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 â—ort 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 loâ—s 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
E. I. ib. p. 554. Rot. cl 31. Ed. III. ib. p. 555. Rot. Pat. 54 H. III. ib. 573. Rot. Wal. 11. Ed. I. ib. 574.575 Rot. cl 28. E. I. Rot. Pat. 8. Ed. II. ib. 576. Rot. Pat. 52. H. III. ib. p. 578. Bundel Brev. 5. Ed. II. Rot. Pat. 40. Ed. III. ib. p. 581. Rot. Pat. 2. H. V. ib. p. 582. Placit Parl. 18. E. I. Rot. Parl. 18. Ed. III. ib. p. 584. inter Com. brev in Scac. 34. Ed. I. Prins Par Reg. p. 26.28.30 Ed. I. ib. p. 586. Parl. Reg. 8. Ed. II. 887. Rot. cl 15. E. II. Rot. cl 2. E. III. Rot. cl 50. E. III. p. 588. Rot. Pat. 42. E. III. p. 599. Rot. Pat. 17. Ed. III. Rot. Parl. 51. E. III. p. 605. A Regency W. legal or practicable in England upon King James's departure D. 12. p. 877. Religion in what Cases we are bound to suffer for it without any resistance D. 4. p. 222. to 235. The Remedies against Tyranny the People of England can have without Resistance considered D. 4. p. 262. to 664. Resistance of Fathers Husbands and Masters by their Wives Children and Servants W. ever lawful D. 1. p. 41. to 44. to 52.60 Resistance of the Supream Powers in what cases absolutely lawful D. 3. p. 146. to 149 D. 4. p. 270. In what cases absolutely unlawful D. 3. p. 176 177. All the evil Consequences of such Resistance considered D. 4. p. 261. to 264. D. 9. p. 649 659 to 666. W. All resistance be forbidden by God in the Old Testament D. 3. p. 190. to the end W. Forbidden by the word of God in the New Testament D. 4. p. 220. to 264. W. Contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England Ib. p. 283. Resistance of the King and those in Commission by him W. absolutely â—orbid by the Statute of the seventh of Edward the First against bearing of Arms D. 8. p. 612. W. Contrary to the 25th of Edward the Third concerning Treasons Ib. to the end Resistance of Arbitrary Power in our Kings W. lawful both before and since the Conquest D. 9. p. 615 to 637. Such Resistance granted to be lawful by some of our Kings themselves D. 9. p. 617.620.622 Rights and Liberties of the Subject what they are D. 9. p. 666 to 669. Rolls Clause how many wanting in the Reigns of King John and Henry the Third D. 7. p. 517 518. S Sapientes its signification in Ancient Histories D. 6. p. 377. Late Schism upon the Deprivation of the Bishops W. justifiable D. 13. p. 963 to 966. Scotland W. it s ancient constitution were the same with England D. 7. p. 503. to 505. D. 8. p. 559. W. None but Tenants in Capite ever appeared at the Great Councils of the Kingdom Ib. to 510. Scutage Service W. different from a Scutage Tax D. 7. p. 439. to 440.479 to 481. Sermons for the Kings Absolute Power censured in Parliament D. 1. p. 5. Servants and Sons W. all one in the State of Nature D. 1. p. 54. Sheriffs Pardoned by Act of Parliament for holding above one year D. 12. p. 821. States General of the Vnited Provinces W. their making War upon King James the Second were justifiable D. 11. p. 781 782. Ancient Statutes W. the three Estates have not always given their Assent to them as well as the King D. 5. p. 330. to 348. Notwithstanding the different forms of Penning them Ibid. D. 7. p. 484 485.525.528 529. Statue of the Eleventh of Henry the Seventh Cap. 1. W. still in force D. 13. p. 909. to 933. Statute of the Thirteenth of Elizabeth Chap. 1. W. still in force D. 12. p. 894. to 898. All Statutes though made by Vsurpers W. they hold good till repeal'd D. 12. p. 909 911 912. Doctor Stories Case D. 13. p. 950. Subjects how different from Slaves D. 4. p. 251. to 261. W. Particular Subjects may resist the Supream Powers for satisfaction of their own private injuries D. 4. p. 252. Succession to Crowns no certain procepts to be found about it in Scripture or the Law of Nature D. 2. p. 89. to 90. Succession to the Crown of England W. always Hereditary since the Conquest without any vacancy of the Throne D. 12. p. 839 to 875. Sufferings of Christ how far an Example to us D. 4. p. 227. to 233. Suffering for Religion without Resistance when necessary Ib. p. 231. T Tenants in Capite W. they were all Barons D. 6. p. 399.400 W. They could anciently Tax the whole Kingdom at their pleasure as well the Lands held of them as what was not D. 7. 440.479 to 483.500 W. They or else Tenants by Knights service were anciently the only Persons who served upon Iuries D. 10. p. 741. to 746. W. They represented all their under Tenants in Parliament D. 7. p. 512. Tenants in Sâ—â—age W. they were bound by the Acts of those of whom they held their Estates D. 6. p. 420. Tenants in Demesne claimed to be discharged from the Knights Wages by prescription D. 8. p. 588 589. Tenure by Knights service W. in use before King Wil. I. D. 10. p. 750 751. A new Test Oath opposed by a great party of the Poeâ—s in the Reign of King Charles the Second D. 9. p. 659. Testaments W. valid in the meer State of Nature D. 2. p. 86 87 91. The several Texts of Scripture made use of for or against absolute Non-resistance examined viz. in the Old Testament D. 3. p. 190. to the end Texts of Scripture out of the New Testament urged for the like purpose D. 4. p. 220. to 279. Thanes the ancient signification of that Title discussed D. 6. p. 374. to 379. The divers sorts of them amongst the English Saxons D. 5. p. 370. Treason against the Kingdom anciently as well as against the King D. 5. p. 344. Trials by Combate W. in use before the Conquest D. 10. p. 758. Trust committed by the People to the Supream Powers W. unaccountable and irrevocable D. 3. p. 152.154 Insupportable Tyranny W. worse than the State of Nature Ib. 155. Tyrants W. Ordained of God D. 4. 245 246. U Vavasors or mesne Tenants W. anciently reckon'd as part of the Baronage of the Kingdom D. 6. p. 405 406. Universitas Baronagii Angliae Regni what it signified and W. the Commons were comprehended under that Title D. 6. p. 408 409 415 416. Universitas Communis the meaning of that Phrase in Matthew Paris D. 7. p. 470. W. It comprehended no more than the less Tenants in Capite Ib. 471. Primate Ushers Opinion in his Treatise of the Power of the Prince and Obedience of the Subject considered D. 4. p. 271 272. Vsurpers by Sir R. Filmers Principles to be obeyed before the Lawful Prince and his Heirs D. 2. p. 126 127. When Vsurpers may be obeyed before the Lawful Prince and his Heirs D. 4. p. 246. Usurpation W. it gives a rightful Title after three Generations D. 2. p. 128. Vulgus what that word signified in the
you what Right the States of the Vnited Provinces might have to resist the Tyranny of the Duke of Alva then Governour for the King of Spain since Grotius and most Writers which are not of the Spanish Faction suppose that King to have had a Conditional Right of Governing those Provinces according to their own Laws and Priviledges from the very first Institution of the Government And therefore not being an absolute Monarch over them he might well be resisted upon the Breach of those Conditionâ— But this is not the Case now in hand since we are now discoursing of absolute Monarchies or Common-Wealths who being invested with the Supream Power by the Consent of the People as you suppose And therefore may have by their Consents whether forced or Voluntary it matters not according to your own Principles a Supream Vnaccountable Power over them And in the first place I can shew you how a Man may make over all the Power he hath in his own Person irrevocably to another As when a Man sells or grants himself for a Slave to another by his own Consent who when he hath once put himself into this Condition his Master hath an absolute Property in his Person and an indefesible Right for ever to his Service So that notwithstanding all the Cruel Harsh and unreasonable Usage he may meet with from his Master he can never regain his Freedom without the Consent of his Lord. And this I take to be an uncontested Truth agreed on by the Law of Nations and established by the Law of God Thus St. Peter chargeth those who are in this State of Servitude To be subject to their Masters with all Fear not only to the Good and Gentle but also to the Froward So likewise St. Paul in both his Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians Commands Servants to be obedient to them that are their Masters according to the Flesh c. And that this particularly respects Slaves appears by the 8. verse of the 6. Chapter of the former of these Epistles So that if a Man may thus make himself a Slave or perpetual Servant to another by his own consent I cannot see any Reason why a whole Nation may not do the same and deliver themselves up to one Man or more to be Governed and treated both for their Lives Liberties and Fortunes at his or their Discretion So that tho' he may perhaps abuse this Power to the severest Tyranny or Oppression Yet have they no Right to shake off this Yoak or to resist him since their Lives and Fortunes are wholly at his disposal by their own Act and Consent And that whole Nations may justly surrender themselves for Slaves or absolute Subjects I can give you two Examples approved of by God in the Scriptures The first is that of the Egyptians who when they had sold all their Goods and Lands to Pharaoh for Bread to keep themselves alive in the seven years of Famine we read of in Genesis You 'll find they were afterwards such absolute Servants or Slaves to Pharaoh That as for the People he removed them to Cities from one end of the Borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof only the Land of the Priests bought he not c. The other is that of the Gibeonites of whom we read that they accepted of their Lives from Ioshua and the Elders of Israel Tho' on the Condition of the greatest slavery rather than they would venture to be destroyed So that if absolute Monarchy were not Lawful but contrary to God's Will and Institution most of the greatest Kingdoms in the World would be governed contrary to the Laws of God and Nature and the Subjects of all the Kingdoms from France to China not reckoning those of Africa might immediately if they were able rebel against their Monarchs and set up what sort of Government they thought fit Since none of the Subjects in those Kingdoms hold their Lives Liberties or Estates by any other Tenure than the Good Will or Pleasure of the Monarch who may take away all or any of them as often as he pleases to do it and that without any right of Resistance in all or any of their Subjects let them use them never so severely F. I cannot deny but what you say is so far true that one Man or many together may grant or sell themselves for Slaves by their own Consent and that the Persons who thus make over themselves have afterwards no Right or Property in any thing more than a bare Subsistence yet that servitude is not by the Law of Nature but only brought in by Custom or the Law of Nations as all Writers agree and is so far lawful because it tends to the Good and Preservation of Mankind that Prisoners taken in War should rather be kept as Slaves than immediately slain or that Men compelled by extream necessity should sell themselves or their Children rather than both should perish and therefore it is no wonder that the Apostles who were not sent to aâ—ter the State of things in the World or to entrench upon any Man 's civil Righâ—s should command Servants or Slaves to be Subject to their Masters tho' unbelievers Yet doth it not therefore follow that when men are forced to give themselves thus up to the Power of another they likewise give him an absolute Right over their Lives so as that their Masters may take them away whenever they please for that was more than they ever had over themselves Nor doth God confer any such Power upon Masters and therefore if the Master hath no such absolute Right or Property in the Persons of his Slaves as he hath in his Sheep or Cattle I see no reason why even Slaves if their Masters go about to take away their Lives for no other Cause but to satisfie their own humour or passion may not if they cannot otherwise escape resist their Masters and save their Lives if they can For all Writers agree that if a Master doth so inhumanely abuse his Slave that he can no longer endure it without danger of his Life he may in that Case Lawfully run away and escape from him and why he may not as well resist him to save his Life when his Master goeth about thus unjustly and without any Cause to take it away I can see no reason to the contrary Since it was only for the saving his Life that such a Man could ever be supposed to yield himself a Slave to another and which Condition being broken on the Masters part the Servant is again in the State of Nature and the relation of Master and Servant so far ceases or is at least suspended during that Violence This being the state of particular Men I cannot think that God hath put whole Nations in a worse Condition nor can I ever imagine that any whole Nation unless urged by some extream necessity would ever give up themselves so absolutely for Slaves as not to have any Right
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 〈◊〉 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 iâ—sisting 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 coâ—â—es 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 lâ—â— you see that even upon your own principles the King has not been dealt 〈◊〉 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 〈…〉 their Captain General and 〈◊〉 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 â—eparation 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 Pâ—â—nces 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 suppoâ—â—â—tioâ—s 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 faâ—â—'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 Sâ—adt-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 〈◊〉 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 â—ear by several angry Memorials which the French King's Eâ—voy 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
have been no more than that of the Husband over his Wife or that of Parents over their Children the former of which would not have been an Absolute Coercive power neither but rather such a power as his understanding then had over the inferiour Faculties of his Soul join'd with a voluntary submission of her will to his the Coercive power of the Husband and his more absolute Rule over her being conferr'd by God on Adam and in him on all his posterity after the Fall for the regulating and restraining the unreasonable desires and passions of the Woman which then began to exert and shew themselves in her and as for paternal Authority that would have been so far from being Coercive that Children having no Inclination to disorder either in their Wills Appetites or Passions there would have been so little need of punishments that they would not have required so much as reproof or correction God having planted the Laws of Nature or Reason in every Mans Breast then free from Rebellions Motions against it so that Children then could have had no more to do than to pay their Parents all that Gratitude Duty and Obedience which was due to them as the subordinate Causes of their Being which could only consist in performing those indifferent things which they then would have had occasion to command them since Mankind being Immortal and the Earth bringing forth of it self all Necessaries for Humane Life there could have been no occasion of attending and relieving their Parents when Sick Old or Decrepit and unable to keep themselves and so likewise upon the same grounds all other Men would have been equal by Nature in respect of any civil difference for when there was no necessity of Mens Service there would have been no distinction between Master and Servant But after the Fall the stare of Mankind was altered and Self-love and the desire of Self-preservation grew so strong and exorbitant above all Natural Equity that the inordinate passions of Men blinding their Reasons they began to think they had a Right not only to the Necessaries of Life but to whatever their unruly Appetites dâ—sired or that they thought they could make themselves Masters of To remedy which Inconveniences I suppose the Fathers and Masters of Families and other Freemen in whom alone then resided that little Government that then was in the World were forced after some time to agree upon one or more Men into whose hands they might resign all their particular powers and to make Laws for the due Governing and Restraining those disorderly Appetites and Passions and also endowing them with a sufficient Authority to put them in Execution But which of the Governments now extant or that have been formerly were Prior in Nature I think cannot well be known whether it was a Monarchy or an Aristocracy consisting of all the Heads or Fathers of Families or Freemen is not material since the SS are silent in it but it being sufficient to suppose that it was at first begun by the perswasion or mediation of some one or more Wise and Vertuous persons and was consented to by thy whole number consisting of many Families who were sensible of those great Inconveniences and Mischiefs they lay under for want of Civil Government But be it which way it will 't is most certain that it was principally intended by God for the God and Preservation of the Governed and not for the Greatness or Advantage of the Person or Parsons appointed tâ— Goverâ— since God designed all Civil Government for the restraining of Mans inordinate Passions and Lusts after the Fall and procuring by sufficient rewards and puniâ—â—ments that Peace and Happiness which could now no longer be obtained by Mens Natural Inclinations to that which was equitable and honest and besides it is absolutely impossible to suppose