already shewed you at our last meeting he never Disclaimed neither took any sufficient course by Calling a Parliament to prevent its being exercised for the future besides his going away without giving the Prince and Nation any further Satisfaction about the Birth of the Prince of Wales all which not being done I must still affirm that this wrought a forfeiture of the Crown or an Abdication of it at least by his refusal to Hold and Govern it according to the Fundamental Laws thereof for he that destroys the Law or Conditions by which he holds an Estate does Tacitly Renounce his Title to it As I shewed you in the Case of Tenant for Life altering in Fee So that this being considered as also that the City of London and the whole Nation had Surrendred themselves to the Prince of Orange and that even the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury and York
still here for the King did not leave Rochester until the 23d in the morning so it is plain it was not their design to own or take notice of him any more as King and that which makes it more remarkable is that several of the Bishops viz. the Arch-Bishop of York together with the Bishop of St. Asaph and others joyned with the rest of the Peers in these Addresses which was a plain sign they all looked upon the Kings Power to be now at an end But as for the Acclamations of the people or any great joy the City expressed upon the Kings return to Town I doubt you have had a false account of that matter for I cannot hear that any of the Citizens went out to meet him or set any Lights in their Windows though he came into London after it was dark or that any of the better sort bid him God Speed I grant indeed there was a great many of what you call the Mob but more Boys than Men who followed his Coach making Huzza's whilst the rest of the people silently looked on M. I cannot deny but you may have given a true account of these matters since you may have observ'd them better than I yet as you your self have Related them sure the King had sufficient cause to Consult his own Safety and make his escape as soon as he could for what could he expect when once the Prince had secured his Person under a Guard and had refused to Treat with him as King and that also the Peers and divers of the Bishops had made an Association to stand by the Prince of Orange and had made a fresh Address to him without taking the least notice of him as if there had been no such thing as a King in being I say what could his Majesty now expect but either a more close Confinement or else being taken off privately by poyson or some other ways since he could not be forgetful of the King his Fathers saying that there is no great distance between the Prisons and the Graves of Princes or admit he had lived till this Convention Saâe what could he have expected more than the retaining the bare Title of King whilst the Prince of Orange or some others appointed by Him had wholly managed the Government at their pleasure or else they might according to your Doctrine have either declared the Crown forfeited or else that he had Abdicated it by his going away or who can tell but they might have again renewed the Villany of 48. and have made him undergone the same Fate with his Father F. I grant you have urged the utmost that can be to justifie the Kings second Departure and as I would not deny but that he was the best Judge of his own Danger so were the Prince Peers and Common together with the City the best and only Judges we could then have of the true means of our settlement and safety since after so many breaches that the King had made upon his first Declaration and Coronation Oath as also his going from his late Promise of calling a Free Parliament I cannot see what farther security he could have given us that he would not repeat the same things over again or admit the Prince had suffered him to continue at White-hall and to call a third Parliament what assurance could he have given that in the end of another forty days we should not have the same trick play'd us and then in March or April have been left in the same state of Confusion we were in in December to the certain ruine of these three Kingdoms and Holland into the bargain And then by that time the French King might have got ready an Army and a Fleet and under a pretence of redeeming his Majesty from the constraint he lay under and of restoring him to the free exercise of his Regal Power have Invaded this Kingdom and I suppose you cannot deny but the King would then have sound Papists and High Tories enough to have joined with him in this pious design for certainly the scruples of the high Church-men would have been the same they are now the obligations of the Oath of Allegiance the same and the supposed Sin of deposing a Lawful K. the same though he had utterly refused to give the Prince and Nation any satisfaction so that then if we had been forced to take Arms and to declare he had forfeited his Right to the Crown all these things would have given as great or rather greater scandal than for the Nation to take him at his first offer and since he had thus rashly deserted the Throne by a needless departure to resolve he should Ascend it no more But suppose what might also as well have happened that the Prince and his Party had been killed or expelled the Kingdom by the King do you think he would have granted us then what he would not grant us now Would he not think you have disbanded his Protestant Army and have kept only Irish Scotch and French Forces in pay and have every day encreased them What respect can we hope he would ever after this have shewn to our Laws Religion or Liberties when he had now no longer any thing to fear The memory of what happened after the Duke of Monmouth's defeat though effected only by those of the Church of England will certainly never be forgotten by others whatever you Bigots of Loyalty may pretend or say So that for my part I stand amazed to see you and so many others scruple the submitting to the present King for if ever man had a just cause of War he had and that creates a right to the thing gained by it the King by withdrawing and disbanding his Army yielded him the Throne and is he had without any more Ceremony ascended it he had done no more than several Princes formerly have done on the like occasions for the Prince was no longer then bound to consider him as one that was but as one that had been King of England yet in that capacity he treated him with great respect and civility how much soever the King complained of it who did not enough consider what he had done to draw upon himself that usage but as for your insinuation that if he had stayed he might have run the same fate with his Father I think it is fuller of Passion than Truth for besides that the Lords and Commons would never had the Impudence to have committed such a Villany and the Prince himself as a Nephew and a Son-in-Law would never have suffered it M. Well God only knows the event of things and we ought to judge charitably and still to hope that if the King might have been restored upon terms that he would have been the better for his Affliction and have amended all those errours he committed since he had seen that neither the Nation nor yet his Neighbours the Dutch would permit him to make himself an Absolute
during his confinement there sent a Lady I could name on a message to two reverend Prelates of our Church together with an Emrauld Ring from his Finger as a Testimony of the Truth of her Commission to this effect That his Majesty being sensible of the sad condition the Church of England as well as he himself was in and that there was no way so likely for him to get out of it as by granting his Subjects and particularly the Church of England such securities for the enjoyment of their just Rights and Liberties as they could in reason demand therefore he wholly left it to the discretion of those Bishops to make to the Peers and Bishops that were then to meet suddenly whatever proposals they should think reasonable on his behalf for the satisfaction of the Church and safety of the Nation and that he would be ready to grant and ratifie them whensoever he should be required F. This is indeed more than ever I heard before and can scarce believe but did the Lady go and deliver her message And pray what answer did those Bishop give to this fair proposal M. Yes the Lady did deliver her message and these Bishops answer'd both to the same effect that they had a real duty and affection for his Majesty and a great desire to serve him but that considering the great Power of the Prince of Orange and his present aversion to any agreement with his Majesty they very much feared that the Peers would not venture to give the Prince any such advice or to interpose with him on his Majesties behalf which in my opinion was very meanly and cowardly done of them who considering their duty to him as King and also those particular obligations they owed him as their Benefactor and who had been the greatest means of their being raised to those dignities in his Brothers Reign now I desire to know if this message had received its intended effect what greater demonstration his Majesty could have given to satisfie the World that he really intended to set all things right again had he been permitted to do it F. I will not farther question the Truth of this Relation though perhaps I might have sufficient reason for it since you say you had it from a person of good credit and who was privy to this transaction nor yet will I be so inquisitive as to know the names either of the Bishops or of the Lady since you make it a secret but yet notwithstanding I do still very much question whether the King did ever really design to do what he then offer'd and did not intend to put a sham upon their Lordships to serve his present occasion and to see if he could divide the Bishops and Peers of the Church of England from the Prince of Oranges Interest and so by making them offer such Proposals as the Prince should not think fit to agree to might make them declare against his proceedings which would have created great divisions and heart-burnings between those of the high Church of England party and the Prince and thereby have involved us again in fresh disturbances of which no doubt the King and the Popish Faction were like to receive the greatest advantage for you know the old saying divide impera But to let you see that I do not speak without just grounds for my opinion let us examine every circumstance of this matter first if the King had meant really is it likely that he would have trusted a business of that high moment to a Woman When he had then the Lords of Alesbury and Arron besides other Protestant Gentlemen then waiting on him and they were much fitter to be trusted than this Lady let her be whom she will Or can any one believe if the King had meant really that he would not have sent his Proposals in Writing since he very well knew from the Princes Declaration as well as the Bishops Petition and Addresses to him what the whole Nation and the Church of England in particular required at his hands But that he must send a loose and uncertain Message which it was in his power to disown whenever he pleased by saying the foolish Woman mistook his meaning and she also might be so much his Creature as to take the fault wholly upon her self whenever it should serve the Kings turn so to do and therefore I think it was very wisely and honestly done of those reverend Prelets to refuse medling in such a ticklish affair since it is plain by his not making any such proposals to the Prince of Orange himself or the Lords about him that he was not to be made privy to it but rather it should be carried on whether he would or no and without giving him any satisfaction in his particular concern as to the Prince of Wales and lastly I desire you farther to consider whether the King might not hereafter when ever he had power have made void whatever agreements or concessions he should have then granted either to the Church of England or to the Nation by pleading afterwards that they were obtained by decrees whilst he was not sui juris but under the Power of the Prince of Orange I have but one thing more to add which I before omitted which is to make some reply to what you said concerning the mischief that the Mob has done upon Houses Forests and Praks since his Majesty's first departure and therefore granting the matter of Fact that much mischief and spoil has been committed yet I deny that it is more than has been done by the most Arbitrary Kings since the Conquest to this day as you are pleased to affirm for I believe you forget the Thirty Parish Churches and Towns which our Historian tell us your William the Conquerour and his Son Ruâus destroyed when they inlarged new Forrests and therein acted contrary to their Oaths like true despotick Tyrants you likewise forget the miserable spoil and waste which King Iohn and Henry the III. made upon the Houses Castles and Estates of the Barons and Gentry of England who opposed them in their unjust and illegal violations of Magna Charta besides other Tyrannical actions of the same kind committed by King Edward and Richard the II. too long here to relate but if these mischiefs were done you speak of who have we to thank for it but the King who stealing away on the sudden without leaving any orders for the Government of the Kingdom all persons in Commission either Civil or Military doubted whether their Commissions were noâ at an end by the Kings deserting the Government as he did besides you very well know that the Common People were so enraged against the Popish Faction for so many insolent actions they had committed in King Iames's Reign and so many apparent breaches and contempts of all the Laws made against them that you cannot wonder if when they were rid of the fear of the Irish and of King Iames's Army they kept