that any great number of people not pressed by the Invasion of a powerful Enemy from abroad which could not be supposed in this early Age of the World would ever be brought to consent to put themselves under the absolute power of others but for their own greater Good and Preservation or to part with their Natural Liberty without advantaging themselves at all by the Change M. I will not take upon me to assert after what manner Mankind would have been governed in case our First Parents had continued in their Primitive state of Innocency But this much I think I may boldly affirm in opposition to what you have already said that Civil Government after the Fall was not alike in all the Fathers and Masters of Families but that Adam alone was by God endued with it as the great Father and Monarch of Mankind so that not only Civil Power in genere but in specie viz. Monarchical was immediately after the Creation conferred by God upon him And Adam was Monarch of the whole World even before he had any Subjects F. Sir not to interrupt you it seems somewhat hard to conceive how Adam could be a Father before he had Children or a Monarch before he had Subjects M. If you please to consider it you will find no absurdity at all in this Assertion For though I confess there could be no actual Government without Subjects nor Fatherhood without Sons yet by the Right of Nature it was due to Adam to be Governour of the World when as yet he had neither Sons nor Subjects so though not in act yet at least in habit or in Potentia as they say in the Schools Adam was a King and a Father from his Creation and even in the state of Innocency he had been Governour over his Wife and Children for the Integrity or Excellency of the Subjects doth not take away the Order or Eminency of the Governour For Eve was subject to Adam before he sinned and the Angels who are of a most pure Nature and cannot Sin are yet Subjects to God and perform all his Commands Which will serve to conâ—ute what you say in Derogation of Civil Government or Power that it was introduced by Sin or the Fall of Man Government I grant as to co-active Power was not till after Sin because Co-action supposeth some disorder which was not in the state of Innocency but as for directive Government the State of Humane Nature requires it since Civil Society cannot be imagined without a Power of Government For although as long as Men continued in the State of Innocency they might not need the direction of Adam in those things that were necessarily and morally to be done Yet things indifferent that depended meerly on their Free-will might well be directed by Adam's sole Command F. Pray Sir give me leave to settle this Point-between us before you proceed farther and I doubt not when you better consider what I say you will not think we have any just occasion to differ So far then you and I are agreed that even before the Fall Adam was superior over his Wife and Children and that they owed
give why God endowed Adam with it viz. because without such a Power they could not have been enabled to Govern their Children and Families as long as they lived So that Adam's being created by God or called his Son gave him not a joâ— more power over his Children and his Descendents than what as a Master or Head of a Family he would have had by the Law of Nature however and it is all one in this Case whether you suppose Mankind to have been created by God or to have existed from all Eternity provided you hold the being of a God according to the Hypothesis of the more modern Platonists who tho they held the Eternity of the World yet likewise owned all things to be governed by God's Providence And therefore if on this Supposition Mankind could not be well governed nor preserved without inflicting of Capital Punishments for great Crimes and that they are necessary for its peace and preservation it is likewise as necessary that there should be some Judge appointed by God to inflict them which in the State of Nature can be only the Head or Master of a Family as after Civil Government is once instituted it belongs to the Civil Sovereign or Commonwealth And this I hope will serve to answer your Scruple how Adam or any other Master of a separate Family may very well be endued with this great Power of Life and Death by the Law of Nature without supposing any Charter granted him for it by Divine Revelation or else depending upon his Childrens consent for his exercise of it But before I farther consider whether this Power of Adam or of any other Father or Master be perpetual or not and extends any farther than his own Family give me leave to examine Whether or no Children when grown to years of Discretion and even whilst they continue Members of their Father's Family may not in some Cases chop Logick with him as you call it and not only question but judge whether their Commands be reasonable or lawful or not or else Abraham for example mut have sacrificed to Idols because his Father bid him Whereas Josephus tells us He rather chose to quit his Country and his Father's house than to sin against God And therefore I think you cannot deny but if Husbands or Fathers command their Wives or Children to do any thing that is morally unlawful or contrary to the Laws of God or Nature they may lawfully nay are obliged not to obey such unlawful Commands M. I shall so far agree with you That if the thing commanded be apparently contrary to the Laws of God and Nature that they are not obliged to obey their Commands but they must be evidently and apparently so before they thus take upon them to refuse obedience to them otherwise I deny that their Conscience however misguided ought to be any excuse or just ground of their disobedience For if their Conscience be truly grounded upon the Laws of God or Nature that will excuse them but if it be not Conscience without such a Law can never do it And yet this non-performance of the unlawful Commands of the Husband or Father may very well consist without any Anarchy or disorder in the Family since the Wife and Children must always yield him an active-obedience in performing all his Commands or else a passive one in submitting to whatever harsh usage or punishment such a Husband or Father shall please to exercise or inflict upon them for their non performance of them tho never so unlawful But yet certainly in all possible and indifferent things Children are bounâ— yeild not only a passive but an active obedience to their Father's commands For if his Children should have a liberty to judge of his commands whether they are reasonable or not what can ensue but Anarchy and Confusion in all Families F. Well I am glad we are so far agreed that a Wife and Children in the state of Nature have liberty to Judge of their Husband's and Father's Commands whether they are lawful or not and also to disobey them when they are not so And I think I may carry this a little farther and affirm That such Wife and Children ought not to obey the Commands of such a Husband or Father though they are not really contrary to such Divine or Moral Laws but only erroneously supposed so by them and therefore most Casuists agree That even an erroneous Conscience does oblige as long as a man lies under that mistake For St. Paul tells us Whatsoever is not of faith is sin Rom. 14. Nay farther Such an erroneous Conscience may excuse a man before God if his ignorance was not wilful but invincible and not proceeding from his own fault but of this no man can Judge but God alone and the Party whose Conscience it is and therefore such a Husband or Father can have no Right or Authority to compel their Wives and Children to perform such Commands because the Will ought always to follow the Dictates of the Understanding and therefore they should not be forced to do that which they Judge contrary to God's Moral or Divine Law since Conscience may be instructed but can never be forced Neither will your distinction of an Active and Passive Obedience help you in this matter For Active Obedience I understand well enough but as for Passive Obedience I think it is next door to that we call a Bull or Nonsense And to prove this I shall give you this plain instance Suppose you had a Iew to your Servant and should command him to do you some work or other on a Saturday which he judged a Breach of the Fourth Commandment that forbids him to work on the Seventh Day or Sabbath and you being very angry should cudgel him soundly for this refusal whereupon he tells you That you may beat him as long as you please he would not resist but yield a passive Obedience but yet could not perform your Commands I ask you now Whether you would rest satisfied that this Iewish Servant had sufficiently performed what you bad him by submitting to your cudgelling And whether your Dinner or Horse would not be as much undress'd after this sort of passive Obedience as it was before M. Perhaps indeed this Phrase of Passive Obedience may be somewhat improper and may be more properly termed an absolute Subjection or Submission but it is all one what we call it as long as you understand what we mean since such Submission doth sufficiently avoid that Anarchy and confusion which would necessarily follow in case it were lawful for Wives or Children in any case whatsoever to resist their Husbands or Fathers though for the defence of life it self since no Government can be maintained where the Parties governed have a right to resist their Superiors or Governors in any case F. I grant indeed that no Government can be maintained where the Parties governed resist their Superiours or Governors in the due exercise of their
Power but when they exceed those limits they cease to Act as true Superiors or Governors and therefore when instead of Husbands or Fathers they prove Destroyers of their Families I doubt not but they may then be lawfully resisted by them For suppose such a Father of a Family should in a furious or drunken fit go about to kill his Wife or one of his innocent Children can any body think this was Treason against the Monarch of the Family if his Wife or one of his Sons should rescue her self or this innocent Child out of his hands by force if they could not otherwise quiet him M. This supposition of Madness or Drunkenness in Fathers of Families you Gentlemen of Commonwealth Principles make great use of to justify your Doctrin of Resistance and I know no reason why you might not extend it as well to Anger Lust or any other Passion that a man is subject to and have given all the World a power to Judg when a man is Drunk or mad as well as his Wife Children or Servants nor do I know why you so much insist upon it but because the Authors from whence you had it are so in love with Rebellion and Disorder that they seek and catch at every opportunity to recommend it to the World But I believe had you a Wife Child or Servant that should take the liberty of controling you upon this pretence you would be more enraged with the Reason of the Resistance than with the Resistance it self F. I am sorry Sir any thing I have said can so far transport you to passion as to make such unkind Reflections upon your Friends but pray be not so hot is it not possible that a Master or Father in the State of Nature may be mad or drunk M. Yes And is it not possible also that the Wife may be so too Now suppose they should mutually charge each other with madness or drinking too much who shall Judg betwixt them â— What horrible confusion must this introduce into all Societies to give inferiors a power to Judg their Superiors to be mad or drunk and thereupon to resist and oppose them with force But if it doth at any time happen Wives Children and Servants that are dutiful may have ways to appease their Husbands Fathers or Masters when mad or drunk without resisting or Fighting them as by getting out of the way or by submission Prayers and Tears which Nature hath taught them on such occasions to make use of and which is a thousand times a better method than those violent Courses you propose F. All I desire of you in this Conversation is that you would be pleased to believe I do not Argue out of any love to Rebellion or Disorder or that I desire to encourage it in private Families much less to recommend it to the World only what I speak is purely out of a desire of the happiness and preservation of Mankind and I hope I say no more than what all sober men will allow may be every day practised in private Families and therefore since you will needs have it I do extend this Power of Resistance not only to Madness or Drunkenness alone but even to Anger Lust or any other Exorbitant Passion a man can be subject to and I do likewise give all the World a power to Judg when such a man is mad or furiously passionate as well as his Wife Servants or Children if in those drunken or mad fits he goeth about to kill them or any else For I think in that case you will not deny but any honest Neighbour may step in and bind him or hold his hands and so may likewise the Wife or Children themselves As suppose this Father or Husband should be so far Transported with passion or lust as to go about to kill his Wife or ravish his Daughter I hope you will not deny but they may lawfully resist him if they can neither run away nor yet pacify him by submission prayers or tears which I grant are much better methods if they may prevail But what if they can neither get away nor yet any of those gentle means you propose can work any good upon him what shall they do then Can any one believe that God hath appointed an innocent Wife or Children to be made a Sacrifice to the madness drunkenness passion or lust of such a Father or Husband And as for the Case you put Where the Husband or Wife should charge each other with madness or drinking too much who should judg between them it is a meer Cavil for as long as they only fall out and only brangle it is no matter whether there be any Judg or not But if it proceeds to blows and they are like to mischif or kill each other no doubt but the Children or Neighbours may come in and part them and may either hold or shut up one or both of them till they are sober M. Pray Sir let us leave this touchy Discourse concerning Self-defence till anon when we shall have occasion to fall more naturally upon it Suppose then I should at present grant you That a Wise or Children may in case of such Extremities as may happen to them by the madness or Drunkenness of the Husband or Father restrain or resist his violence in case no other means can prevail what is this to disobeying his Commands or resisting him when he is sober Which certainly they have no right to do But to come as near you as possible I can and to let you see I am not a man of a domineering temper and who approves of unnecessary Severities or unnatural Rigours either in Masters of Families Husbands or Fathers I grant that no Father or Master of a Family has any right to punish or put to death the meanest of his Slaves much less his Children without a sufficient cause or that he may sell his Children or otherwise Tyrannize over them by cruel usage or too severe punishments since they are not only part of his own Substance and to whom by the order of the Creation he gave a being but was also as you well observe ordained by God for their happiness and preservation as they were also as well as his Wife for his constant help comfort and subsistence and therefore they were as much or more made for him as he for them as it is plain concerning the Wife from the Text in Genesis when God said It is not good that the man should be alone I will make him a help meet for him Gen. 2.17 viz. the Woman and therefore as her subjection to her Husband is perpetual as long as she lives so likewise is that of the Children in whom he acquireth a Property by their Education for so many years which I look upon as a greater obligation than their Generation and over both whom he must in the State of Nature have an absolute power of life and death which though I grant he may
their condition in respect of a Stranger and not so to their Father I can see no Reason since their Father would have been at as much trouble and charge for their Education as the Stranger F. I so far go along with you that in case of such necessity as you mention a Father may sell or assign the present interest in his Child to a Stranger yet I cannot see any Reason that this Sale or Assignment should confer so absolute a Property in the Person of this Child as that therefore he should be a Slave to this Master or Fosterer as long as he lived since admitting that the Father or other person who takes upon him that Care may perhaps justly claim a Right in the Service or Labour of the Child to satisfy them for their trouble and charge in bringing him up yet it doth not therefore follow that this Service is due as long as the Child lives but rather until such time as they can make their Labour satisfy them for their Charge and Trouble in keeping him which may very well be by that time the Child attains to Twenty five years of Age at farthest and there are those that have offered to breed up and maintain all the Foundlings and Bastard Children in England if they may be bound to serve them until about that Age so that I see no reason why a few years of Education should give any Man a right over another's person as long as he lived But if you urge that the Child owed his Life to his Father or Fosterer since without his assistance he must have perished and therefore the Service of the Child 's whole Life is but little enough to recompence it To this I Answer That the Parents are under an absolute Obligation by the Laws of God and Nature to breed up their Child and they sin if they do not perform it as they ought the end of a Father being chiefly for the Breeding up and preservation of the Child and therefore there is no Reason he should acquire such a property in him merely because he did his Duty And the Duty of a Father being to better the condition of his Son and not to make it worse I doubt whether an absolute and perpetual Servitude or Death it self were the better bargain and if this Right will not hold for the Father himself much less will it be for a Fosterer since he is likewise obliged by the Laws of Nature and common Humanity as well as by his Contract with the Father to breed up this Child so assigned him and not to let him perish if he be able to breed him up Nor ought this Father's or Fosterer's temporal advantage which he may make of this Child to be the principal end of his undertaking but the doing good to mankind and the advantage he may reap thereby is to be considered only as an encouragement and not as the only motive to this Duty since he is Obliged to do the same thing tho he were sure the Child would either dye or be taken away from him before he could be with him half long enough to satisfy him for his Charge Neither doth this reason hold true even according to the Scripture Rules of gratitude That a Man hath a right to exact of one to whom he hath done a Courtesy or bestowed a Benefit a return as great as the benefit bestowed since this were not Beneficence but meer Bartering or Exchange and a Man who had his Life saved by another's assistance suppose by pulling him out of the Water must be obliged by this Principle to submit his Life to his disposal ever after And therefore I desire you would give me some better Reasons why such a Son ought to be so absolutely subject to his Father's Power as that it is not lawful for him upon any account whatsoever to free himself from it let his Father use him never so cruelly or severely M. Well Sir since you desire it I will give you the best Reasons I have why God cannot permit so unreasonable a Liberty as this would give to all Children in case they should make use of it whenever they thought fit and therefore God hath ordained it thus to take away all those pretences of undutifulness and disobedience which Children might make should they be permitted to be their own Judges when they might quit their Father's Family without his leave which pretence of cruel usage they would be sure to make use of thereby to leave their Parents upon every slight occasion saying That their Fathers were so cruel and severe that there was no living with them any longer when indeed it was not so but on the contrary no just cause of complaint against them more than bare correcting them for their Faults and so the Father be Berest of any nay all his Children who should be helpful and serviceable to him in his old Age which would breed great confusion and inconveniences in Families especially in the State of Nature as in the Case you have put concerning Adam's Sons they being the only Servants he could have to make use of on all occasions F. I desire you in the first place to take notice That I put this Case concerning Adam by way of supposition only not but that I have a better opinion of our first Parent notwithstanding his Fall than to believe him so ill-nattur'd or that he was ever so cruel as to use his Children thus hardly But in this depraved state of Nature such unnatural Rigours and Cruelties in Fathers as well as Disobedience in Children is but too frequent which no man needs to doubt of that will but consult the Custom of divers Nations in Africa and other Countries at this day where they sell their Sons for Slaves and exercise this Fatherly Power with the greatest Tyranny and Rigor using them as Slaves or felling them to others for such things as they want And if you think it against the Law of Nature for such Children when they see themselves ready to be sold to work in the Mines in Peru or Sugar-works at Barbadoes to run away into another Countrâ—y to avoid such a Condition which is as bad or worse than death you may enjoy your own opinion but I am sure you 'l have but fâ—w Proselites but such as are of the like Arbitrary Principles and as for your Pretence that if Children should be allowed to judge when their Fathers treated them too severely or like Slaves they would all run away that is but a Subterfuge For first it is a needless Caution Children being when young not apt to leave their Parents who have bred them up â—pon whom they depend for their subsistence and to whom if they are treated like Children they seldom faâ—l to bear a natural Duty and Affection and if well used they will when of years of discretion be likewise willing to stay with them and look after them when Sick or Old not only for Duty but
the Apostle to Sons but to Servants or Slaves whose lives and all that they had were at their Masters absolue disposal being those whom the Apostle Paul calls Servants under the yoke and unless you will make a Slave and a Son to be all one which you have already denyed this precept doth not at all concern them And as for Example of Isaac that will make as little for your advantage for first as to Abraham he could not but know that to kill his Son without any just cause was as much murder in him as in any other Man Now what could be a juster or a higher cause than Gods particular Command So that as this act of Abraham is not to be taken as an Example by other Fathers so neither doth the Example of Isaac oblige other Sons to the like Submission therefore it is most reasonable to suppose that Isaac being then as Chronologers make him to be about nineteen or twenty years of age and of years of discretion to ask where was the Lamb for the Burnt-offering was also instructed by his Father before he came to be offered of the reason of his dealing thus with him and then the Submission was not payed to his Fathers but to Gods will from whom he miraculously received his being But if any Man doubt wheter resistance in such a Case were Lawful I leave it to his own conscience to consider whether if his Father had him alone in a place where he could neither run away nor yet call for help he would suffer his Father to cut his Troat without any resistance only because he pretended Divine Revelation for it Not but that I so far agree with you likewise as to limit such a resistance only to the holding his Fathers Hands or warding off his blows but not to the taking away his life but of the two rather to lose his own than to kill him for the reasons you have given and which I will not deny but yet if the Father be mad I much doubt whether the Son is boâ—nd to let him kill him rather than take away his life since such a Father's life is no way useful to the good of the Family So that thô I should grant that Paternal Power is from God and consequently irresissible yet doth it not follow that all the unjust force or violence which a Father as a Man may use against his Sons life or fortune is such part of a Paternal Power as God hath commanded us not to resist since your self must grant that he doth not thus act in going about to kill his Son as a father but a violent and wicked Man So that where the father hath no Right to take away his Sons life I think in all such Cases the Right of the Son to resist him doth take place And if a Man may resist or bind his Father when he is Mad or Drunk and in such fits goeth about to kill him I can see nothing to the contrary why he may not do the same thing when his Father is transported by a sudden rage or unreasonable malice since both of them do take away the use of natural Reason as much the one as the other according to that saying of the Poet Ira furor brevis est Anger is but a short madness Fury and Malice being alike fatal and destructive to the Sons life and safety with Drunkenness and Madness nor doth such a Son resist his Paternal Power but only his Brutish force and violence So that if Sons when grown to years of discretion have not a right to defend their lives in the State of Nature against all Persons whatsoever who go about to take it away without any just Cause every Son ought to suffer his Father to kill him when ever being transported by madness drunkenness or sudden passion he hath will so to do which how it can consist with that great Law of Nature of propagating and preserving the species of Mankind if a Father should have any unreasonable unlimitted Power I 'll leave it to your self or any other reasonable Man to consider nor doth it follow that because a Son can in no wise be Superiour to his Father he ought not therefore to resist him since thô I grant punishment is a Right of Superiours over their Inferiours yet so is not resistance since every one knows that resistance is exercised between equals as I have already proved Sons are to their Fathers in all the Rights of life and self-preservation and conseqently to judge when their Lives and Estates are unjustly invaded M. I must confess I am in a great doubt which will most conduce to that great Law you mention which I grant to be the Sum of all the Laws of Nature viz. of preserving or prosecuting the common good of Mankind that Fathers should have an absolute irreâ—istible Power over the Lives and Fortunes of their Children let them use it how they will or else that Children should have a Right to resist them in some cases when they go about to take away either of them without any just Cause for thô I own that if the former Principle be true Parents may be sometimes tempted to take away their Childrens Lives or Estates without any just Cause so on the other side if Children shall assume such a Power to themselves of judging when their Fathers do thus go about to invade either their Lives or Estates it will I doubt lay a foundation for horrid confusions and divisions in Families since if Children are under a constant subjection to their Fathers they ought then to be absolutely Subject to them in the State of Nature and therefore ought not to be resisted For if all Fathers and Masters of Families are trusted by God with an absolute Power of Life and Death over the Wife Children and Servants of the Family as your self cannot deny then no resistance of this absolute Power can subsist with the peace and tranquility of that Family without the diminution or total destruction of that absolute Power with which they are intrusted And thô I admit that Parents ought neither to use nor sell their Children for Slaves not to take away either their Lives or Goods without great and sufficient Cause yet of these Causes Fathers in the state of Nature must be the only and uncontrolable Judges since if Children whom I still consider as Subjects thô not as Slaves in the State as long as they continue members of their Fathers Family should once have a Right to resist when they thought their Lives or Estates were unjustly invaded they might also oftentimes through undutifulness or false suggestions pretend or suppose that their Fathers were mad drunk or in a passion and went about to take away their Lives when really they intend no such thing but only to give them due correction Which would give Children an unnatural power of resisting or perhaps of killing their Fathers upon false surmises or flight occasions And as
this would introduce great mischief and confusion in privte Families so would it likewise prove a Foundation of Rebellion against all Civil Powers whatsoever if Subjects who are the same thing in a Kingdom that Children are in a Family in the State of Nature should take upon them to resist their Prince when ever they think he goeth about to invade either their Lives or Fortunes which would likewise serve to justify all the most horrid Rebellions in the World since all Rebels whatsoever may or do pretend that their Lives Liberties and Fortunes are unjustly invaded when indeed they are not and Likewise upon the least hardship or injustice in this kind inflicted upon any private Subject either by the Prince or his Ministers which abuses and violences do often happen even under the Best Governments any such private Person who shall think himself thus injured may upon this principle take up Arms and endeavour to right or defend himself against such violence by which means under pretence of securing a few Men in their Lives or Estates whole Kingdoms if such Persons can find follows enough may be cast into all the mischiefs and confusions of a Civil War till the Prince and Government be quite destroyed F. I must confess the Arguments you now bring are the best you have yet produced since they are drawn from that great and certain Law of procuring the common good and peace of mankind But I hope I shall make it plain to you that no such terrible consequences will follow from the Principles I have already laid down and therefore I must first take notice that you have in your answer confounded two Powers together which ought to be distingishued in the State of Nature viz. The Power which Fathers as Masters or Heads of Families may exercise over the Lives of their Children or Servants whilst they remain Members of their Family and that reverence and duty which Children must always owe their Fathers as long as they live even after they become Fathers or Masters of Families of their own In the first State I have already allowed that such Fathers as Masters of Families may Lawfully exercise a far greater Power over their Children whilst they are members of their Family than they can when they are seperated from it yet is not this Power in all Cases absolute or irresistible as I have already proved and therefore I do in the first place restrain this Right of self-defence only to such Cases where a Father would take away a Sons life in a fit of drunkenness madness or sudden passion without any crime committed or just cause given which I also limit to a bare self defence without injuring or taking away the life of the Father if it can possibly be avoided and in this Case if the Son who is like to suffer this violence may not judge when his life is really in danger to be destroyed because he may pretend so when really it is not This is no just reason to overthrow so great a Right as self Preservation since if this were a sufficient objection it would have the same force against all self defence whatsoever For it doth often happen that wicked and unreasonable Men will pretend that they were forced to take away the lives of others only to preserve their own when indeed it was altogether false and needless and they only killed them to satisfy their own malice or passion And therefore as there is no reason that the abuse of this natural Right should be used as an Argument against the use of all self-defence by any Man whatsoever So likewise neither ought the like abuse hereof by some wicked Children to be brought as an Argument against its being made use of at all by others who are never so unjustly assaulted and in danger of their Lives from their Fathers violence If the first principle be true on which this is founded that a Son may excercise this Right of self-defence in such Cases without any intrenchment upon his Fathers Paternal Authority or that Filial duty and respect which he must always owe him when ever he returns to himself and will behave himself towards him as becomes a Father and not like an Enemy or Cut-throat And as for the quarrels and confusions which you alledge may happen in Families between Fathers and Children in case such a liberty should be allowed those inconveniencies will prove very inconsiderable if you please to take Notice That first I do not allow this Right of resistance to be exercised by any Children before they attain to years of discretion Secondly that after they have attained to these years no resistance ought to be made against a Father whilst they remain part of their Fathers Family but only in defence of their own their Mothers Wives and Childrens Lives since I grant that a Son as long as he continues a member of his Fathers Family ought to bestow all his own labour for his Fathers profit and cannot acquire any property either in Lands or Goods without his Fathers consent And since you conceive this Right of self-defence if allowed to Children would be the cause of so great mischiefs in Families if Children should have no Right to judge when their Fathers abused their power over them let us a little consider on which side this abuse is most likely to happen for if you please but to look into the World and survey the Nature of Fathers and Children and set the faults of the one against the other you will find that as I confess it is the Nature of many Children to contradict and disobey their Fathers Commands and that most young people hate restraint and love too much liberty and may oftentimes think their Fathers too harsh or severe to them when really they are not yet doth such false surmises and disobedient actions seldom end either in absolute resistance or taking away their Fathers lives by force or if they do so it is really done for their own defence or whilst they are assaulted by them in their own Lives or those of their Children but is commonly acted privately to satisfie their own revenge or malice which I hold to be utterly unlawful so likewise let us consider on the other side those temptations that Fathers lye under of injuring their Children or taking away their Lives or uâ—ing them like Slaves without any just Cause you 'll find that they by reason of their age natural temper or infirmities may be easily transported to that degree of passion that not considering the follies of Youth they may oftentimes in their passion either beat them so cruelly as utterly to disable or maime them or else take away their Lives for little or no Cause And besides Fathers being often covetous and ill-natured which are the vices of old age may where there is no power over them to restrain them from it either keep them as Slaves themselves or else sell them to others for that purpose as I