as a wilful Forfeiture or Abdication of the Government and it is from this first going away that I suppose that the Convention dates his Abdication since though it is true after his return to London he took upon him to make an Order in Council to stop the further pulling down and plundering Popish Chappels and Papists Houses yet was it sign'd by very few of the Council and almost only by those who had been in some Office or Place of Trust so that though he was then own'd by them yet since that Order did only serve to shew his Zeal for the Popish Party and was never obey'd or taken notice of by those to whom it was directed and that neither the Prince nor the City of London owned him afterwards since it had already delivered it self up to the Prince and had as well as the Peers invited him to repair to that City I cannot see that so slight an act as this Order of Council should be counted a return to or a re-establishment in the Throne since the King had not only lost the Crown by his wilful departure without calling a Parliament or giving the P. any satisfaction in the great business of the pretended Prince of Wales or the Nation by repairing up those desperate breaches he had made upon our Fundamental Laws but had also lost his Title to the Crown by being Conquer'd by the Prince in open War as I shall prove more at large another time so that if you please better to consider this Vote of the Convention you will find that these words had Abdicated the Government do not only refer to the last clause of his having withdrawn himself out of the Kingdom but to everyone of the foregoing Clauses viz. His having endeavour'd to subvert the Constitution of this Kingdom his breaking the Original Contract and his having violated the Fundamental Laws so that it is plain their notion of Abdication was not fixt only in the Kings Desertion or bare withdrawing himself out of the Kingdom but from his renouncing the Legal Title by which he held the Crown and setting himself up as a Despotick Soveraign and ruling by a mercenary Army and therefore all that you have said about the Kings quitting the Government with a design to return to it again as soon as with safety he might is altogether vain for as he went away because he would not Govern any longer as a King by Law so hath he yet given us no satisfaction that he would not return again to Govern otherwise or rather worse than he did before had he an opportunity so to do that is as the Letter I cited but now phrases iâ to return and have his ends of us so that this being indeed the case I think I can very well justifie the last clause in this Vote that the Throne was thereby vacant M. Sir you have spoke a considerable time and I doubt more than I can distinctly remember to answer as I should therefore before you proceed to this last Clause of the Vacancy of the Throne the dispute about which I foresee may hold longer than upon any of the former pray give me leave to reply to what you have already said in Justification of all the other parts of this Vote in the first place I will not deny but that if the King had once got the power of making what Mayors Aldermen and other Officers in Corporations at his pleasure it would have gone a great way towards the making the Majority of the Parliament-men nay I likewise grant that by his dispensing Power he might have made what Papists or other person he pleased Sheriffs in any County who would have made such return of Knights of Shires as he should have thought fit yet I suppose this would not have been to the subversion of the Constitution of the Kingdom which I think I have proved to consist originally in the K. alone before any great Councils or Parliaments were instituted And as for those violations of the Fundamental Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom the Declaration instances in I think several of them may very well be justified by antient Presidents and ad judged cases in Law and therefore were so far from being violations that they are no more than the Kings exercising of his due Prerogative and though at our ninth meeting I had not time so well to consider these matters as also because I was not then prepared to defend the Kings Proceedings I shall therefore make bold to examine the most considerable of those Articles which the Late Declaration supposes did so highly tend to subvert the Protestant Religion and the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom I shall begin with the first viz. His assuming and exercising a power of Dispensing with and Suspending of Laws and the Execution of Laws without consent of Parliament which Power let me tell you by the way was not asserted to Dispence with all Laws or Statutes whatsoever but only such as the Subject has no particular cause of action in and where the damage that may arise by it doth not concerns the publick safety of which the K. is sole Judge and not any particular mans interest I suppose you cannot but have read that learned and short account of the Authorities in Law upon which Judgment was given in Sir Edw. Hales his Case written by Sir Edward Herbert Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas in vindication of himself wherein I think he proves beyond any possibility of a just answer that the dispensation granted to Sir Edward Hales to receive a commission and act as a Collonel of Foot was good notwithstanding his not having received the Sacrament and taken the Oaths and Test appointed by the Act of the Statute of the 25 of Charles II. where he first proves from my L. Cock's Authority that it belongs to the Kings Prerogative to Dispence with all Positive or Penal Laws the penalty thereof is only popular and given to the King and to shew you that my Lord Cook who was never counted any great friend to the Kings Prerogative was not single in this opinion he gives you also the authority of the year Book of Henry the VII where it was own'd by all the Judges That the King can Dispence with all things which are only Mala Prohibita and not Mala ân se though expresly forbid by Act of Parliament for though says the Year Book before the Statute Coining of Money was Lawful but now it is not so yet the King can Dispence with it so that say I if he can dispence with that which is now made Treason by EÃ the III. he may certainly dispence with all other Penal Statutes of a less nature But because I grant there is some difference between Common Penal Laws which barely prohibit the doing of some things under a penalty and this Act in which there is also an express Clause of Non-obstante that all Licences or Dispensations contrary to this
those Affairs But not to be partial to one Opinion I have faithfully recited all those Authorities and Arguments made use of by the Author of the Treatise Intituled The Hereditary Succession discuss'd as also by the Learned Dr. Brady in his exact History of the Succession of the Crown wherein those Authors endeavour to prove that the Crown of England is and hath always been Hereditary from the very beginning of our Monarchy notwithstanding the many and various Breaches that have been made upon it which Authorities and Arguments whether they prove the Matter in debate I shall leave to your better Iudgment but hope those Gentlemen will not take it ill if I cannot let all they write pass for clear Demonstration and therefore have taken upon me to cite all those Arguments and Authorities that either have been or as far as I know of may be made use of by those of the contrary Opinion in the performance of which if I have not dealt candidly with both Parties in fairly representing the utmost that they had to say I shall be obliged if any Friend to Truth will shew me my failings But tho it is true I have not gone higher in this History than the coming in of K. William I. yet I hope I may be excused looking farther back for these Reasons First because an Examination of the Succession before that time would not only be tedious by swelling this Discourse to an unreasonable Bulk but would also be superfluous since the Gentleman whom I suppose Freeman here Argues against makes K. William I. to have been an absolute Conqueror and to have altered all the former Laws in the Saxon Times and if so sure then those concerning the Succession of the Crown And I desire them to shew me any Reason if he and his Descendants held the Kingdom as Absolute Monarchs by Conquest why they might not bequeath or make it over as is justifiable in Patrimonial Kingdoms to which of their Sons Kindred or Relations they should think fit and if so what will then become of this Fundamental Right of a Lineal Hereditary Succession And besides all this it is needless upon another Account since I have already proved in the Tenth Dialogue from no less Authority than K. Alfred's Will that before the Conquest the Crown was partly Testamentary and partly Elective sometimes wholly Elective as in K. Edward the Confessor and whoever doubts of this I shall only desire them to read impartially Dr. Brady's above-mentioned History of the Succession and then I shall leave it to them to consider whether he does not grant in effect what he takes upon him to Confute viz. That there was no Lineal Descent of the Crown known or setled in those Times but what was Alterable by the Testament of those Kings But since the rest of this Discourse besides the enquiry into bare Matter of Fact is chiefly the applying those Precedents I have here made use of to the Case of their present Majesties I hope neither they nor any that wish well to their Government will resent it if I have not gone in the common Road of former Writers in supposing the Titular Prince of Wales to be an Impostor without any other proof than those bare Suspitions that have been publish'd in the Printed Pamphlets yet since however they may incline a Man to doubt they cannot make a Child Illegitimate whom his Father and Mother have hitherto bred up and owned for theirs and therefore I have rather chosen to suppose him at present to be the Lawful Son of King James and Queen Mary and yet that what the late Convention have done in passing him by without taking any notice of his Title was all that they could or were obliged to do his present Circumstances considered But if it be here made out that King William and Queen Mary are Lawful and Rightful King and Queen of this Realm no Man can doubt whether Allegiance may be sworn too them or not and perhaps there was no need of writing any thing farther yet since I find a great many of the Clergy as well as Laity of this Nation could not go higher than their swearing Allegiance to them as King and Queen de facto and that even this has been violently opposed by the sâiff Asserters of K. James's Right I have thought fit to add in the next Discourse which I promise shall be the last on this Subject all that hath been said Pro and ãâã upon that Question and to make it of the same Bulk with the rest I have for the satisfaction of those of the Church of England as well as Royal Interest endeavour'd to shew the great difference between this late Revolution and that fatal Civil War that ended with the Deposition and Murder of King Charles the First These two Questions together with an Index to all the Dialogues being dispatch'd as I hope they will be shortly shall be the last I shall trouble the World with upon these Subjects since I know nothing more that can be well added to what I shall there set down THE Twelfth Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. MEANWELL a Civilian AND Mr. FREEMAN a Gentleman M. I Am glad Sir you are come for I was wishing for you pray sit down and let us begin where we left off you may remember you promised me when we last parted that the next time I saw you you would make out to me from undeniable proofs and precedents from our Antient Histories and Laws that the present Convention had done nothing in Voting the Throne vacant and then placing the Prince and Princess of Orange therein but what may be justified by the Fundamental Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom for I must still believe till I am better instructed that there can be no Inter Regnum in England but that it hath been from the first Institution of the Government an Hereditary Monarchy where the next Heir by Right of Blood unless in some manifest Usurpations has always succeeded to the last Predecessor as also our best Lawyers with one consent maintain in their Books of Reports and the Learned Finch in his description of the Common Law lays it down as an undoubted Maxim That the King never dies and therefore it seems altogether new and unheard of before for the Convention thus to declare the Throne vacant for admitting that King Iames had never so justly Forfeited or Abdicated the Kingdom term it which you please yet certainly there could be no Vacancy of the Throne since the next Heir by Blood ought immediately to have been declared King or Queen and so placed therein whereas we heard in the Countrey that there was almost ten days time before the Lords and Commons could agree whether the Crown should be declar'd vacant or not and when it was so declar'd it took up almost a weeks time more before they could agree who should be placed therein whereas it was a difficulty only of their own making for sure the Prince of
permit his Son to Reign in his stead which though with some reluctance he at last agreed to and thereupon Prince Edward took the Crown not by Election as you set forth but by the cession and resignation of his said Father as appears by the account which this King gave of it to the Sheriffs of all the Counties of England within a few days after his taking upon him the Crown which Writ or Letter is still to be seen among the Roll's in the Tower and is also published in Walsingham as a Proclamation which because it will give very great light in this matter I pray now read it at length Rex vicecom Ebor. Salutem quia Dominus Edwardus nuper Rex Angliae pater noster de communi confilio assensu praelatorum Com. Baron Alior Magnat necnon Communitat totius Regni praedict spontanea voluntate se amovit a Regimine dicti Regni volens concedens quod nos tanquam ipsius primogenitus haeres Regni gubernationem regimen assumamus nosque ipsius patris nostri bene placito in hac parte de consitio avisamento Praelator Com. Baron Magnat Communitat predict onnuenâes pubernacula suscepimus dicti Regni fidelitates Homagia ipsorum Praelitor Magnat recepimuâ ut est moris teste Rege apud Westmonast 29. Ian. So that you here see this King takes no notice of the deposition of his Father or the Election of himself but only that by the Common Council and Assent of the Prelates Earls Barons c. The King his Father had by his own free Will removed himself from the Government of the Kingdom and that therefore he had by the good Will of his said Father and by Council and Advice of the said Prelates Earls c. taken the Government of the said Kingdom upon him But King Edward the 3 d. being dead his Grandson Richard the 2 d succeeded him having been before recognized by Act of Parliament as Heir Apparent to the Crown in his Grandfather's Life Time immediately upon the Death of his Father Edward the black Prince so that he succeeded to the Crown though an Infant and having great and powerful Uncles then alive and though by his ruling too Arbitrarily and being too much govern'd by Flatterers be became hated of his Subjects and thereupon gave occasion to Henry Duke of Lancaster whom he had before banished to come over and take the Kingdom from him without striking a stroak and having taken the King Prisoner call'd a Parliament in his name who took upon them most unjustly to Depose King Richard tho' 't is true he also made a solemn resignation of it by his own seeming consent but it is certain it was forced from him for fear of worse usage if he refused it F. Pray give me leave to answer what you have now said before you proceed farther in this History of the Succession In the first place I shall not deny but that from the Reign of King Edward I. the Crown has been always claim'd tho' not constantly enjoy'd by right of Blood yet that the custom was otherwise before I think the Instances I have given from the time of your Conquest are more than sufficient it is likewise as certain that this Succession by right of Blood was never setled by any positive Law and therefore must be purely derived from that Tacit consent of the People called Custom Secondly That the two Houses of Parliament have often notwithstanding this claim placed or fixed the Crown upon the Heads of those Princes whom they very well knew could have no Hereditary Right to it Thirdly That such Princes have been always obeyed and taken for lawful Kings all their Laws standing good as this day without any confirmation by their Successors tho' they pretended to a better Title Now if I prove every one of these three propositions I think the case will be very plain that though the Crown has been claim'd and often enjoy'd by right of blood yet hath it been held near as often otherwise since that time so that the Succession to it hath been still declar'd under the direction and limitation of the Present King and Parliament This being premis'd I shall proceed in the next place to answer what you have said concerning King Edward the first 's being only Recogniz'd and not Elected King by the Parliament it is plain from this History that the Great Council still maintain'd their anâient right of assembling upon the death of the King and of Judging who should be his Successor and that without any summons from him which will serve to justifie as do all the other instances aforegoing that the late Convention meeting and setling the Crown without any Writs or Authority derived from King Iames was no new thing but that they have therein done no more than what hath been antiently practised in like cases and tho' 't is true the words in Walsingham is recognoverunt yet there is also other words which seem to intimate that it was then in the power of the Great Council whom to declare for lawful Successor the words are Paternique Successorem honoris ordinaverunt that is they ordain'd or decreed him Successor of his Fathers Dignity which sure is somewhat more than a bare Declaration of an undoubted precedent Right and what power the Great Council was then looked upon to have in the ordering of this Kingdom appears by that Writ of Dedimus for all mens taking the Oaths of Allegiance in the Country which is still to be seen in the close Rolls and begins thus Quia defuncto jam celebris memoriae Domino Henrico patre nostro ad nos Regni Gubernaculum successione Haereditaria Procerum Regni voluntate fidelitate nobis praestita sit devolutum c. where besides the Hereditary Succession the good Will and Fidelity of the Great Men is reckon'd as one of the means by which the Kingdom came to him and that this course was also observed upon the accession of his Son Edward the 2 d. to the Crown seems likewise as evident from the same Author who tells us in the beginning of the Life of this Prince that he succeeded his Father King Edward non tam jure Hereditario quam unanimi consensu Procerum Magnatum which observation had been altogether needless had an unalterable Hereditary Right to the Crown been the setled But as to what you say of King Edward the 3 ds Right whilst his Father was Living to have been wholly due to his resignation tho' the place I cited out of Walsingham be express in this point yet against this you urge a Writ or Declaration as also a Proclamation of this Kings wherein he thus sets forth his Title viz. That by the Voluntary resignation of King Edward his Father and by the Council and Advice of the Prelats Earls and Barons c. he had taken upon him the Government of the Kingdom and consequently that
succeeding immediately upon his said Fathers resignation there could be no Vacancy of the Throne to which I answer that I do not deny that after this King was once setled in the Throne but that he might think it most to his honour and the independency of his Title to relye wholly upon his Right of Succession as Eldest Son and Heir without taking any notice of the Parliaments Election of him tho' this be also convertly expressed in these words which are in this Writ and Proclamation viz. ` That consenting to his said Fathers pleasure he had taken the Government de consilio advisamento Praelator Com. Baron Magnat Communitat praedict which though you translate by Council and Advice of the Prelats Earls Barons and Commonalty yet I do suppose that by consilio is here meane not Council but Consent as I have already proved the word consilium often signifies in our antient Statutes for otherwise if this word must here signifie Council it would be a plain Tautology for Advice and Council are the same thing But to shew you also that there must needs have been a vacancy of the Throne either upon the Deposition or Resignation of Edward the 2 d. take it which way you will appears from matter of Fact for it is plain that when Prince Edward refus'd the Crown upon the Parliaments Electing him unless his Father would willingly resign it he did at their request resign his Title to it by certain Commissioners sent down to him to Kenelworth Castle to take it now that place being at least two days Journey from London it is certain there must be as many days vacancy of the Throne if not more before the said Commissioners could get to London and that Prince Edward had agreed to take the Crown upon his Fathers Resignation for till then the Throne was Vacant since till the Prince had declared his assent to take it he might have chosen whether he would have accepted of it or not as not being satisfied whether his Fathers resignation were voluntary and not by constraint Now if there were a Vacancy of the Throne in this case though but for two or three days it serves to prove the matter in question as well as if it had been for two years So likewise let the Reign of King Henry the IVth begin either from the Resignation or Deposition of King Richard the II d. take it which way you please there must have been a Vacancy of the Throne as appears by the Parliament Roll still extant For it is there plain that after the instruments of King Richards Resignation and Deposition were solemnly read that the Throne continued Void for some space Till such time as Henry Duke of Lancaster stood up and made his Claim to it in that form of words which stands to this day to be seen upon the Parliament Roll and that the Arch Bishop of Canterbury taking the Duke by the hand had led him to the Throne and placed him therein M. I cannot deny but as you have set forth the matter of fact there must have been a Vacancy of the Throne in these two cases but since the depositions of both these Kings were contrary to Law and their resignations extorted from them by constraint whilst they were in prison they are neither of them looked upon as valid or to be urged as presidents in future times But however the Throne might seem then to be Vacant in point of fact yet in Law it was otherwise for Edmund Earl of March ought to have immediately Succeeded upon the Death or Resignation of King Richard as being Lineally descended from Philippa only Daughter and Heir to Lionel Duke of Clarence Third Son of King Edward the IIId But to let you see that