have already given you an example of the Negroes in Africa and which of these two inconveniencies are most likely to happen between Children and Parents in the State of Nature I should leave is to any indifferent Man to judge between us And therefore I think it more conduces to the good and peace of Families and consequently the happiness and preservation of Mankind which are the end of all Laws that Children should be allowed these Rights I have alâ—erdy laid down of asserting this Natural Liberty from Slavery and defending their Lives and those of their Wives and Children from the unjust violence of their Fathers than that they should be left wholly at disposal to be maimed killed or ruined when over this coveteousness passion or malice may prompt them to it Sence if all Fathers were satisfied that their Children have a Right thus to defend themselves in these Cases against their unjust violence it would be a means to make them act more catiously and to behave themselves with greater tenderness and moderation towards them So than to conclude I utterly deny that these Principles I have here laid down do at all rend to countenance Rebellion or raising disturbances in Civil Governments since I cannot allow you have proved Parents to be Princes or Monarchs in the State of Nature or that Families and Kingdoms or Commonwealths are all one Or if I should grant them to be so yet would it not therefore follow that every private Subject in a Civil State hath the same Right to defend his life or that of his Wife and Children against the violence or injustice of the Supream Powers as a Son may have in the State of Nature to defend his life c. against his Fathers rage or violence since I grant no particular Subject can contradict or resist the Supream Power of the Lawfull Magistrate however unjustly exercised by force without disturbing or at least endangering the quiet and happiness of the whole Community and perhaps the dissolution of the Government it self which is against the duty not only of a good Subject but also of an honest Moral Man who will not disturb the publick tranquility for his own private security or revenge But in private Families the Case is otherwise and Children may resist their Father in the Cases already put without introducing either Anarchy or Civil War in the Family since it can scarce be presumed that either their Mother Brothers or Sisters will take part with a Son or Brother against their Husband and Father unless it ware that they might thereby hinder him from committing murder by defending their Son or Brothers life when thus violently and without cause assaulted and if it should sometimes happen otherwise yet this would be a much less mischief then that out of this fear the Lives and Liberties of an innocent Wife and Children should suffer without cause by his drunkenness or passion But as for the resistance which Sons may make in the State of Nature and when separated from their Fathers Families it is of a much larger extent since they may then not only defend their own Lives but also those of their Wives and Children with their Estates against their Fathers unjust violence Thò I do here likewise restrain this self-defence only to cases of actual invasion or asault of such Fathers upon the Lives and Estates of his Children in which cases I also absolutely condemn all actions and proceedings done by way of prevention before such violence or assault is actually begun to be made upon them much less do I allow of any revenge or return of evil for evil by such Children when the danger is over since however such revenge may be Lawful between Persons in the State of Nature no ways related or oblieged to each other yet do I by no means allow the same Priviledge to Children against their Parents since I look upon the obligation they have to them to be of so high a Nature that it can never totally be cancelled thô in those cases of self-preservation and defence they may be suspended for a time As if I owed my life and all that I have to some great Person who hath either saved the one or bestowed the other upon me thô I should be very undutiful and ungratful too if upon his becoming my Enemy thô without any just cause I should go about to return his injuries in the same kind yet were I not therefore obliged to give up that Life and Estate he had before bestowed upon me when ever he thought fit without any just occasion to take them away and I am confident that Resistance in these cases and with these restrictions doth neither derogate from that Gratitude and Piety which Children always ought to pay their Fathers nor yet can tend to encourage either Anarchy or Rebellion since such Sons when once married and are become Masters or Heads of Families themselves they then cease to be under their Fathers Subjection as they were before tho I confess they are always to honour and reverence him according to Gods Command in all cases when they will deal with them as Fathers and not as Enemies M. I shall no longer dispute this Right of Resistance in Children in the Cases you have put since I see it is to little purpose to argue longer with you about it but this much I think is still true that all Supream Powers whatever cannot without Rebellion and absolute dissolution of the Government be risisted by the Subject so that if the Government of Fathers or Heads of Families be Supream as you seem to grant that cannot be resisted neither without bringing all things therein to Anarchy and confusion F. Pray give me leave Sir to interrupt you a little I desire you to remember that I do not allow the Power of Fathers or Masters of Families to be any more then Oeconomical and not Civil Power and I have already shewed you how Resistance of such a Power when violently and unjustly exercised may be resisted without any Anarchy or confusion in the Family but as for Resistance of Civil Powers in some Cases it is not the Subject of this discourse and therefore I desire you would now mind the Subject in Hand and not pass off to any other till we have dispatcht this so that I would rather if you have any fresh objections to make that you would now do it because it groweth late M. I must confess ingeniously your Arguments have much sâ—aggered me since I see great inconveniencies may happen on either side for if the Father or Master may be the sole Judg when and how he may exercise this absolute Power I grant all those mischiefs may sometimes fall out which you have here set forth so on the other side if the Children may be Judges in their own case those evils may often happen which I have already alledged And therefore pray pardon me if I am not too hasty in altering my opinion in
this point without better consideration but methinks you have not yet fully answered one of my main Arguments to prove the Power of Life and Death to proceed from God alone and therefore must have been conferred as first on Adam since no Man hath a Power over his own life as I said before and therefore cannot have it over that of others F. I thought I had already as good as answered this doughty objection when I had yielded to you that neither private Men nor Masters of Families have any Right to defend their own lives much less to take away those of others but as it is granted them by God in the Law of Nature in order to the procuring the great end of it viz. the happiness and propagation of Mankind which I own could not in this lapsed and depraved State of Nature we now are in long subsist without such a Power Yet I think I have already sufficiently proved that we have no need to recur to I know not what divine Charter granted by God to Adam or Noah and from them derived to all Civil Magistrates that ever have been or shall be in the World the consequence of which would be that no Sentence of Death could be justly given against any Man but in such Kingdoms or Common-wealths who own this Authority as conferred on them by God in Adam or Noah from which they must deride their Title to it Now I desire you would shew me how many Kingdoms or Common-wealths there are in the World who ever heard of much less owned this Divine Charter this fine notion yea scarce reaching farther than some few Divines and high Royalists of our own Island But be it as it will the Antecedent or first Proposition is not true that no Man in any case whatsoever hath power over his own life and therefore neither is your consequence for I suppose that for the same End for which the Civil Powers may take away another Man's life viz. in order to the greater good of Mankind of which my Religion or Countrey is a part I am likewise Master of my own and may lay it down or expose it when I think it can conduce to a greater good than my single life can amount to And therefore the Example of Codrus the Athenian King is highly celebrated by all ancient Authors and is not condemned by any Christian Writer that I know of for Exposing himself to certain death to gain his Citizens the Victory the loss of which would have been the ruin of the State And in the first Book of Maccabees Chap. 6.43 which thâ— it be not Canonical Scripture yet is allowed to be Read in our Churches as containing Examples of good manners you may Read that Eleazar the younger Brother of Iudas Maccabeus is there highly commended for his valour in killing the Elephant on which the supposed King Antiochus was mounted that he might thereby destroy him likewise tho he might be assured of his own death by the Elephants falling upon him And the zeal for the Christian Religion amongst the Primitive Christians was so great that we may read in Tertullian and divers Ecclesiastical Historians of whole Troops of Martyrs who tho unaccused yet offered up their lives at the Heathen Tribunals to a voluntary Martyrdom and farther Eusebius himself doth not condemn but rather commends some Primitive Christians that being like to be taken by their Heathen Persecutors cast themselves down head long from the top of their Houses esteeming as he their tells us a certain Death as an advantage because they thereby avoided the cruelty and malice of their Persecutors I could likewise give you if it were not two tedious several other Examples of Ancient Martyrs who have given up themselves to certain Death to save the Lives of some of their friends or else of Christian Bishops whom they lookt upon as more useful to the Church than themselves and which St. Paul himself does likewise suppose to be Lawful when he tells the Romans That the scarcely for a Righteous Man would one dye yet per adventure for a good Man somâ— would even dare to dye that is a Man highly beneficial to others And the same Apostle in the last Chapter of this Epistle returns thanks to Priscilla and Aquila not only on his own behalf but also for all the Churches of the Gentiles because they had for his Life laid down their own Necks that is hazarded their lives to save his and where ever they might have thus exposed them surely they might have lost them too And therefore I think I may with reason affirm that in most Cases where a Prince or Commonwealth may command a Man to expose his Life to certain destruction for the publick good of his Religion or Countrey he hath power likewise to do it of his own accord without any such command the Obligation proceeding not only from the orders of his Superiour but from that zeal and affection which by the Laws of God and Nature he ought to have for his Religion and Country even beyond the preservation of his own Life M. Well I confess that this that you have now said carries some colour of reason with it and is more than I had considered before But pray resolve me one difficulty more which still lies upon my mind By what Authority less than a Divine Commission from God himself revealed in Scripture do Supream Powers take upon them to make Lawâ— And that under no less penalty than Death it self against such offences as by the Laws of Nature do no ways deserve Death such as Theft Counterfiting the publick Coyn with divers other offences needless here to be reckoned up And if a Father as you will not allow him hath no Right over the Lives or Persons of his Wife and Children I cannot see how a Master of a separate Family can have any such Power more than his Wife or any other of the Family and the Scripture seems to countenance this Power of punishing for Murder to be in any that will take it upon them and therefore you see Cain said whoever meets me will slay me And God tells Noah whoever sheddeth Mans Blood by Man shall his Blood be shed without restraining it to any Man particularly who is to do it F. This Objection is easily answered if you please to consider what you your self did a good whâ—â—â— since urge to me that God endowed Adam with so much Authority as should enable him to govern his own Family and Children as long as he lived which I readily granted you and I only differed in the manner of its derivation you affirming it to proceed from a Divine Charter or Grant by Revelation conferred upon him by God and I maintaining that both he and every other Master of a separate Family derive it only from Gods Natural and not Revealed Law which if it be well proved such Masters of Families as also all Civil Powers whom I suppose to be endued
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 â—alique 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 Bâ—uâ—â— 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
or not M. I thank you for the pains you have taken to inform my understanding in this matter And therefore since 't is now very late I desire we may Adjourn our conversation to another time And then I desire that you would prepare your self to discourse with me of the second important Question we agreed on viz. the irresistibility if all Supreme Powers by their Subjects not only because Resistance in any case whatsoever 〈◊〉 inconsistent with Supreme Power and destructive to the Peace of Civil Society but chiefly as they derive their Authority immediately from God and are only to render an Account to him of their Actions F. I will not deny but what you have said is true in some sense That all Soveraign Power is derived from God and is also as such irresistible by Subjects But to affirm generally and absolutely as most of your Opinion do that all Commands and Acts of Men endâ—â—d with this Supreme Authority whether good or bad lawful or unlawful are part of that Authority derived from God and therefore irresistible in any casâ— or upon any necessity whatsoever is so dangerous a Proposition that I know none that hath contributed more to the encouragement of the Râ—ng and the Popish Faction we favoured to make all those Breaches upon our Laws Religion and Liberties which we have suffered since the beginning of his Reign M. I am so well pleased with the Freeness and Ingenuity of your Conversation that I desire nothing more than to discuss this important Question with you at our next meeting But I beg your pardon if being taken up by Come Business to morrow I adjourn our next meeting to the Day after when if you please to come at the same hour at you did to night you shall here find me ready to wait on you In the mean time I must bid you good night F. Your Servant Sir I wish you heartily good night I will not fail to meet you at the time appointed FINIS Bibliotheca Politica Or a DISCOURSE By way of DIALOGUE WHETHER Resistances of the SVPREAM POWER by a whole Nation Or People in cases of the last Extremity can be Justified by the Law of Nature or Rules of the Gospel Collected out of the most Approved Authors both Antient and Modern Dialogue the Third LONDON Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane near the Oxford-Arms where also may be had the First and Second Dialogues 1692. The Subject of the Third Dialogue AUthors whose Words or Sense are made use of in this Discourse and how denoted in the Margin 1. Dr. Hicks's Iovian or Answer to Iulian H. I. 2. Mr. Bohuns defence of Sr. R. Filmer B. D. F. 3. Two Treatises of Government T. T. G. 4. A Pamphlet Entituled Vindiciae Iuris Regii V. I. R. 5. Dr. Sherlocks Case of Resistance S. C. R. 6. Plato Redivivus P.R. 7. Mr. L'Estrange's Observator L. O. Advertisement to the READER THE Author in relation to this as well as the subsequent Dialogue desires you to be so Candid as to believe that tho' under the Name of Free-man he hath argued against an Opinion now or lately much in vogue viz. That an absolute Irresistibility is an insepable Prerogative of all Soveraign Powers as well Monarchies as Common-Wealths Yet no man more abhors all unnecessary Resistance or Rebellion against Supream Civil Magistrates and is more for an Absolute Submission by all particular Persons whether Private or Publick in case of the highest Injuries and Oppressions done to themselves alone and where the Common Good of the Community is not immediately concerned than himself And this he owns to be their duty not only out of a generous regard to the Peace Tranquillity of the Common-Wealth whereof they are Members which ought not to be disturbed to revenge or redress a few Private Injuries but also from the express Command of Gods Will Reveal'd in the Holy SS expresly forbidding not only all Revenge but self-defence too whilst the Supream Powers act legally tho' perhaps contrary to the Strict Rules of Justice and Equity in such Particular cases Yet for all this the Author must still declare he doubts whether those Precepts do extend to all Resistance whatever viz of any whole Nation or great Body of Men whose Preservation or Freedom from an intolerable slavery and Oppression may render it necessary for the good of the Common Wealth and is no other way to be procured but by a Vigorous Resistance or else joyning with some powerful Neighbour Prince or State who shall interpose for their deliverance So that if such a Resistance be ever Lawful it can be upon no less momentous anâ— account than that of a General Invasion either of the Lives Liberties Religion or Properties of a whole or major part of a Nation as they are established by the Law of Nature or the Fundamental Constitutions and municpial Laws of those particular Kingdoms and Common-Wealths where such an Insupportable Tyranny and Oppressions are then exercised And if this be not Lawful in such extraordinary cases it would seem as if God had preferred the unjust Power or Force and the outward Grandeur of the Governours before the good and Happiness of the Governed which is contrary to the main ends of all Civil Government viz. the common good Happiness of Mankind even as those who are most against all Resistance whatever must allow But whether such Resistance be not in these Cases a Lawful nay only means for the safeguard and deliverance of such assaulted or Oppressed Nations the Author leaves it to the Iudgment of the Impartial Reader to determine upon the perusal of this and the subsequent Discourse since all that could be urged on both sides in this important Question could not be comprised within the limits of one Eveninâ—â— conversation which the Author had prescribed to himself yet will he not be much concerned on which side you give your sentence Since however Criminal some Men have endeavoured to render the Doctrine of Resistance even in the cases proposed yet the Author must believe till he is better convinced to the contrary that the Question being only Moral or Political and not about any point of Faith or Law may be safely maintained by either party without any guilt either of Heresie or Treason The Author farther desires you to take notice that tho' he hath in both these subsequent Dialogues made one of his Disputants to make use not only of the Arguments but the very expressions of two Learned and Reverend Divines in some late Treatises on this Subject yet that he hath not acted thus out of any design of Writing against them or those Opinions there laid down as they are theirs since it is well known the same Arguments and Texts of Scripture have been made use of by other Writers on this Subject long before But as it must be confessed that none have managed this controversie with better Reason and greater Eloquence so he hopes that neither
his Mercenary forces 30 or 40000 of them it were better all these should perish than that the Nation should be involved in Civil War and the Prince's Person and Government destroyed by Resistance And therefore in all Governments whatsoever whether Monarchies or Common-Wealths there must be an absolute Trust placed by the People in one or more persons which Trust they can neither recall when they will nor yet resist upon the Non-performance of it And therefore it is a mistake when you affirm with those Authors you have quoted that a King or other Supream Powers can ever lose their Right by going about to destroy the People much less when they only think their Liberties in danger and I have several reasons to give you for my Assertion As first from the Common Notion of a Trust For what is more generally understood by trusting another than that we lodge our concerns with him and put them out of our disposal When I trust a Man with my life or Fortune all men agree that I put it in his Power to deprive me of both For to deliver any Property to another with a Power of Revocation is to trust him as we say no farther than we can see him He that can recover a Sum of money he hath deposited when he pleases to speak Properly hath it still in his Custody and trusts his Friend no more than he doth his own Coffers and therefore if we consule our own Thoughts we shall find that a Trust Naturally Implies an Entire Reliance upon the Conduct and Integrity of another which makes us resign up our Liberty or Estate to his Management imagining them Safer in his hands than in our own In short a Trust where there is no Third person to Judge of the performance as in these Pacts between Subjects and Soveraign there is not I say such a trust includes a Translation of Right and in respect of the irrevocableness of it is in the Nature of a Gift So that there seems only to be this difference between them that a Gift ought to respect the Benefit of the Receiver whereas a Trust is generally made for the advantage of him who Conveyed it And in every Civil Society or Government under Heaven that doth not depend upon another there must be an absolute and uncoâ—troulable Power fixed somewhere which may irresistibly dispose of the Eâ—ves Estates and Persons of the Subjects within that Civil Society or Government For if every Man be left at Liberty to dispose of his own Estate and person as he pleases himself then can he promise himself no Protection but what his own natural force will afford him and that will certainly be over powered at one time or other by others Without this Trust there can be no Justice administred within the Civil Society For if every particular man may be Judge in his own Case the Right will certainly be asserted on both sides tho' it really can be but in one No Malefactor will ever condemn himself nor Submit to Justice if he can and may resist and if a War happen every man will be for saving his own Goods from the expence as his own person from the Danger of it and the Consequence must be that that Civil Society must perish either by internal disorders or internal Force Therefore this Power is and must be in one Person or body of men in every Civil Society and is also indivisible For supposing that it should be divided to the same Civil Society into two or more Parts as between two men and two Senates or Councils without any dependance upon each other or any Third power the Consequence must needs be that they differing and opposing one another and having no Lawful Power fixed in either of them to oblige the other to submit must have recourse to Force and Arms So that this Civil Society can never rest till this Supreme Soveraign Power be reduced again into one And if you suppose this Power of Iudging and Resisting in the People or Multitude the matter is ten times worse that being a blind and heady Monster easily provoked upon flight occasions commonly judging false even in its own Concerns and as implâ—cable in its Rage as unâ—atiable in its Revenge To conclude whether this Supream Power be in a Single person or in a few or in all where ever it is lodged none must oppose none must resist it nor can any Man assure himself of more Justice or better usage from a Senate or a Multitude than from a Prince or Single Person So that this inconvenience of being liable to have our Lives sometimes taken away our persons injured and our Estates opprest by the Evil management of our Governours is one of those humane miseries that by the Corruption of Men's nature from the Fall took possession of the World and can never be purged out of it till the Final Conflagration And therefore the Advice of Cerialis in Tacitus is always to be remembred that Tyrants and evil Princes are to be born with as Immoderate Rains and unkind Seasons and amends may be made by a better Successor Since Resistance will not Cure but only enflame the Distemper F. You have made a long Speech wherein I see you have heared together all that Wit or Interest can produce on the behalf of Tyranny tho' I must confess I did not expect to find you of any Man so Zealous an Advocate for it But I forgive it as long as I really believe that only a mistaken Conscience and not any Private Interest prompts you to it But that I may take your Speech to pieces in order to answer it In the first place as to what you say concerning a Trust I think you are under a very great mistake For no Man either in a Civil State or in that of Nature ever yet so trusted another as that if he abused his Trust he had not reserved to himself a Right of Appeal Under all Civil Governments this is Notorious since it is one of the main Businesses of Supream Courts of Justice upon Complaints or Appeals of Breaches of Trust to call the Trustees to an Account and force them to make Restitution for the wrongs they have done And whereas you say that in the State of Nature where there is no third person to judge of the Performance such a Trust includes a Translation of a Right as in these Pacts between Subjects and Soveraigns This is likewise a mistake tho' it be true that in that State if I trust a Man with my Life and Fortune I put it in his Power to deprive me of both and that this Trust naturally implies a Reliance upon the Conduct and Integrity of another which makes me resign my Liberty or Estate to his Management Yet doth it not therefore follow but that upon the abuse of this Trust I may have a Remedy against him who thus breaks this Trust I have so reposed in him And when there is no
third Person to Iudge between me and my Trustee I my self am the Sole Iudge of the Wrong he doth me and may not only turn him out of his Trust if I find he abuses it but may also force him to make me Satisfaction for the Wrong he hath done So that if in the State of Nature I trust a Man with a Bag of Silver to keep for me If he either Imbezels or runs away with it I may certainly force him to make me Restitution or else enter into a State of War with him till he do And where there is no Common Power over us to whom we can Appeal this Difference can no way be Decided but by the Sword And therefore no Trust as in those mutual Pacts between Subjects and Soveraigns can be Irrevocable or include a perfect Translation of a Right and no Trust can ever be supposed to be given but with this tacit Condition that the Trustee doth not abuse it And you your self have made a sufficient Difference between a Trust and an Absolute Gift but granting that a Gift respects the benefit of the Receiver whereas a Trust is for the Advantage of him who convey's it From whence it must necessarily follow that if this Trust be for his Advantage he hath still an Interest in the thing Trusted and consequently may call the Trustee to an Account in the State of Nature and upon Satisfaction denyed Appeal to God himself by Battle or Combat So that if the Supream Powers are but Trustees of the People they may be Resisted when by going about to Destroy them they break their Trust. But as for the Second part of your Argument that in all Civil Governments under Heaven there must be an absolute and uncontroulable Power fixed some where that may irresistibly dispose of the Lives Persons c. of the Subjects This tho' it seems a better Argument than the former yet is all one in Effect for the Question is still Whether the People ever reposed such an absolute Power in their Supream Magistrates or not I grant indeed that as far as they act as the nature of Civil Power requires they are not by any means to be resisted but the Question still is whether when a Prince makes War upon the People or goeth about to destroy them there is then any Civil Power in being and whether the Government be not already dissolved since the main Ends of Government viz. the Good and Preservation of the Subjects are quite destroyed And now pray tell me which is most suitable to that prime Law of Nature the endeavour of the good and happiness of mankind that a whole Nation should be enslaved or destroyed by the boundless Will of a Tyrant or that Rulers should be sometimes resisted when they grow intolerably Tyrannical abuse their Power to the total destruction of the Lives and Properties of their Subjects So then if such an absolute Arbitrary Power in Princes or States can never consist with the main Ends of Civil Society the Peace Happiness of the Subjects it is plain that when ever they are reduced to such a State they will look upon themselves as again in the State of Nature nor would they have ever quitted their Natural Freedom tyed themselves up from providing for the security of their Lives and Properties by such means as they might before have justly exercised had it not been to obtain these Ends with much greater certainty by entring into Civil Society and by Stated Rules of Right and Wrong to secure their Lives and Properties with their future peace and Quiet by surer means than they could hope for in the meer State of Nature For it cannot be supposed that the People would ever confer such an Arbitrary unlimited Power on one Man or many over their Lives and Estates that they might take them away without any just cause For this were to put themselves into a worse Condition than the meer State of Nature wherein they had a Liberty to defend their Just Right against the Injuries of others and were upon equal Terms of Force to maintain it whether invaded by a single Man or many in a Combination Whereas by supposing they have thus given up themselves to the absolute Arbitrary Power and Will of a Single Person They have wholly disarmed themselves and only armed him to make a Prey of them whenever he pleases He being in a much worse Condition that is exposed to the Arbitrary Power of one Man who hath the Command of 100000 Men than he that is expos'd to the Arbitrary Power of 100000 single Men no body being secure that his Will who hath such Command is better than that of other Men tho' his force be 100000 times stronger To conclude granting a Supreme Power to be plac'd somewhere either in a Single Person or in many yet it can by no means be absolutely Arbitrary and Irresistible over the lives and Fortunes of the People For their Authority being as I have already proved in the former Conference no more than that Power which God hath granted to every particular head of a Family and other Freemen at his own dispose for the security of their own Persons and the Common Good of those whom God hath intrusted to their Charge they cannot confer upon the supreme Magistrate any more Power than what God hath conferred upon them before and so can be no more than those Persons had in the State of Nature before they enter'd into Society and before they gave up their Power to these Supream Magistrates viz. that only what God had before trusted them withal Now according to your own Principles no Man is trusted by God in the State of Nature with an absolute Power over his own life much less to destroy or take away the life or Property of another and therefore cannot convey any such Power to those he would intrust with it So then if a Man cannot Subject himself to the Arbitrary Power of another neither hath he in the State of Nature such an Arbitrary Power over the life Liberty or Possessions of another but only as much as the Law of Nature gave him for the Preservation of himself and the Common Good of Mankind This is all he doth or can give up to the Common-Wealth so that if it can have no more than this It s Power in the utmost bounds of it is still limited to the publick good of the Civil Society All which if duly considered the rest of your weaker Arguments are easily answered For supposing but one Prince in a 1000 years so wicked as to go about to destroy his People it will then whenever it happens be as much their Right to defend themselves as if it were to happen every year And tho' you assert he could scarce find means or hands to bring it about Yet that makes nothing to the Purpose for if he hath no Right to destroy 30 or 40000 of the Subjects as you suppose he