Henry Duke of Lancaster as much an Usurper as he was yet was so sensible that the Crown could not be then enjoyed by Election but by Right of Blood and that the Parliament also thought themselves in duty bound to submit to him to whom by Right of Blood the Crown did belong Will appear from this Dukes manner of laying claim thereunto Which since you have not particularly mention'd I will For no sooner was the Throne Vacant by the pretended voluntary resignation of King Richard but Duke Henry having fortified himself with the sign of the Cross stood up and made his demand of the Crown in his Mother-Tongue in this form of words as I have extracted them out of the Parliament Roll. In the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost I Henry of Lancaster challenge this Reawme of Inglonde and the Corone withall the Members and appurtenances also that I am Descendit by Right Line of the Blode comyng fro the gude Lord King Henry the Third And thorghe that Right that God of his Grace hath sent me with the help of my Kyn and of my Friends to recover it The which Reawme was in poynt to be undon for default of Governance and undoyng of the gude Laws And after which Challenge and Claim says the Record which I render out of Latine as well the Lords Spiritual as Temporal and all the States there present being all severally interrogated what they thought of the aforesaid Challenge and Claim the above named States with all the Commonalty without any difficulty or delay unanimously agreed that the aforesaid Duke should Reign over them Where you may see that this whole Parliament admit the Dukes Claim for good without proceeding to any formal Election of him And by vertue of this pretended Right and Claiming as Heir of Earl Edmund Sirnamed Croutch-back Brother to King Edward the Ist. whom he falsly pretended to have been the Eldest Son to King Henry the IIId and put by for his Deformity did not only himself but also his Son Henry the IVth and his Grandson Henry the VIth though Usurpers Succeed as right Heirs to the Crown till the 39th year of Henry the VIth when Richard Duke of York did in a full parliament lay Claim thereunto in right of his Mother being only Sister and Heir of Edmund Earl of March. And because the Judgment of the Parliament in this case is very remarkable pray read this part of it as it stands recorded in the Parliament Roll. Whereupon consideration of the Answer and Claim of the Duke of York it was concluded and agreed by all the Lords that his Title could not be defeated And therefore for eschewing the great inconveniences that may ensue a mean was found to save the Kings Honour and Estate and to appease the said Duke if he would Which was That the King viz. Henry the VIth should enjoy the Crown during Life the Duke to be declared the true Heir and to possess it after his Death c. And note that all this was done after a solemn hearing of all that could be said on both sides F. I confess the matter of fact concerning King Henry the VIth coming to the Crown is truly recited
but I can shew you not only the unreasonableness but also the unpracticableness of this supposition First its unreasonableness since you are very much mistaken to alledge that the whole Nation by that Act of recognition to King Iames obliged themselves and their Posterities to him and his right Heirs 'T is true they there tell him That they made that Recognition as the first fruits of their Loyalty and Faith to him and his Royal Progeny and Posterity for ever and also when they have acknowledged him to be justly and lawfully next and sole Heir of the Blood Royal of this Realm and that they thereunto submit and oblige themselves their Heirs and Posterities for ever c. there is no more meant or expressed in all this than that the whole Nation did by their Representatives in Parliament oblige themselves and their Children to King Iames and his Posterity for ever and I think that this part of the Recognition is sufficiently perform'd by placing two of his Great Grand-children in the Throne for as to the words rightful or lawful Heirs they are not to be found in all this Statute But as for your Notion of a Regency it is plain it could have signified nothing either for our present security or future settlement not to the former since this Regent be he whom he would must have Governed in the Right of some body or other since I never read of a Regency in England during a Vacancy of the Throne therfore I will at present admit that the Vote for King Iames's Abdication had never been made only that the Prince of Orange had been declar'd Regent of the Kingdom till such time as King Iames would have given the Nation sufficient satisfaction of his reforming all past miscarriages and that his future Government should be according to Law Now I would very fain know how it can be justified according to your Notion of the King 's absolute irresistible power to place a Regent over the Kingdom to Govern in his stead whether he will or not when it is certain he is neither a Minor an Ideot nor a Lunatick so that then he must have return'd again to the Government whenever he had pleas'd or else the Convention must have been Judges whether the security or satisfaction he offered was sufficiently satisfactory or not for if he himself was to be sole Judge in this case I suppose you will grant this Regency would quickly have been at an end but on the other âide if this Right of Judging had been left in the Convention whether the King's proposals were satisfactory or not they might also have voted them not to be so and till this was done they might very well have justified there keeping him out of the Kingdom by force now how that could have consisted with your doctrine of the Kings Irresistible Power I desire you would satisfie me if you can so that by this Regency the King must either have been deprived of his whole Power or he must not if the former that would have been as good as Deposing him from being King and had left him no more than the bare Title and whether this had not been a great deal worse as more Hypocritical than the Conventions declaring him to have Abdicated the Government I leave it to any indifferent person to Judge But if you will suppose that this Regent must have Govern'd in the name of your Prince of Wales as being declared King that would have been to have granted his Title to be good without hearing of it and had been indeed to have given up the main point in dispute M. I see you would fain find out any shifts for this pretended Vacancy and placing those in the Throne to whom it doth not belong yet though I grant that the word Right Heirs are not expresly recited in this Act of Recognition to King Iames I. yet for all that it is implyed for the Oath of Allegiance is Enacted by I. Eliz. to be taken to the Queen her Heirs and lawful Successors and by the Oath of Supremacy Enacted in the IVth of King Iames we are likewise obliged to swear that we will bear true Allegiance to his Majesty his Heirs and Successors now who these Heirs are this very Act of Recognition doth sufficiently declare viz. The next Heir by Descent of Blood for as King Iames is hereby acknowledged to be Heir by Inherent Birth-right so when they oblige themselves and their Posterity's to King Iames and his Progeny it is to be understood by parity of reason that they oblige themselves and the Nation for all future Generations to Him and his Issue in that sense as that their Allegiance should be only due to him or her who should be Lawful Heir to their Father Brother or Uncle according to those rules of Succession that had been commonly received for above four hundred years last past that is to say the Eldest Son Brother or Daughter being still to be prefer'd before the Younger and Sons before Daughters and the same rule must also hold for their descendents since upon this ground it was that the Title of the House of York was prefer'd by Parliament before that of Lancaster and the Title of the King of Scots who was descended from the Eldest Sister before that of the House of Suffolk who came from the Younger and this being never alter'd by any subsequent Statute or if it had I think it would not have been good the Convention ought either to have declar'd the Prince of Wales King immediately or at least to have continued the Throne Vacant let the difficulties or inconveniences that you suppose might have followed to be never so great and therefore it was their duty to have fought out King Iames and the Prince where-ever they had been and to have desired him to have sent over the Prince together with the Witnesses that went away with him and till this had been absolutely refus'd or else that upon a fair hearing this Prince had been proved an Impostor I say till one of these had been done the Throne ought still to have continued Vacant if it were so at all nor till this had been clear'd could they have justified the placing any body else upon the Throne though never so nearly related to the King whom I will suppose for discourse sake to have really Abdicated the Kingdom F. I will not deny that the legal and common course of Succession ought to be inviolately observed according to the Rules you have now laid down when ever it may consist with the publick good and safety of the Kingdom and yet for all that I cannot believe that the King himself much less any other that only pretends as next Heir to him can have such an absolute Right to the Kingdom as that no considerations whatsoever can make them lose or forfeit their Right thereunto therefore I look upon the Government of a Kingdom not to be like that interest which a private
the Prince of Wales to have been either dead or justly laid aside now make it out to me how you can justifie the placing the Prince and Princess of Orange in the Throne when the Crown is really her right after the Prince of Wales and not her Husbands as also the putting the Government solely into his hands since this can no ways agree with the Act of Recognition to King Iames the First which you your self cannot deny but ought to be observed when it may be done without any apparent hazard or prejudice to the Protestant Religion and the Constitution of our Government which I think might have been as well if not better secured by letting it have gone in the right Line that by placing the Crown upon the Head of a Prince who though it is true is of the Blood-Royal by his Mother yet being a Foreigner is a meer Stranger to our Government and Laws and has been bred up in Calvinistical Principles and upon that score is not like to have any good intentions towards the Government and Ceremonies of the Church of England as appears by his late agreeing to abolish Episcopacy in Scotland upon his accepting that Crown from the Presbyterian Convention F. If these be all the objections you have to make against placing King William and Queen Mary in the Throne I hope they will not be of any great moment to your self or any other considerate man for if that upon the Abdication of King Iames and the impossibity of determining your Prince of Wales's Title if it be one a Regency was impracticable and unsafe for the Nation at this conjuncture of time when we want a King to hold a Parliament as well to raise Money to defend us against the Power of France as also to make new Laws for the ease and reformation of the Kingdom all which a Regents acting without Royal Authority could never do by the constitution of this Kingdom so that if there was now a necessity of placing some body in the Throne for the Common Good and Safety of the whole Common-Wealth I think you your self cannot but acknowledge that the Princess of Orange had an Hereditary right to the Crown and if her Highness had the Prince her Husband also ought to Govern the Kingdom in her Right during her life and those who deny King Henry the VIIth to be Lawful King before his Marriage with the Princess Elizabeth will yet grant he was so in her Right after his Marriage and this has not been only the Custom in England but also in other Kingdoms of Europe as I can give you several Instances For upon this ground it was that Ferdinand King of Arragon by Marrying with Isabella Queen of Castile Governed that Kingdom during his Life so also Anthony Duke of Bourbon marrying with Iane Queen of Navarre did in her Right administer the Government of that part of it which was left unconquer'd by the Spaniards and here at