part with their Money since by such a War or Conquest they might not only lose that Money but also their Liberties and Estates Yet on the other side I would not be understood to give the Supream Magistrates a Power to invade the Properties and Estates of their Subjects to what degree they thought fit For then they might Tax them to that extremity as might force them to sell themselves and their Wives and Children for Slaves or else being unable to pay must be forced to run away and leave their Habitations as the Peasants often do in France whereby whole Villages nay Towns may become depopulated as they are in divers parts of Italy and Turkey by such extraordinary Severitles and therefore in absolute Monarchies where there is no Nobility Gentry nor Yeomen who can claim any Property in their Estates which with us make up the best and most considerable part of the People and where the Government being wholy Military and is exercised over the People only by force of Arms I doubt not but such a People reduced to this extremity may not only quit the Countrey where they are thus inâ—olerably oppress 't but that if they are not of themselves strong enough to make Resistance and cast off this intolerable Yoke by force they may if an occasion be offered â—oyn with any Neighbour Prince or State thaâ— will undertake their Quarrel and upon this account I think we may very well justifie the Revolt of the Greek Christians from the Ottoman Yoke and putting themselves under the Protection of the Venetians both in the Morea and other places and also upon the same Principles I conceive the Common People of France who are reduced to the like extremities might also with a safe Conscience revolt from the Present King and put themselves under the Protection of the Prince of Orange our now present Soveraign or the States of Hotland if ever they should be successful enough to make any considerable Invasion upon that Kingdom And therefore I must confess that there can be no certain and stated Rule set down to what Proportion absolute Princes or Commonwealths may Tax their Subjects since in some Countreys the People can better part with a Shilling than in others they can pay a Peny And as I grant it must be left to the Mercy and Discretion of the Governours what Taxes to impose without thus ruining and destroying their People as it is left to the Judgment of the owner of the Beast how much burden it is able to bear So if he by laying too great a weight breaks the Back of his Horse or Beast he not only hath the Loss but makes himself the Laughing-stock of all his Neighbours So that tho' I confess the People ought to have Patience and rather to suffer many Oppressions and hardships than to put themselves in this miserable State of War Yet there is a midst in all things and the People may be so Cruelly Oppressed by Taxes and other Impositions as it is impossible for them longer to Subsist or provide Necessaries for themselves and their Families And since you have already granted that the People may Iudge when their Prince makes War upon them and goeth actually about to destroy them by the Sword I cannot see why they may not have the same Right of Iudging when they are like to be destroyed by Famine too And who can be Iudge of this but those who feel it But indeed it is Morally impossible for the People to be mistaken in so plain a Case For tho' this many-headed beast as you commonly call them the People cannot argue very Subtilly of the future Consequences of things yet they have a very Nice and Tender Sense of feeling and can very well tell when they are so injured and oppressed that they can bear it no longer for then sure they may be allowed to have as much Care and Sense of their own Preservation as Camels and Dromedaries which as Travellers Relate tho' they are taught by their Masters to Kneel down and to receive their Loads which they will patiently endure as long as they are able to bear them Yet when once their Masters do over-exceed that weight neither fair means nor foul can prevail upon them to rise or they will throw off those Loads if risen that they feel will otherwise break their Backs But I have Discoursed long enough on this Head and therefore if you have nothing more material to except against it I pray proceed to the rest of the Causes that Subjects may as you think pretend to have to take up Arms against the Supream Powers M. I have somewhat more to urge towards proving that this Liberty which you allow the Subjects wholy tends to Anarchy and Confusion but I shall reserve it to the last when I shall Sum up all that I have farther to urge upon this Subject and therefore I shall proceed to the other Pretences that Subjects in absolute Monarchies may make to Rebel and the next may be that the Monarch looking upon his Subjects as his Slaves may either use them so himself or Sell them to other Nations for that purpose as Monfieur Chardin tells us the King of Mingrelia often doth diverse of his People to Raise Money And tho' I will not be so Ridiculous as to suppose That such a Monarch can Sell away all his People at once for then he should be left alone without any Subjects and Consequently become no King Yet in such Monarchies as diverse of the Eastern and African are at this day where as you your self own the People having no Setled or Hereditary Property in their Estates the Monarch may dispose of their Particular Persons as he thinks fit I cannot see any reason why the Monarch may not in these Countries without any blame exert his Prerogative if he pleases and take as many of his Subjects or their Children to serve him as Slaves as he thinks necessary for his Service And therefore whatsoever People or Nation have thus Subjected themselves to the Absolute Power or Dominion of one Man they have no more Right to Regain their Natural Liberty than I should have of taking away any thing by Force which I had before given or granted to another For this Sort of Civil Servitude is not so Repugnant to Nature as some Imagine or that because Subjects were forced to consent to it for the avoiding of some Greater Evil they can afterwards have any Right to shake it off again when ever they will For tho' I grant that God hath not Instituted any such Servitude yet when once it is introduced in any Country Men are not at Liberty to cast off the Yoke when ever they please but to observe St. Paul's Rule If thou art a Servant care not for it but if thou are free chuse it rather That is Freedom is to be preferred before Servitude or Subjection But where Providence hath made Men Absolute Sâ—rvants or Subjects they are
own Norman Lords and Souldiers but those of other Forreign Nations who assisted him in this Expedition would ever have suffered him to have reigned in quiet over them if instead of a Limited King he had set himself up for an absolute Monarch and have granted them no Estates but at his Will and Pleasure which would have reduced the Conquerour and the Conquered to the same condition But as for your Example of Malcolm Canmor I cannot believe that the Kings of Scotland were so lately as his Reign possessed of the whole Hereditary Property of all the Lands in that Kingdom so as that no Man had any setled Interest in them before that time and therefore I must beg your pardon if I think this Passage in their Historians to be very suspicious if not false But I speak this only by the by and I reserve what I have more to say on this Head for another time wherein I doubt not but to be able to shew you as evidently as can be done after so many Ages that all the Kingdoms in Europe which are descended from the Gothick or German Nations commenced at first from Compact with their first Kings and have thereby an unalterable Right in their Lives Liberties and Estates And if so have likewise Right to defend them if generally and Vniversally invaded by their Princes But granting for the present what you have asserted to be true that all this Property which is now in Europe proceeded wholly from the Grants and Concessions of Princes yet will it not follow that by the Law of Nature or Nations if any King should go about generally or at once to invade the Liberties and Properties of their People they might not Lawfully be reâ—isted for as I said before even a slâ—ve when Manumitted by his Patron may Lawfully dâ—fend his Liberty against him if he goeth about to take it away and reduce him again into slavery So likewise in the same State of Nature if a Prince freely grant his Subjects a setled and Hereditary Property in their Estates they have likewise a Right to defend them against him or any other that would endeavour by force to take them away For he that in this State grants any thing to another grants him likewise a Right to Keep it whether the Donor will or not or else it were indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For he that in the State of Nature grants another Man any thing to be possessed or enjoyed only as long as he himself or his Heirs shall think fit doth in effect grant him as good as nothing since he may alter his mind to morrow and demand it again and take it away the very next day So that if you will grant that Subjects have such a Right to their Estates as that the Prince cannot without manifest violence or injustice take them away you must likewise grant that they have also a Right to defend them But I suppose you will not deny that Right that all Men have to their Civil Properties in all our European Kingdoms and Common-Wealths tho' never so absolute But your Objection against the subjects defending it by force if it be invaded is that it may cause Rebellion and Confusion I grant indeed it may sometimes occasion Civil Wars or Intestine Commotions if the People finding their Liberties and Properties notoriously invaded shall oppose the unjust violence of those who contrary to the trust reposed in them do thus violently invade them therefore forsooth if this Doctrine be allowed it may prove destructive to the Peace of Kingdoms and Common Wealths and Consequently to the good and happiness of Mankind But methinks you might as well have argued that honest Men might not resist Robbers or Pirates because it may occasion Disorder and Bloodshed If any mischief come in such cases sure it is not to be charged upon him who defends his own Right but on him that invades anothers If the Innocent honest Man must quit all he hath for quietness sake to him who will lay Violent Hands upon it I desire it may be considered what a kind of Peace there will be in the World which would consist only in Violence and Rapiâ—â— and which would be maintained only for the benefit of Publick Robbers and Oppressors M. But pray do you make no difference between a knot of Thieves and Robbers and the Civil Government of a Monarch or Common-VVealth which I suppose may very well be maintain'd without any Hereditary Property in Lands as you have granted And it were much better in my mind to forego these outward things than resist the Civil Government which is the Ordinance of God as you your self acknowledge F. I think the best way to end this controversy will be to desire you to give a Definition of Civil Government that we may know what we mean by it therefore pray will you give me an easy and plain Definition of it M. VVell Sir I shall comply with your desires I then take Civil Government to be an Authority conferred by God on one or more Persons to make Laws for the benefit and Protection of the Subjects and to inflict such Punishments for their Transgression as they shall think fit and by the Subjects Obedience and Assistance to protect them against Forreign Enemies and also to appoint what share of Civil Property each Person in that Common-Wealth shall enjoy F. Sir Tho' your Definition be somewhat lame yet I am pretty well contented with it only I will shew you by and by wherein it is deficient The first and therefore chiefest Branch or Office of Civil Magistrate◠〈◊〉 to make Laws for the Benefit and Protection of the Subjects Is it then a Branch of this Power to send Souldiers or Dragoons to take away their Liberties Lives or Estates This sure is directly contrary to their Duty and that Trust which God hath conferred upon them Let us go on to the next Branch The inflection of Punishments for the transgrâ—ssion of such Laws Is this a part of Civil Government not only to send their Souldiers and other Officers to take away their Subjects Lives and Estates but also to let the most Capital Offenders or Robbers pass unpunish'd when they have done if you maintain these to be the Prerogatives of Civil Government or that to be Civil Government where these things are commonly practised you may even with Mr. Hobbs set the great Leviathan Free from all obligation to his Subjects any further than he shall think fit for his own interest and make them always in a State of Nature that is as he supposes of War with them and then pray tell me whether such a State can be the Ordinance of God or not But to come to the last Branch of your Definition and in which alone I think it deficient the appointing what share of Property each person in that Common-Wealth shall enjoy Tho' I grant it may be the Prerogative of Civil Governments to appoint this at first Yet
endure and pass by the personal Faults or Failings of Princes in consiâ—eration of that Protection and Security in their Lives and Fortunes which they do enjoy under them since it hath been found by experience with how great a Slaughter of People and how great a confusion and danger of the whole Common-Wealth Evil Princes have been resisted or turn'd out of their Thrones And therefore I grant the Private Injuries of Princes are to be past over in consideration of that great Charge they undergo and for those greater Benefits we receive from their Government but chiefly for the publick Peace of the Common Wealth or Civil Society And therefore I own it is very well said by that Master in Politicks Tacitus That the ill Humours or Dispositions of Kings are to be born withal and that often Mutations of Governments are of dangerous Consequence And he wisely introduces Ceriales speaking to this purpose to the Rebellious Treveri That they ought to bear with the Luxury and Avarice of Rulers as they do with immoderate showers and other unnatural Evils since there will be Vices whilst there are Men yet neither are these continual but are often recompensed by the Intervention of better But I will now particularize those Cases wherein I do absolutely disallow and disclaim all Resistance in Subjects against the Supream Powers 1. I deny all Resistance to Subjects against their Princes or Supream Magistrates in all such Actions or Prerogatives which are absolutely necessary to the Exercise of their Supream Power viz. of Protecting and Defending their People as also against those who are Commission'd by them for the Execution of such Powers 2. I Condemn all Rebellion against Princes or States meerly on the Score of Religion or because they are not of the Religion of their People or Subjects if there be no positive Law Extant Disabling or Forbidding Princes or other Magistrates of different Religions than that of their People from being admitted to the Throne or Government 3. I look upon it as Rebellion in the People Tumultuously to rise up in Arms to alter or reform the Religion of the Nation or Kingdom already established by Law without the Consent of the Legislators 4. I Disclaim all Resistance or Self-defence in Subjects upon the account that the free or publick Exercise of that Religion they profess is not allowed them by the Legislative Power of the Kingdom or Nation provided that such Supream Powers do not forbid or hinder the People professing such a different Religion to Sell or Transport their Estates and Persons into any other Country where they please 5. I Deny Resistance to Subjects against their Princes or Governours upon Pretence of any Personal Vices as because they are wicked Atheistiâ—al Cruel Lustful or Debauched provided they generally Protect their Subjects in their Lives Liberties and Properties 6. I Deny this Right of Resistance to any particular person less than the whâ—le Body or Major part of the People or at least such a considerable Portion of a Nation as are able when Assaulted or Oppressed in their Lives Liberties or Estates to constitute a distinct and entire Kingdom or Common-Wealth of themselves 7. I look upon it as Wicked and Rebellious for any private Subjects to Assassinate Murder or Imprison their Monarch or other Supream Governour since no private Person whatever ought to lay Violent Hands upon his Prince whose person ought to be Sacred and in no wise to be Violated unless he put off the Character of a Prince and Actually make War upon his People But if in this Case he happen to be Resisted and Perish in the Attempt he falls not as a Prince but as a Common Enemy by breaking the Original Compact with his People and entring into a State of War against them As a Father who unjustly makes War upon his Children may be as I have already proved at our first conference Resisted by them in the State of Nature But as for all other Grievances or Oppressions if they are of that Nature as may Ruine the whole Common-Wealth yet not suddenly but after some time and often Repeated I cannot allow such Grievances or Oppressions as a Sufficient Cause of Resistance For as on the one hand there is no Inconvenience so small but in process of time it may turn to the Ruine of the Common-Wealth if it be often Repeated and excessively Multiplieâ— so on the other side length of time produces so great Changes that the Nature of these Encroachments or Injuries are not sufficient to justifie Resistance and the Breach of that Peace and Unity in a Common Wealth which must necessarily follow by entering into a State of War To conclude I do not in any Case whatever allow of Resistance but only in these three necessary ones When the Lives Liberties or Estates of the whole People of the greatest part of them are either actually Invaded or else taken away and when they are Reduced into so bad a Condition that a State of War is to be preferred before such a Peace aâ—d when the End of Civil Government being no longer to be obtained by it the Common-Wealth may be look't upon as Dissolved M. Tho' you have been pretty long in treating of this Matter yet I did not think it Tedious since I confess you have given me honestly enough and so far I agree with you all those Cases wherein you say it is Uâ—lawful for Subjects to take up Arms or Resist the Supream Powers But I wonder you have not added one Case more which Diverse Authors that are high enough against Non-Resistance in other things do yet allow to be a sufficieâ—s Cause of taking up Arms and Resisting their Prince And that is when he Actually hath or goeth about to Alieâ—ate or make over his Dominion and Subjects to some Forreign Prince or State F. I am not ignorant of what you say but I thought it not worth speaking ot because in absolute Monarchies which we are now treating of if such Kingdoms are Patrimonial and that the Monarch hath such an absolute Dominion over his Subjects as neither to let them enjoy any Liberty in their Persons nor Properties in their Estates but at his Pleasure I cannot see any reason why such a Prince may not alienate his Dominion over such a Kingdom and People as well as any private-Man may his Property in his Estate Nor have the People any Cause to be concerned at it since they can then likewise be but Slaves and enjoy nothing but at their Princes Pleasure as they did before so that whether He or a Stranger govern them it is all one as to their Circumstances But yet under such Governments as are absolute where the People enjoy their personal Lib rites and Properties in their Estates the Case may be much otherwise since they may not be sure that the Foreign Prince to whom their own Monarch or other Supream Powers hath assigned them will maintain their Liberties and Properties as the former did And