home Philip Prince of Spain by his Marriage with Queen Mary had certainly in her Right Govern'd this Kingdom and had enjoyed something more than the bare Title of King had he not by the Articles of Marriage confirm'd by Act of Parliament been expresly debar'd from it M. Admit all this to be true yet this was only the enjoyment of a bare Matrimonial Crown and held no longer than during the Lives or Marriage with those Queens you mention But pray tell me how can the Convention according to the antient constitution of this Kingdom justifie the settlement of the Crown not only on King William during the Queens Life But for his own Life also to the prejudice not only of his own Issue if ever he have any by the Princess but also of the Princess of Denmark and her Heirs F. I doubt not but to shew you that this may be easily justified by the constitution of the Kingdom and former Precedents of what hath been done in the like cases First as to the Constitution I have already proved that upon the deposition of a King which is all one with a Forfeiture of the Crown the Great Council or Parliament hath taken upon them to Elect or Admit either the next Heir by Blood or some Prince tho' more remote of the Royal Family to the Crown thus King Henry the IVth upon the Deposition or Resignation of King Richard the Ild. was placed in the Throne by the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury after the two Houses had Voted and consented he should Reign over them though I grant that by right of Blood Edmund Earl of March ought to have succeeded to it but he being then a Child was passed by unmention'd Duke Henry being then powerful and having deliver'd the Kingdom from the Tyranny and Evil Government of Richard the âId I shall pass by Richard the IIId because I own his Government to have begun by Unsurpation and to have been established by the Murther of his Nephews But as for Henry the VIIth I have already shew'd you that the Parliament before his Marriage with the Princess Elizabeth setled the Crown upon him and the Heirs of his Body by vertue of which he held it all his Reign whereas there is no such thing done in the present case of King William since he hath only the Crown setled upon him during his own Life with the remainder after his decease without Issue by the Queen to her and not his Right Heirs and as for such Children as he may have by her it is agreeable to reason that he should hold the Crown by that which we call the Courtesie of England during his Life and not from a King to become a Subject to his own Children in case he should desire to live here after her Majesties decease which I hope God will prevent M. I confess you have drest up a pretty plausible Title for King William but yet all that you have said amounts to no more than this that because other Kings have been Usurpers he may be so too for as to all the instances you have brought they have been only from depositions or manifest usurpations both which our Laws have condemned as absolutely unlawful as I have shew'd you hath been declar'd by two Acts of Parliament against the Title of Henry the IVth and his Descendents but since you will not insist upon the right of Richard the IIId I pass to that Act of Henry the VIIth which as I told you before so I must repeat it again that it was done upon his supposed Right by Blood as Heir to the House of Lancaster and upon that pretence he claimed the Crown as his Right in his Speech to the first Parliament he called besides the Princess Elizabeth the Queen de Iure made no claim to the Crown and so did tacitly resign it which seemed to make him de Iure as well as de Facto King and if it were done otherwise I look upon that whole Act as void in it self because made by him
Authority since besides that it was done by Usurpation in those rough and unsetled times yet I believe if the antient Writs of Summons were now in being you would find that they were called by those Usurpers though not by the Title of Kings but I defie you to show me since the Reign of Edward the First any Parliament ever call'd without the King's Writs of Summons and though upon the deposition of Edward and Richard the Second the Parliaments you mention might continue to sit and transact publick business yet was it during a plain Usurpation upon those Princes whom you your self must grant to have been unlawfully deposed and therefore we find upon the Parliament Roll of the 21 st of Richard the Second that an Act of the first of Edward the Third confirming the Judgment given upon the two Spencers was not only repeal'd in Parliament but declared to be unlawful because Edward the Second was living and true King being imprison'd by his Subjects at the time of that very Parliament of 1 Edward III. But as for your last instance of a Conventions declaring it self a Parliament in the Reign of King Charles the Second there is a great deal of difference between them and the present Convention since they did not take upon them to declare or make a King as this Convention has done but only to recognize him to be their Lawful Sovereign which as I have already told you being that which was their duty to do they might very well justifie though they were not Summon'd by the King's Writs but however all their Acts were looked upon as made without legal Authority and therefore were confirmed in the first legal Parliament of King Charles's Reign But as for the Authority of the Statute of the 13 th of Eliz. whereby you would prove that the Parliament has at this day power to alter or limit the Succession of the Crown besides that such an Act being against the fundamental rules of Succession was void in it self yet if you please to look upon the Act in Rastal's Statutes you will there find it was only made to serve a present turn and to keep the Queen of Scots and her Party from enterprizing any thing against Queen Elizabeth and therefore it is there only declar'd to be Treason during the Queens life for any Persons to maintain that the Queen could not riot with the Authority of the Parliament limit the Succession of the Crown and as for the last Clause that makes it forfeiture of Goods and Chattels to maintain the contrary after her decease this was made to strengthen and confirm the former part of the Statute which was a provision and security against such pretences and Practices as had been lately made against her by the Papists on the behalf of the Queen of Scots Title and this Clause could not take effect after her death but was added to preserve Queen Elizabeth's Memory from being defamed after her decease or being slanderously charged with the heinous Crime of Usurping the Crown which must have been the inevitable consequence of affirming that she and her Parliament could not limit the Succession For to confess the truth I think Queen Elizabeths best Title was by Act of Parliament since her Legitimacy might be justly question'd by reason that her Mothers Marriage was declar'd unlawful by the 28 th of Henry the VIII th and she was as good as declar'd illegitimate by her Father in that very Act that setled the Crown upon her but that this Statute of the 13 th of Queen Elizabeth is now looked upon as expired appears in Palton's and all other late Collections of the Statutes since her time wherein the Title of the Statute is barely mention'd with EXP. immediately following it to shew it is looked upon as expired So that you are mistaken to affirm that the Convention has done nothing in the late limitation of the Crown but what may be justified from that Statute therefore if it be not Law at this day I think they had no Authority to alter the Succession of the Crown from the right Line let them be of what Religion they would F. I see you do all you can to evade the force of my Authorities from History and direct matter of Fact and therefore as to what you say that those were rough and unsetled and therefore no Precedents to be drawn from thence this is to beg the Question for what could be the Law concerning the Succession of the Crown for the first hundred and fifty years after the Conquest but the constant usage of the Great Council of the Nation as low as the Reign of Henry the Third and it is a bold assertion to accuse the whole Nation of Perjury and Rebellion against their Lawful Kings during all those Successions I have now instanced in nor have you any thing to say against those Parliaments that met in the 1 st of King Edward III. and Charles the II. but that their Meeting was Lawful because it was only to recognize those Kings and not to make them which is indeed to beg the Question since you cannot deny but those Parliaments are held for good notwithstanding they were not call'd by the King's Writs But as for making a King the present Parliament have not taken upon them to do it since they do not in the Act for the Succession Elect King William and Queen Mary to be our Lawful King and Queen but only declare or recognize them to be so upon supposition that the Prince of Wales is either an Impostor or else his Legitimacy impossible to be tried and determined by them Nor are your Objections material against the Authority of those Acts of Parliament which were made in the 1 st of King Henry the IV th and Charles the II d. which were never Summon'd by those Kings Writs For as to the first of those Instances most of those Acts of Henry the IV th stand good at this day without ever being confirm'd by any subsequent Parliaments And tho' I grant that the publick Acts made in the first Year of King Charles the II d. were confirm'd in the next Parliament of that King yet this does not prove that they would have been void without it since divers private Acts passed in that Parliament which were never confirm'd in any other and yet are held for good As particularly an Act of that Parliament for making the Church of St. Paul's Covent-Garden Parochial And this Act though never confirm'd was yet adjudged to be in force by the Lord Chief Justice Hales and the rest of the Justices of the Court of King's Bench in a Case concerning Rate Tythes between the Minister and some of the Parishioners of the said Parish Nor is what you have now said to prove the Statute of the 13 th of Queen Elizabeth whereby the Crown is declared capable of being limitted by Act of Parliament to be now expired since it is plain by the purport of the
or for the time being may not be legally defended in the Throne for as for that part of the Oath which was taken to King Iames himself it can hold no longer than whilst he continued King If therefore the Estates of the Kingdom have adjudged him to have forfeited or abdicated the Crown the whole Nation ought to take this as to have been legally done since it was done by the judgment of the highest Authority in the Nation when King Iames had deserted the Throne the like I may also say for the other part of the Oath of Allegiance whereby we are obliged to his Heirs and Lawful Successors for since there has been a dispute concerning the succession of the Crown between the Princess of Orange and your Prince of Wales if the Convention who are the sole proper Judges in this Case have thought fit for the reasons I have already given you at our last Meeting to declare King William and Queen Mary the lawful King and Queen of England all the Nation ought to accept them for such since it was done by the highest Authority at that time extant in the Nation and the only proper Judges of that right and if disputes about legal rights of which certainly that of succeeding to the Crown is of the highest importance ought to be decided by Law and not by the Sword which is not the decision of civil Authority but of force the sentence of competent Judges must end the dispute and if the Estates of the Realm be not the proper and legal Judges of such Disputes that concern the right to the Crown there can be none and if they be Subjects must acquiesce in their Judgments or it is all one as if there had been none for if Men may pretend Conscience and adhere to their own private Opinions as sole Judges the dispute must end in blows which is contrary to the reason and nature of humane Societies which were instituted to prevent Civil Wars and to end all Controversies by a legal Judgment without the Sword And to let you see farther that as to the Allegiance of the Subjects it is all one in respect of us who are Subjects whether the Convention have judged right or wrong in this case Let us suppose a Person who has only a pretence but no true right to an Estate should commence a Suit of Law for it and at last obtaine a Verdict of the Jury and also a Judgment of the Court of Kings-Bench for his Title can any Man deny but that the Sheriff is by vertue of this Verdict and Judgment oblig'd to put this Abator into possession of this Estate notwithstanding he may know of his own knowledge that the person who has obtain'd this Judgment has no true right to the Estate or will any Lawyer doubt whether all the Tenants of the Mannour are not oblig'd to swear homage and fealty to this suppos'd Lord if they are required by him so to do Now though the true Heir or owner has the legal right to the Estate yet by the supream Law of all Societies which refers the decision of all personal rights to a legal Authothority he who by a legal judgment is possessed of it has the legal right in the Estate against all other claims and legal Authority must desend him in it and all who will submit to Laws and Legal Authority must acquiesce in it And thus it must be with respect to the Rights of Princes as well as of Subjects the right to the Crown has been often disputed as we all know and to say that when such disputes happen there is no Authority in the Nation to decide them is to say that Princes have no rights to their Crowns by the Laws of that Nation for there can be no Civil Rights of which there neither are nor can be any Civil Judges for no man no not a Prince can be judge in his own Cause and if Princes have no legal rights they can lose no legal rights when they lose their Crowns and I doubt their natural rights swill affect the Consciences of very few Subjects Therefore every independent Civil Society which is not wholly governed by the Sword must from the nature of such Societies and the reason of their institution have authority within it self to decide all Controversies which may arise about the rights of every member of that Society and to preserve it self from falling into a state of War which is a dissolution of all Civil Government and if there ought to be such an Authority in every Civilized Nation when this Supream Authority has given sentence in such Disputes this must also determine all the Subjects and ought likewise to have the same effect upon the contending Princes themselves and no right or pretence of right ought to affect the Conscience after such a final Judgment unless Civil Rights can oblige Subjects to dissolve Civil Governments and to dispute Civil Rights not by the Law but by the Sword which is to overthrow all Civil Rights and put an end to the Authority of Laws I hope this may serve to shew you how much you are mistaken to suppose that there can be no King in an hereditary Monarchy but the next lineal Heir and tho' I grant no Allegiance can be due or ought to be paid to him who is no King yet will it not follow that none can be due to any Prince if he be not the next heir for that no obedience can be due to him who is no King I readily grant but yet he may be a legal King in this Kingdom who is not the next Heir by blood as almost half of the Kings of England since the Conquest were not and yet have been always own'd and obey'd as legal Kings M. I confess what you say would go a great way to satisfie me could you prove that there was no difference between the succession to Crowns and private inheritances where I grant that the judgement of the Supream Court of the Nation is to determine not only the possession but the right too in respect of the person who loses his Estate by an unjust verdict or illegal judgment whereas it is otherwise in the Title of Crowns to which Princes have a right as well by the Laws of God and Nature as also by the receiv'd setled Laws and Customs of the Kingdom concerning the Succession by descent which is call'd in the 13th of Queen Elizabeth in the Statute we have so much debated at our last Meeting the Common Laws of this Realm and it is there declared that it ought to direct the right of the Crown of England and it is there made Treason during the Queens life to affirm the contrary and this course of lineal Succession at Common Law was also declar'd by solemn judgment in Parliament in the case I have so often urg'd of the Duke of York's Title to the Crown against Henry the VIth that it could no way be defeated by
an Act of Parliament which is made indefinitely without fixing it to any time or person the words in the Act are the King for the time being which must certainly extend to any other King as well as Henry the VIIth for I suppose that an Act of Parliament and a Deed agreed in this that an unnecessary Clause can by no means render the whole void But as for what you say in relation to this Acts being a security for the Title of the Queen and her Children whom you suppose to be the right Heirs of the Crown this rather serves to strengthen the Act than otherwise for if this King had a good Title in her right then it may be also very well suppos'd that she gave her assent to this Act in the person of her Husband and that not for the benefit but to the prejudice of her own Issue since if after her death which happen'd some years before his her Son Henry Prince of Wales had set up his present Title to the Crown in the right of his Mother and so would have dethron'd his Father as an Usurper I suppose no reasonable Man will deny but that this Act would have indemnified all those who had taken up Arms in defence of King Henry the VIIth against his Son though in your sence King de jure and if it would justifie the Subjects then I cannot see why it may not do the same thing now in their swearing Allegiance nay fighting for the King in possession against him whom we will for the present suppose to be King de jure M. Well however I think I can prove that this Act was no more than temporary from the judgement of the Judges in the Case of Iohn Duke of Northumberland who when he was Tryed for Treason for leading an Army against Queen Mary to settle the Lady Iane Gray in the Throne desired to be informed by the Judges whether a man acting by the Authority of the Great Seal and the Order of the Privy Council or Princes Council as Stow and Heylin word it could become thereby guilty of Treason to which all the Judges answer'd that the Great Seal of one that was not lawful Queen could give no Authority or Indemnity to those that acted by such a Warrant upon which the Duke submitted though without question he did not want Lawyers to inforce his Plea with this Statute likewise if his cause would have born it from whence I infer against Sir Edward Coke that Treason lies against a King de jure tho' out of possession for it 's plain by all our Historians that Queen Mary was so far from being possessed of the Crown when the Duke of Northumberland acted against her that the Lady Iane was not only Proclaimed Queen in London and most of all the Cities and Great Towns in England but the Tower of London with all the Forts and Naval Forces were under her Command and she had also Allegiance sworn to her by the Privy-Council and by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen and she had also the Seals in her power by which all Patents and Commissions were granted and issued in her Name and if all this be not sufficient to constitute her Queen de facto according to this Statute of Henry the VIIth I know not what was F. Yet I can tell you what was yet wanting which because she had not she was certainly neither Queen de jure nor de facto and that was a solemn Coronation and Recognition of her Right by Parliament which legal investiture since she never had she was not the Queen for the time being and consequently not intended within this Statute of the 11th of Henry the VIIth for though it is true she was appointed Successour of the Crown-by the Letters Patents of King Edward the VIth yet since she could not claim by right of blood there being so many before her all the Kingdom looked upon it as an Usurpation and an artifice of the Duke of Northumberland whose Son she had Married to get the Government of the Kingdom into his sole power so that it was no wonder if the greater part of the People were so averse to her Title and that those of the Nobility who took her part so quickly revolted from her when once the fear they were in of the Duke of Northumberland's power was removed for had this Bequest of the Crown to the Lady Iane held good this Kingdom instead of being Hereditary would have become wholly Testamentary and disposable by the last Will or Letters Patents of the King or Queen for the time being without the consent of the Great Council of the Nation which is contrary not only to the then receiv'd Laws of Succession but also to the antient constitution of the Kingdom as well before as after the Conquest But notwithstanding all this I doubt not but that if the Lady Iane had so far prevail'd against Queen Mary as to have been able to call a Parliament and to have had her Title own'd and recogniz'd therein as it was in the Case of Richard the Third and Henry the Seventh but that she would have been true and lawful Queen according to the intent of the Statute we are now discoursing of and then the Duke of Northumberland must likewise if he had fair play have been indemnified for taking up Arms in her defence against Queen Mary since Queen Iane would have been then within the letter of this Statute as much as King Henry the Seventh himself M. You must pardon me if I cannot be of your opinion in this matter since if the bare Coronation and recognition by Parliament could confer a legal right to the Crown upon one who had no hereditary right to it before the consequence of it would be that the Crown would be so far from being Elective as you suppose it to have antiently been that it would be in the power of every bold Usurper or Rebell who had but the confidence to call himself King to gain a legal Title to be so according to your Principles and then if Oliver Cromwell could have found a Party strong enough in the Army to have declar'd him King and had call'd a Parliament in his own name who had recogniz'd him for their Lawful Sovereign he would then have had as much right to our Allegiance as King Charles the IId which certainly was not only contrary to the settlement of the Crown upon Henry the VIIth and the Heirs of his body but also to that solemn recognition of King Iames the Firsts Title as lineally descended as right Heir to the said King Henry which I insisted on at our last Meeting And therefore if you will have my sence of this Act it is either expir'd for the reasons I have already given or else was void ab initio since it is not only contrary to the setled course of Succession of the Crown according to the Laws of lineal descent for divers hundred years last past but