insupportable that it is past all question I grant that the People ought to have Patience and rather suffer many Oppressions and Hardships than put themselves into a State of War So that I think it is Morally impossible that the People can be mistaken in 〈◊〉 evident a Case Nor I believe can you scarce shew me one Example either out of Antient or Modern History of any whole Nation or People or the Major part of them that did ever rise in Arms to cast off either a Foreign or Domestick Yoke which pressed too hard upon them but when they had the most unavoidable and justest causes so to do And I believe I can shew you Ten Examples out of Histories if the Question were to be decided by them for one you can shew me to the Contrary 'T is true some private Men may sometimes make Disturbances or Rebellions but it is commonly to their own Iust Ruine and Perdition for till the Mischief be grown General and the Violence of the Rulers become Evident and their Attempts to Destroy or make Slaves of them are most sensible to all or the greatest part of the People they are commonly more a great deal disposed to Suffer than to Right themselves by Resistance well knowing the Mischiefs of War and how Destructive it will prove not only to their Lives but to the Welfare of their Families and Posterities as well as Private Concerns So that the Example of some particular Injustice Oppression nay or Absolute Ruine of here and there an Unfortunate person moves them not But if once they find their Lives Liberties and Estates Universally Assaulted and about to be taken away who is to be blamed for it The Magistrate or the People for the former might have avoided it if they had pleased either by not urging them to that Extremity at all or at least Redressing those Grievances and Oppressions before they became so General and Insupportable as not to be any longer endured So that tho' I grant the Ambition or Turbulency of private Men have sometimes caused great Disorders in Common-Wealths and Factions have been fatal to States and Kingdoms Yet whether this Mischief hath oftner begun from the People's Wantonness and desire to cast off the Lawful Authority of their Rulers or from the Rulers Insolence and Endeavours to get and Exercise a Tyrannical Arbitrary Power over their People that is whether Oppression or Disobedience gave the first Rise to the Disorder I leave it as I said to Impartial History to Determine But this I am sure of whoever either Ruler or Subject goes about by force to Invade the Rights of either Prince or People and lays a Foundation for overturning the Original Constitution and Frame of any Civil Government he is Guilty of the greatest Crime I think a Man is capable of being to Answer for all those Mischiefs Bloudshed Rapine and Desolations which the breaking to pieces of Governments does bring on a Country And he who doth it is justly to be esteemed a Common Enemy and is to be treated accordingly But as for the Instances you give of Waâ— Tyler and Massianello I grant indeed it may so happen that a Great part of the Common People or Rabble may sometimes upon sudden or false Apprehensions occasioned by some Real Grievances or Oppressions such as are great Taxes or Gabels imposed by the State take up Arms and Rebell against the Supream Powers Yet these Examples do not reach the Question in Hand these Insurections or Rebellions you mention being of a much less number than the whole People or the Major part of them and in which I still include the Nobility and Gentry and other Land-holders as the most considerable part And so those Insurrections were in no wise Iustifiable especially in such a Government as ours where no Man can be Taxed but by his own Consent included in his Representatives whereas all these Rebellions were chiefly if not altogether made by the meaner sort or Scum of the People of one or a few Countries whom I can never allow to make Disturbances since they having very little to lose ought in all Civil Governments whatsoever to be directed and Governed by those in whom the Ballance of the Government in Lands and other Riches doth reside and on whom they chiefly depend for their Protection and Subsistance and consequently ought to make no Alterations in the State without their consent and Approbation But as for your other Instance of the Wars raised in these Three Kingdoms against King Charles the First upon the Pretence of our Religion Liberties and Properties being Invaded it is not proper to be Treated of in this place Since we are now Discoursing of the Power of Princes and the Right of Subjects under Absolute and not limited Monarchies And I grant that some Resistance may be Rebellion under Absolute Monarchies which would not be so under limited ones Yet I do still suppose that it may be Lawful under such limited Monarchy for the People to take up Arms and make Resistance in defence of those Iust Liberties and Priviledges which they Lawfully enjoy either by the Original Constitution of the Government or by Acts of Grace or Concession of the Prince but this requires a more large and accurate Discourse which at another time I am ready to give you Therefore granting at present that those Wars were down Right Rebellion against the King and also that they were made under Pretence of the Principle I now assert yet doth it not at all overthrow the Iustice of that Cause which I now maintain since as I have already more than once intimated the abuse that may be sometimes made of a Natural Right by some Wicked Factious or Hypocritical Men ought not in the least to prejuâ—ice the Exercise of that Right to all the rest of Mankind who may lye under a Real Necessity of making use of it To conclude if the People may nevâ—r be trusted to Iudge when their Liberties and Properties are actually Invaded because they may happen one time or other to be mistaken and so enter into a State of War without cause to the Destruction of Mankind this Argument would serve as well against all Princes and Common-Wealths who being in the State of Nature with each other should never make War for any Cause or Provocation how great soever because being Iudges and Executioners too in their own Case they may more easily happen to be mistaken I suppose you your self will grant that one or a few Men are more apt to be in an Error than 100000 and I have already proved that where the People have never wholly given up their Liberties and Properties unto the Absolute Will of the Supream Powers they are as to that still in a State of Nature and do reserve to themselves a Right of Iudging when they are Violently and Insupportably invaded and Consequently of vindicating themselves from that Oppression And therefore granting what you have said to be true that
the People may sometimes happen to abuse this Natural Right of Iudging and resisting by exerting it when there is no real and absolute necessity so on the other side if they are wholy debarred from it because they may happen sometimes to abuse it the Freest People in the World viz. our selves for Example may easily be reduced into a Condition of absolute Slavery and Beggery and that without all Remedy by any Humane means that I can think of and which is the worst mischief of these two I leave to your self or any indifferent Man to Iudge M. If you will have my Opinion in this pointâ— I must freely tell you that it is a hard matter to find out a mischief so destructive to the People and which they should exchange for this miserable State of War which you suppose may prove so beneficial to them and yet I doubt if it be throughly lookt into not only the Doctrine it self but also the lasting Wars and miseries it may produce would sufficiently prove the contrary since the cruellest Tyranny Slavery and loss of Estates or any thing else almost may be better born with in Peace and Unity than a Civil War with the greatest Liberty and Plenty seeing all such comforts would quickly be devoured like Pharaoh's Fat Kine by such a Cruel Mâ—nster feeding in their bowels And therefore since Civil War is one of the greatest Calamities and Punishments that God uses to send upon a Nation it seems evident to me that the Wellfare of any State or People requires them to be Obedient unto the Supream Powers tho' they be never so great Oppressors or Cruel Tyrants For when once they enter into this dismal State of War who can tell whether it will have an End without almost the total destruction of the Nation or at least by bringing them into a far worse Condition of Slavery and Suffering than they were before since the State of Princes or other Supream Powers can never be so mean and inconsiderable in the World as not to find when like to be Opprest by such insurrections and Rebellions of their Subjects sufficient assistance from Neighbouring Princes or States who making the Cause of such a Prince their own will be sure to assist him to the utmost of their Power it being found true by experience as Tully long ago observed That the afflicted State of Kings do easily draw the help and Pity of many others especially of those who are either Kings themselves or do live in a Kingdom the Regal Name being by them esteemed to be great and Sacred And farther how ready a way it is to subvert the State of any such distractâ—d Kingdom and to bring it under the Subjection of Foreigners we need not seek a plainer Proof than by an Example no farther off than Ireland where Dermâ—t King of Leinster being forced by his Rebellious Subjects to â—rave the Aid of King Henry the II. for his Restoration to his Kingdom his assistance to recover his Right produced that effect which we now see viz. That the Irish lost their Domiâ—ion and became Subject to the Crown of England even to this day And supposing that the Subjects might likewise be assisted by some Foreign Prince who would undertake their deliverance they would not be in a much bâ—ttâ—r condition since if he were an Absolute Monarch himself he would be 〈◊〉 for example sake as well as for their own security to carry as strict a hard over tâ—em and use them more severely than their own Prince had done before and I doubt not but if Lewis Prince of France had been Crowned King of this Kingdom as he was very near it toward the latter end of King Iohn's Reign but that he would have been more cruel and Tyrannical than ever King Iohn had been before So that they would have got nothing by the bargain but a change of Masters and a heavier Yoke imposed upon them by a Foreigner And so much the Viscount Melun confessed upon his Death bed to many of the English nobility which was the reason of their returning again to their Allegiance to Henry the third So that I think it had been much better for the Barons and Nobility of this Kingdom never to have stirred or Rebell'd at all against their Lawful Prince F. You seem so in Love with slavery and all the Consequences of it that it is an hundred pities but that you should feel the smart of it a little while provided no body was to suffer by it but your self and those of your Opinion But could you see the miserable Condition those poor People are in who live under Arbitrary and Tyrannical Government I doubt not but you would be of another mind and preferr a War tho' never so Violent before such a Peace for when Men are once reduced to so desperate a Condition as neither to be secured of their Lives Liberties or Estates they may have some hope to redress themselves by Resistance but need not fear to be reduced to a worse Condition than they were before and therefore I cannot understand how all the Comforts of a Civil Life would then be lost by a Civil Waâ— when I have already put-it as a chief part of the Case that Subjects are never to make such a Resistance but when the Supream Powers are just about to begin or else have actually entered into a State of War against their Subjects For what can any foreign Enemy do more if he Conquers them than take away their Lives Liberties and Estates So that this is so far from being a State of Peace that indeed the People are already exposed to all the Calamities of War but a War which you suppose may be made without any resistance whilst the Subjects forsooth are bound to keep the Peace but much such another Peace as would be in a House unto which Thieves having broken and the Inhabitants retiring into some upper Rooms there stand upon their Guard and make Resistance whilst the Thieves having Seized upon all they have below one of them should make such a speech as this I pray Sirs come down and submit your selves to us for we assure you we intend not to Kill you but only to Bind you and take away all you have And is not slavery and loss of Goods better with Peace and safety than by assaulting us to provoke us to fire the House and Kill you all for if you once enter into a State of War with us it is very likely to end with your total destruction For if you continue to resist us or think to call in Company to your Assistance we can likewise call in many more of our Party to come and help us and then eâ—pâ—â—t no mercy Now pray tell me would not this be a very rational Argument to move these People to come down and surrender themselves to these Thieves and partake of the benefits of this excellent Peace they propos'd and whether they would not tell
must confess I am somewhat staggered with those Reasons and Arguments you have now given me against those Principles which as I have always and must still esteem as sacred till I am convinced I am in an Errour and perhaps if I were to consult my own 〈◊〉 Reason and natural Inclinations I should come over to your opinion But since it hath pleased God to lay much higher restraints and stricter Rules of Obedience and Subjection on us by his Revealed Will in the Scripture beyond what can be discovered by the Light of Nature and that under the highest Penalty viz. Damnation I can see no reason why God Almighty may not grant Eternal Life upon what Conditions he pleases tho' never so hard and uneasie for Flesh and Blood to perform So that if our Saviour Iesus Christ hath commanded us to take up his Cross and follow him that is to suffer all sorts of Injuries and Afflictions nay Death it self as he himself did rather than to Resist the Supream Powers under which He lived I cannot see any Reason why he should not Propose his own Example for our Imitation And as he hath enjoined and expects from us greater Degrees of Chastity Charity and Humility than ever he did from the Iews or Pagans so I see no reason why he may not likewise exact from us a greater and more perfect Obedience and Submission without any Resistance to all Soveraign Princes and States than ever he did either by the Law of Moses or that of Nature not but that there are sufficient Proofs in the Old Testament for the absolute Power of Princes against all Rebellion or Resistance in Subjects Tho' I confess this Doctrine is more plainly proved by the Example of our Saviour and the Precepts of his Apostles in the New Testament as also from the Example of the Primitive Christians in Obedience thereunto F. I perceive you begin to distrust your Arguments drawn from Natural Reason and the Laws of Nature and when you are pressed with the absurdity of this Doctrine of yours you fly from Gods Natural to his Revealed Will and take refuge under the Covert of the Holy Scripture to impose an Opinion contrary to the Common sense and Natural Notions of Mankind not corrupted with the Prejudices of Education and therefore give me leave at present to tell you that I think I shall be able to prove that the Passive Obedience as you call it of the Primitive Christians and their sufferings for the Name of Christs will not at all contradict that Natural Right which I suppose all Freemen to have as well under Civil Government as in the State of Nature for the defence of their Lives Liberties and Properties unless where the Common good and Peace of the whole or Major part of the People require the contrary And therefore the same Reasons which oblige particular private Persons to be quiet and not to disturb the publick Peace of the whole Society for their own private Safety and Advantage when the whole Body of the People or the Major part of them is thus violently assaulted in their Lives Liberties and Estates the same considerations of the Publick good of their Country whereof every Man is a Member doth then as strongly persuade I may say enjoyn them to take up Arms and defend themselves for the Preservation of the whole People or Community whose Natural and Civil Rights being now attack't can no otherwise be restored to the same State they were in before but by that last Remedy that can be used in this Case viz. Kim vi â—topellere M. I confess that of all Commonwealth-hypotheses yours is most reasonable being coherent with it self and also most likely to be swallowed by the People because it flatters our corrupt Natures to which this Christian Doctrine of Passive Obedience is so directly opposite as also because it gives them a full Liberty I mean not only the Representative Body but the Major part of them to reassume that Power which you pretend they never parted with and so consequently all necessity of suffering except when they please to think they have justly deserved it is taken away and the Sufferings of the Primitive Christians will be rendered only a tame Madness and that St. Paul was very much overseen to enjoin this Subjection to the Romans under the Government of one of the most cruel Tyrants that ever sway'd that Scepter but we have not so learned Christs And therefore I am firmly persuaded that we ought to be strictly obedient without any Resistance to those Civil Governours that God hath been pleased to set over us let them abuse their Power never so Tyrannically F. I am beholden to you for your plain dealing with me in this matter and pleased to find that you have an Inclination to my Principles were it not for some Texts of Scripture and Citations out of the Fathers and Church History which give you a Prejudice against them which I hope when they come to be closely examined will signifie no more than the former But for the dispatching this Important Controversie I pray give me leave to propose this easie method first that you would be pleased to lay down your Authorities out of Scripture in order as they lie And afterwards to shew me that the Ancient Fathers and Primitive Church always understood those Texts in the same Sense that you do viz. that No Resistance of the Supream Powers is Lawful to be exercised in any Case whatsoever M. I approve of your Proposal and therefore I will first begin with those proofs which are expresly against all Rebellion or Resistance in the Old Testament The first Governour that God set over the Children of Israel when he brought them out of the Land of Egypt was Moses and I think I need not prove how sacred and irresistible his Authority was This is sufficiently evident in the Rebellion of Korah Dathan and Abiram against Moses and Aaron when God caused the Earth to open her Mouth and swallow them up And lest this should be thought an extraordinary Case Moses and Aaron being extraordinary Persons immediately appointed by God and governed by his Immediate direction the Apostle St. Iude alledges this example against those in his days who were Turbulent and Factious who despised Dominions and spake evil of Dignities that they should Perish in the gainsaying of Core which he could not have done had not this Example extended to all ordinary as well as extraordinary Cases had it not been a lasting Testimony of Gods displeasure against all those who oppose themselves against Soveraign Powers But Moses was not always to rule over them and therefore God expresly provides for a succession of Soveraign Powers to which they must all submit The ordinary Soveraign Power of the Iewish Nation after Moses's Death was devolv'd either on the High-Priest or those extraordinary Persons whom God was pleas'd to raise up such as Ioshua and the several Iuâ—ges till in