Crown of France as ever they have been in former Times if ever our Kings should go about to revive their ancient pretentions to France or Normandy or make War upon some other Quarrel and thefore I think it will be more far the Interest of France to leave us our Laws Liberties and Priviledges as we now enjoy them nay to make an express Capitulation for them and when he has done to foment those Jealousies and Disputes that are still like to arise between the King and Us about them thereby to hinder us from joining against him then by rendring the King Absolute to take them quite away and put the sole power of the Purse as well as of the Sword wholly into his Hands To Conclude you do also very much misrepresent the matter in supposing that though the King cannot now be restor'd without falling into a new Civil War yet that does it not therefore follow that such a War is not to be desir'd for the Publick Good of the Nation since we shall thereby not only restore the Crown to its right Owner and the Succession of it to the lawfull Heir but also shall restore Episcopacy in Scotland and prevent the Church of England from falling into a dangerous Schism by depriving the Arch Bishop of Canterbury and as many other of the Bishops who are so Honest as not to take the new Oath for standing out against it by the Temporal Power of a pretended Parliament without the Judgment of a Lawfull Convocation who are the only proper and legal Judges You likewise as much mistake in supposing that this War can no ways be finisht but by so great a Concussion as shall so much weaken the Kingdom as to render it expos'd to the Invasionâ of Foreign Enemies in which you may be very much deceived for who can tell but the hearts of this Nation may come to be so inclin'd to receive their lawful King and his right Heir and may be so weary of the present Usurpation as upon his first appearance in England with an Army sufficient to defend those who shall come into him so many of his Subjects will take this advantage as will be more than enough to restore him with as little Blood-shed as when he was driven out and then I think no indifferent Man but will acknowledge that such a War would prove for the best since it will not only setle the Government upon in ancient Foundation of a lineal Succession but will also extinguish those fatal causes of War not only from among our selves but also from Foreign Princes as long as the King and the Prince of Wales and his lawful Heirs shall continue in being which I hope will be much longer then those upon whom your Convention has setled the Crown either in Present or Reversion F. I doubt not but to show you that all you have now said is either built upon false Principles or else deduced by very uncertain Consequences for in the first place though you doubt my Principle that the People of this Nation are not bound to restore King Iames to the Throne if it cannot be done without the evident Destruction both of our Religion and Civil Liberties which certainly is true granting it to be never so much our duty to restore him when with safety we may for if the obligation of all Moral Duties whatsoever is only to be judged of according as they more or less conduce to the Happiness or Destruction of the common good of Mankind whereof this particular Nation makes a part it will necessarily follow that this Duty of restoring King Iames is not to be practised if it cannot be brought about without the Destruction of our Religion and Civil Liberties since it is only for the maintenance of those that even Kings themselves were first ordain'd in this Nation and it is evident that this Kingdom may be sufficiently Happy and subsist in the State it is now in though neither King Iames nor your Prince of Wales be ever restor'd to Reign over us So that then all the Difficulty that remains is That since his Restoration being not otherwise to be brought about without the assistance of great numbers of French or Irish Forces whether it be not only so small a hazard as you make it but twenty to one that his coming in upon these Terms will produce those dreadfull Effects which I say will certainly happen from it and though I grant that future things especially in the Revolutions of Government are not capable of Demonstration as Mathematical Propositions yet if all the circumstances of Time and the Temper and Disposition of the King himself and those who are to join with Him in bringing Him in again be considered it shall appear that Morally speaking nothing less then the evident Destruction of our Religion and Civil Liberties will follow I think I may still positively affirm that we are not oblig'd to restore Him till this Temper of Mind be alter'd and that he can be restor'd without these Fatal Consequences I now mention and if these cautions are not observ'd I deny that God hath any way promis'd to protect either our Religion or Civil Liberties or that he is bound to provide us a way to escape as you suppose if to perform this suppos'd Duty of Allegience thus unseasonably we slight the onely means God has ordained for our Preservation But as for the patience under those Sufferings that may then happen that is a very sorry reason to embrace them since God may give us that Grace if he pleases as the only Comfort we can have left us when by our own Folly and mistaken Notions of Duty we have brought all those Evils upon our selves I shall therefore now proceed to show you that these Evils I speak of must necessarily happen to us in Case King Iames be restor'd by the French or Irish Papists In the first place therefore it is very falsly suppos'd that this Alteration can be brought about without an entire Subduing or Conquest not only of their present Majesty's but the whole Nation is apparent since none but the Papists and some few of the Clergy Nobility and Gentry desire his Restoration and who if they were put altogether will not I believe amount to the hundredth Man who would be either willing or capable to come in to his Assistance with Men or Money and therefore it is a vain Supposition to believe as you do that this new Revolution can be brought about without any more Dificulty or Blood-shed then the last as long as the present King and Queen continue to Govern us according to the Declaration they subscrib'd upon their acceptance of the Crown and the Coronation Oath they have since taken which I hope they will always do since nothing but following King Iames's Example as well as to Religion as Civil Liberties can ever make this Nation willing to receive Him or your Prince of Wales with so little difficulty as you are
and sober Morals and of a quiet different Interest to those imploy'd in the two last Reigns and therefore I am so far from taking away the present Oath of Allegiance that I rather wish that there were a new one more strict and full then the present ordain'd to be taken by all those who shall take Offices and Employments of Trust or Profit whereby they should not only declare their present Majesties to be true and lawfull King and Queen of this Realm but also that they will defend them against all their Enemies King Iames himself not excepted M. I confess I cannot expect so great a Tenderness from this Government which has been introduced by so much Artifice that they should absolutely take away all Oaths of Allegiance whatsoever since I doubt not but it will assume to it self all those advantages which any former usurped Power could pretend to yet this much I must needs tell you as a Friend the depriving those Bishops and Dignified Clergymen who shall refuse this new Oath will be highly ungrateful since many of them have been as violent opposers of Popery and Arbitrary Government as any Men in England as appears by their late Petition to the King if therefore the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and those other Bishops I know to be so averse to this Oath should be deprived upon the refusal of it since it will be done uncanonically by the Temporal Power of an Act of this Convention without the Sentence of the two Houses of Convocation I doubt that it will be thought by many to be a sufficient Cause of departing from the present Church Communion and of seting up distinct Congregations by those who will be deprived and turned out of their Livings for refusing this Oath and what the consequence of that may prove God knows But whereas you think this present new Oath not full enough and therefore wish there were another made declaring the present King and Queen to be lawfully and rightfully so c. since this would amount to as good as an Oath of Abjuration of King Iames and his Title I doubt it were better let alone for I do not think the present Government will get any thing by it since the intent of the Oath you propose can only serve either to gain the present Government more new Friends or else to fix the old ones faster to it or else to discover secret Enemies now if I can prove it will not serve for any of these three ends I suppose you will grant that it were better to let it alone now that it will be so far from gaining it more Friends that it will rather serve to drive away a great many from it is apparent since many men are now in Offices and Imployments who think they may lawfully take this new Oath of Allegiance as long as the present King and Queen are not therein declared to be lawfully and rightfully so and I believe may serve them faithfully enough in their several stations who if they should come to be put to it to declare and swear that they were rightful and lawful King and Queen would rather lose their places than take it neither will it fix those that are for this Government faster to it since those that are zealous for it will be so whether they took any Oath or not and I have already proved that by the word Allegiance in this Oath it is implied that the present King and Queen are to be defended as lawfully so by the Swearer to it which is the main reason that I and those of my Opinion can by no means think it lawful to take it Nor lastly will it discover any secret Enemies to your Government since those who being rightly instructed in the true sence of this Oath and what is thereby required shall notwithstanding take it against their Conscience will I doubt take any Oath whatever the Convention shall think fit to impose since nothing but the fear of losing their present Imployments or else the desire of getting new ones could have made them take the Oath as it is since to my knowledge it hath been taken by many now in Places much against their own judgement and I doubt the conviction of their Consciences too I speak this only in relation to some of loose Principles but as to my self and many more of my Acquaintance who refuse this Oath we should be so far from taking any Place of Trust under this Government that we should not do it tho' no Oath were at all required of us since I think it not only wicked and dishonourable for any honest man to serve a Party only to watch an opportunity to betray it but I also believe my self obliged by my former Oaths as well as the duty of a natural Allegiance which I owe the King and his right Heirs not to serve those whom we look upon as Usurpers of their just Rights But if you would also have this new Oath to be an absolute abjuration of the King and his Title it will not only be unjust but impossible since who can tell but either by the help of a foreign Force or the general consent of the Nation tired out by a long expensive War either his Majesty or the Prince of Wales may be again placed upon the Throne and then sure whenever they shall call a Parliament to recognize their Title they will be even according to your own hypothesis more lawful and rightful Kings than King William and Queen Mary since they will not be only Kings de facto but de jure too and therefore I believe it was out of this Consideration that in all those long and various Contests which so often happen'd between Competitors for the Crown they never presumed to proposed to the Parliament the passing any Act to impose an Oath to abjure the Title or Person of the Rival Prince Thus in all the long Wars between King Stephen and Maud the Empress as also between the two Houses of York and Lancaster each of whom as they prevail'd in their turns were very well contented to make the Subjects take the ordinary Oath of Fidelity to themselves without abjuring each others Title and even in the later times of the Rump Parliament when the most violent and hot-headed Commonwealths-Men would have imposed an Oath of Abjuration of Charles Stuart and all his Family as they then termed his late Majesty the most Wise and Moderate Men among them such as Lenthal their Speaker and others stifly oppos'd it saying it would be a fighting against Providence to take an Oath never to own his Majesty for their King if once he should come in again without their assistance and I think there is as much if not more reason now against such an Oath of Abjuration as ever there was then F. I cannot deny but you have spoken like an honest Man in absolutely refusing to act under this Government though without an Oath unless you could be satisfied of
the lawfulness of the Powers to whom it is taken And I must acknowledge that you therein act with much more Sincerity and Honour then divers of your Party who tho they have been and are of your Opinion as to the Justice of King Iames's Title yet think they may take this Oath well enough in that looser and more qualified Sence you grant they put upon it and therefore to answer in the first place what you have said against the imposing any more explicite or stricter Oath of Allegiance then what is already appointed though I think I can very well answer all the Arguments you have now brought against it Yet to let you see I am a fair Adversary I will shew you how far I agree with you and wherein I must differ from you In the first place therefore let me tell you That you very much mistake me if you believe that by this new Oath I propose I'do design an express Abjuration of King Iames or the Prince of Wales in Case that King should ever happen to recover the Throne and call a Parliament who shall again Recognize him for lawful King and the Prince for the Right and Undoubted Heir of the Crown I am too sensible of the frequent Alterations that have happened in this Nation even to desire or propose any such thing since a Man may as well abjure the having a Feavour or the Small Pox. Change of Government and consequently our submission to it when ever it happens being no more in our power to prevent then the having those Diseases all therefore that I intend by a stricter and more explicate Oath of Allegiance is only for Men who shall undertake any imployments of Trust and Consequence either Spiritual Civil or Military in the Common-wealth since I grant the Oath as it is now worded may be sufficient for all ordinary Subjects from whom a passive Submission and true Obedience is a sufficient performance of their Duty but as for all others that either now have or expect to enjoy Places of Trust I could wish a stricter Oath asserting their present Majesties to be lawful and rightful King and Queen of this Kingdom and that the Taker will defend them in the present Possession of it to the utmost of their Power against all Persons whatsoever King Iames and the Prince of Wales not excepted and this I must think necessary not only from that Low and qualified Sence of this Oath which I gave at the beginning of this Nights Conversation and in which Sence you cannot deny but that many if not the greater part of those who still hold such imployments have lately taken it and as long as they do so how they can ever think themselves obliged to defend their Majesties against King Iames nay or any French or Popish Forces that shall act by his Commission I cannot understand for since they now look upon the present King and Queen to have no other right to the Crown than what their bare Power and present Possession of it gives them no wonder if such Men take the first opportunity to Revolt and joyn with King Iames as soon as ever he Lands with an Army or appears upon our Coasts with any Fleet formidable enough to oppose ours and must also if they are true to their Principles in the mean time do all they can to protect and indemnifie those who being of tender Consciences cannot stretch it as far as themselves and who under-hand do Act as far as they dare for King Iames's Interest and though it is true you have very solidly proved not only as a Civilian but like a Lawyer that the word Allegiance inserted in this Oath does of its own Nature imply not only that the King or Queen to whom it is taken ought to be rightly and lawfully so but that more than a bare Neutrality viz. a reall and vigorous defence of them and their right against all their Enemies is required and implyed by it and that is one great Reason why you say you cannot take it Now though I confess the Reason you have given are very weighty and convincing yet since the words are in themselves too general and doubtfull for every Person that takes or holds such Offices or Imployments of Trust to understand it in that Sence I could be glad there were another more plain and explicite Oath to be administred to those who expect to keep or hold such Imployments Since the present Government cannot well be safe without it as long as such Persons are imployed who can take the Oath with a Mental Reservation of serving King Iames as soon they safely may by vertue of that former Oath of Allegiance they have taken to him This being the Case I shall now answer all the Objections you have brought against it which indeed are rather framed to keep those Men in places that they may serve your designs when ever they are able than to do any service to tender Consciences First then I think I may maintain that such an Oath will notwithstanding what you have now said have contrary effects than what you are pleased to allow for in the first place it will gain the present Government more new Friends amongst these Neuters who steer their Allegiance to it only from its present Settlement and the hopes of its Continuance when they find that none can be imployed in places of publick Trust who will not take an Oath to acknowledge their present Majesties to be Lawfull and Rightfull King and Queen and who will also Swear to Defend their just Right which will for the most part put Placeâ of Trust into their Hands who will think themselves oblig'd faithfully to perform what they have Sworn Secondly it will also fix the old Friends of this Government faster to it when they see none but themselves or those who will really come into the Government upon their Principles admitted to such Places of profit and trust and whoever will take this Oath are to be presumed to take it willingly and wittingly and understanding what they do since the words will be of themselves so plain and evident that they will admit none of those loose and doubtfull Sences in which so many have taken the present Oath of Allegiance but your main Objection against this is that a new Oath will not discover secret Enemies to the Government because that most of the same Persons that have taken the former Oath will take any other that can be requir'd of them which I suppose is not so since you your self do grant that such an Oath would be a snare to a great many who if it were not for that would serve this Government faithfully enough that is to say as long as there is no necessity of shewing their Good-will to King Iames or have no opportunity given of returning to their former Allegiance to him with safety to themselves and you your self cannot deny but according to their Principles they must needs perform it when
as we read Chancellor Fortescue did Prince Henry Son to Henry the VIth and I hope he will come over again to practise them in his own Country before he comes to be infected with the Arbitrary Principles of the French Government but as for those of not keeping Faith with Hereticks and a propagating his Religion by Persecution I doubt not but the King his Father will take care not to commit his Education to any of those who are infected with such Principles and I am the more inclin'd to believe it because it is very well known that his Majesty's tenderness and moderation in matters of Religion and not persecuting any body for the belief or bare profession of it as it was the greatest cause of his late Declaration of Indulgence so it was the main original of all his late Misfortunes nor can I see any reason why a King by being a Roman Catholick must necessarily be a Tyrant and a Persecutor since you cannot deny but that we have had many good and just Kings of that Religion and it is from those Princes that professed it that we derive our Magna Charta and most of the priviledges we now enjoy F. Though I would not be thought to affirm that the Romish Religion is every way worse than the Mahometan yet this much I may safely affirm that there is no Doctrine in all that Superstition so absurd and contrary to Sence and Reason as that of Transubstantiation held by the Church of Rome in which the far greatest part are certainly Idolators which can never be objectâd against the Turks and therefore though I will not deny but that a Man may be saved in the Communion of the Romish Church yet it is not for being a Papist but only as far as he practises Christ's Precepts and trusts in his Merits that he can ever obtain that favour from God But as for those evil Principles both in Religion and Civil Government which you cannot deny but are now commonly believed and practiced in France and which you hope King Iames will take care that the Prince his Son shall be bred to avoid I wish it may prove as you say but if you will consider the Men that are like to be his Tutors and Instructors in matters of Religion viz. his Fathers and Mothers Confessors the Jesuits and for Civil Government those Popish Lords and Gentlemen of notorious Arbitrary Principles and Practises who are gone over to King Iames you will have small reason to believe that there is ever a Fortescus now to be found among the English-men in France or who is likely to instill into him those true English Principles you mention And though I do not affirm that every Popish Prince must needs be a Persecutor yet since that wholly depends upon those Priests that have the management of their Consciences shew me a Prince in Europe who has a Jesuit for his Confessor and tell me if he hath not deserved that Character But though I am so much of your Opinion that King Iames ownes the greatest part of his Misfortunes to his Declaration for Liberty of Conscience yet was it not so much to the thing it self as to his Arbitrary manner of doing it by assuming a Dispensing Power contrary to Law and you may be very well assured by the little opposition which the late Acts met with for taking off the Penalties against Conventicles and not coming to Church in respect of all Dissenters except the Papists that King Iames might have as easily obtain'd a like Act to pass in respect of those also as to the free profession of their Religion and having Mass in their Houses which is more than the Papists will allow the Protestants in any Country in Europe And therefore I must beg your pardon if I still find great reason to doubt whether K. Iames his tenderness towards those that differ'd from him in matters of Religion and the Indulgence he gave them were purely out of consideration of tender Consciences and not rather thereby to destroy the Church of England Established by Law since the Dispute began between King Iames and his Parliament was not about Liberty of Conscience but those Offices and Commands which the King was resolved to bestow upon the Papists whether the Parliament would or not And certainly there is a great deal of difference between a Liberty for a Man to enjoy the free profession of his own Religion and the power and benefit of having all the chief Imployments of Honour and Profit in the Common-wealth But that the Indulgence of Popish Princes towards those that dissent from them in matters of Religion may not always proceed from pure Tenderness and Compassion appears from a Manuscript Treatise of F. Parsons that great Jesuit in Queen Elizabeth's time which I have been told was found in King Iames's Closet after his departure This if you can see it will shew you that the subtil Jesuite doth there direct his Popish Successor in order to the more quiet introducing the Romish-Catholick Religion to grant a general Toleration of all Religions out of a like design Thus did Iulian the Apostare long ago tolerate all the Sects and Heresies in the Christian Religion because he thereby hoped utterly to confound and destroy it But as to what you alledge concerning Magna Charta's being granted by Popish Princes and that there has been many good Kings of that persuasion As I will not deny either the one or the other so I desire you to remember with what struglling and great difficulties this Charter was at first obtain'd and afterwards preserved though it was no more than a Declaration of most of those Antient Rights and Liberties which the Nation had always enjoy'd And you may also remember that they were Popish Princes who more than once obtain'd the Pope's Dispensation to be discharged from those solemn Oaths they had taken to observe those Charters and though there hath been divers good Princes before the Reformation yet even the very best of them made the severest Laws against Protestants and were the most cruel in their Persecutions witness King Henry the IVth Henry the Vth and Queen Mary And indeed it is dangerous to rely upon the Faith of a Prince who looks upon it as a piece of Merit to destroy all Religions but his own and when he finds it cannot be done by Law will not stick to use any Arbitrary means to bring it about To conclude pray consider whether the strict observing or violation of Magna Charta and his Coronation Oath hath been the cause of King Iames's Abdication Pardon this long Discourse which your Vindication of the Opinion and Practises of Popish Princes hath drawn from me M. Pray Sir let us quit these invidious Subjects which can do no good since Princes must be own'd and submitted to let their Principles and Practice be never so Tyrannical and let us return again to the matter in hand I will therefore at present suppose