all Israel saw that the King hearkened not unto them the People answered the King saying What Portion have we in David Neither have we inheritance in the Son of Jesse To your tents O Israel Now see to thine own House David So Israel dâ—parted unto their Tents And it is farther said So Israel rebelled against the House of David unto this day Nor is this action at all blamed or disapproved by the Scripture or rebuked by any Prophet at that time for tho' the Word is here translated they rebelled yet in the Hebrew it signifies no more than fell away from or Revolted and it is said before that the King hearkened not to the People For the 〈◊〉 which may be also translated REVOLUTION was from the Lord that he might perform his saying which he spake by Ahijah thâ— Sâ—ilonite unto Jeroboam when in the Chapter before the Prophet promis'd him the Kingdom of the Tâ—n Tribes and that God would rend them out of the hand of Solomon i. e. his Posterity and give them unto him who thereupon had a Right to them and that upon his being made King by the People he had also a Right to their Obedience is as evident Since to continue in a State of Rebellion towards one King and an Obligation to obey another are absolutely inconsistent in the same Subject as I have already proved at our second Conference And therefore I cannot but here take notice of that rational Account which the Earl of Clarendon in his Survey of the Leviathan which you before quoted gives of this Revolution Nor did the People viz. of Israel conceive themselves liable to those impositions as appears by the Application they made to Rehoboam upon the death of Solomon that he would abate some of that rigour his Father had exercised towards them the rough Rejection of which contrary to the advice of his wisest Counâ—ellours cost him the greatest part of his Dominions and when Rehoboam would by Arms have reduced them to obedience God would not suffer him because he had been in the fault himself M. After this extravagant way of Arguing when ever the Subjects of any Nation shall think themselves too much oppress'd with Taxes or other Grievances above what they are able to bear if they are not eas'd by the King or Supream Magistrates upon the first Petition they may presently cast off that Power they were under and set up another that would govern them upon Cheaper Terms for if the People of Israel had this Right why may not all other Nations claim the same and this Doctrine however comfortable it might be to the People I am sure it would be very Mischievous to all the Monarchies and Commonwealths in the World and it is likely that the Subjects of the French King nay States of Holland and other Princes would quickly take the first opportunity either to make their Princes and States to â—ax them no more than they please themselves or else they may presently cry with the Israelites To thy Tents O Israel nor can I see how the King and Parliament in England would be in a much better Conâ—ition in Relation to the People they represent should they impose greater Taxes than they thought they could afford to pay and this Priviledge you give the Israelites seems to be clean contrary to what you laid down at our last Conference wherein you excepted great Taxes and Tributes to Princes or States as no just Cause of Resistance or taking up Arms And therefore I think I may very well maintain the old Doctrine about this Matter and that tho' God did rend the Kingdom from Rehoboam and bestow it upon the Son of Nebat whom also when the People had made him King they were obliged to obey because it was Gods will it should be so who gives and takes away Kingdoms from whomsoever he pleases Yet doth not this at all justifie the Rebellion of the Israelites or Iereboam's â—suâ—pation of his Masters Kingdom since God oftentimes makes use of this Rebellion of the People to execute his Iudgment upon a sinful Prince and Nation And therefore it is very remarkable that after this Rebellion of the Israelites from the house of David they never prospered but by their Kings still falling one after another into the same Idolatry till God at last was so highly provoked against them that he suffered them to be carried away Captives into a strange Land near two hundred Years before the Tribes of Iudah and Benjamin underwent the same fate for the like Crime F. I hope you will not be in a Passion because I have brought this Instance of the Israelites Defection from Rehoboam as an Example of the Right that Subjects may have in those Cases I have put to resist or cast off those Supream Powers that God had once set over them For I do confess Divines and other Authors are much divided about this Action of the Israelites some maintaining it to be well done and in Pursuance to God's Will and others holding it to be Down-right Rebellion And therefore I shall not positively assert either the one or the other much less that Subjects may rebel whensoever they conceive themselves overtax't but thus much I think I may safely affirm that if the Israelites had no Right upon any score whatsoever to resist I cannot see why Rehoboam might not have made them if he had pleas'd as Arrant Slaves as ever their Ancestors were in Egypt and what he else meant by saying instead of Whips to chastise them with Scorpions which were a sort of thorny rods with which the Iews corrected their Slaves and Malefactors I cannot understand and as for Taxes tho I confess there is no setting any positive measure to them since no man can positively define what the Exigences of a State may require and I think no good Subjects ought to deny to contribute as much as ever they are able to afford to maintain the Government they live under as long as they receive the Protection of it So on the other side should the Supream Power of any Nation where the People are not meer Slaves under the Pretence of laying necessary Taxes for the Maintenance or Preservation of the Government be constantly exacting from the People more than they were able to pay as if for Example they should out of every Mans Estate take Nineteen parts and leave but the Twentieth for the Subsistance of those that own it I do not think in that Case the People were obliged in Conscience to pay it and might in such Case Lawfully resist those Officers that should come to levy it by force M. I could have argued farther against what you have now said concerning this Right of the People of resisting in case of extravagant or intolerable Taxes but since it is not to the Subject in hand I shall refer it to another time And therefore to return where I left off I shall in the next place shew you how sacred
for the Person endued with this Authority I have also shewn you that when they degenerate into intolerable Tyrants they lose their Character and may be resisted as well as Madmen and Fools So much in respect of the Powers themselves and now to come to the People I think I have given very good Reasons already why a whole People or Nation or the Major part thereof may have a Right to resist the Supream Powers and yet that I need not allow particular private Persons the same Liberty and one great Reason is because they cannot and the other because they ought not to do it The first you your self do acknowledge since you say A private Person when he makes such Resistance doth it at his own peril when he hath only his own single self to oppose against his Prince And that single Persons don't use to resist nor is there any great Danger to the publick if they do to which I shall likewise add a much better Reason which I have also given you before why private Subjects ought not in a Civil State to make publick disturbances to avoid any Violence that may be done to their Particular Persons or Estates because every private Subject ought to prefer the Peace and Happiness of the Common-wealth whereof he is a Member before his own private Interest which being a Dictate of the Law of Nature or Right Reason cannot extend to the whole Nation or Civil Society Since it is as much against the Law of Nature for that to be destroyed beggar'd and enslaved as it is that God should ordain all Mankind to be so And therefore our Saviour and St. Paul never intending to alter any of those great Laws of Nature it cannot be believed that they would tye Mankind to such strict and severe Rules of Non-Resistance and Subjection as should expose them to Beggary and Slavery and Ruine with all the Miseries of this Life Nor do I find that our Saviour or his Apostles have either promised Eternal Life for such slavish Subjection nor threatned Damnation for such Resistance M. To answer what you have now said I must in the first place take notice that tho' I grant St. Chrysostome for fear of making Tyrants and wicked Princes to be ordained by God gives that Interpretation of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you have now done yet he owns the Doctrine of Non-Resistance because the Power is from God as you may here see in these Quotations out of him which the Learned Primate hath made use of in the second part of his Treatise of the Power of the Prince which you may if you please read with me and compare the Greek in the Margin For it is the pleasure of God that the Magistrate whom he hath stamped with his own Image should have also his own Power And he that obeyeth not him makes War in a sort with God who hath appointed these things Let us not therefore invert this Order nor Fight with God demonstrating by our deeds that saying of the Apostle Whosoever resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God So likewise in another place If we reverence and fear those Magistrates that are elected by the King altho' they be Wicked altho' they be Thieves altho' they be Robbers altho' they be unjust or whatever they be not despising them for their wickedness but standing in awe of them for the Dignity of them that did Elect them much more ought we thus to do in the Case of God But it is no matter in what Sense this or any other Father takes these Words so long as the Doctrine of Non-Resistance is secure But it seems very strange that you cannot find that our Saviour and his Apostles have neither promised Eternal Life for slavish Subjection nor threatned Damnation for Resistance for as sure as the Words are that they that resist shall receive to themselves Damnation so sure it will likewise follow that they that do the Contrary and are Patiently Subject shall receive Eternal Life I beg your pardon for this Interruption therefore pray go on with the rest of your reply And let me see how you can avoid Damnation if the Words of the Apostle are true F. The Question is still the same as it was before notwithstanding what you have now said for it is not whether some Resistance be not unlawful but whether all Resistance whatsoever be that Resistance forbidden by the Apostle And to let you see that you do not put such a strict Interpretation upon other places of Scripture pray tell me the Reason why when our Saviour expresly commands us Not to resist the Evil that is the Evil Doer but whosoever shall smite thee on thy Right check turn to him the other also And if any Man will sue thee at the Law and take away thy coat let him have thy Cloak also And whosoever shall compel thee to go a 〈◊〉 go with him twain Give to him that asketh thee and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away Or yet those more severe commands of pulling out the Right Eye and cutting off the Right Hand if they offend us of making our selves Eunuch◠for the Kingdom of Heavens sake and that be that can receive it let him receive it What is the Reason I say why those places of Scripture which taken literally are as strict as this you now quote That they that resist shall receive Damnation yet that most of the Fathers as well as the more modern Commentators put a Figurative and not a Literal Sense upon these Texts pray tell me your Reason why they do so M. I think the Reason is very plain because to understand them in a literal Sense were utterly unpracticable and contradictory to the common Sense and Notions of Mankind and those Natural Dictates of self Preservation which St. Paul approves of when he says No man yet hated his own Flesh and it was altogether unsuitable to the Doctrine of Christ which was intended for the perfection of human Nature that is of Men's Souls and natural Reasons and for the Quiet and Happiness not Hurt and Destruction of their Bodies F. I grant your Reasons are very good and self-evident but pray tell me is it not as much against the Common Sense and Notions of Mankind that God should give any Civil Soveraign an Arbitrary Irresistible Power to Murder Destroy and Ruine their People if they should think fit so to do or that Iesus Christ who you say came into the World for the Perfection of our Human Nature and not for the Destruction of our Bodies should give the Supream Powers an Authority to do the same things with Murderers and Thieves and that it was unlawful for men to defend themselves against their Violence if they could So that I can see no Reason why this Precept against Non-Resistance may not be taken in a Limited or Rational Sense as well as Swear not at all which tho'
lawfully have taken up Arms against the Government because they were deprived of their Lives and â—â—rtâ—inâ—s against all Equity and Humanity For to persecute men so remarkably Regular and Peaceable both in their Principles and Practises is as manifest a Violation of the Law of Nature as is possible And if it was Lawful for them to Resist then they seem bound in Conscience to do it whenever they had a Probability of prevailing For without doubt it 's a great fault for a Man to throw away his Life impoverish his Family and encourage Tyranny when he hath a fair remedy at hand F. If you had a little better remembred what I have already said on this Subject you might have spared these Objections for as to the first of them it is rather a Logical Fallacy than a true Answer For in the first place I have all along Asserted that no Man ought to give up his Right of self defence but in order to a greater good viz. the publick Peace and Preservation of the Common-wealth And therefore Dr. Fern and others of your Opinion do acknowledge that David might have made use of defensive Arms to defend himself against those Cut-throats that Saul send to take away his Life tho' he might not have Resisted Saul's own person and you your self have already granted that no Man can want Authority to defend his Life against him that hath no Authority to take it away So that if this Law of Self-defence is sometimes suspended it is onely in Submission to a Higher Law of preserving the publick Peace of the Common wealth or Civil Society which being once brâ—ken and gone by a general Violence upon all mens Lives Liberties and Properties of that Nation or Kingdom that Obligation of maintaining the publick Peace being taken away every Man 's natural Right of not only defending himself but his innocent Neighbour again takes place And therefore your Logical Maxim that nothing can be affirmed of Individuals which may not be affirmed of the whole Species signifyeth nothing in this Matter for every Individual had before potentially a Right of Self-defence tho they were under an Obligation not to reduce it into Act till the Bonds of that Civil Society were dissolved and then it is true they do not then Resist to maintain that Civil Government which is already gone but to get out of a State of Nature and set up a New one as soon as they can But as to your second Objection which I confess hath more weight in it than the former I shall make this Answer that you your self have given a sufficient Reason why a whole Nation or Church that professes the Christian Religion cannot be destroyed by all the Malice and Persecution that can fall upon it by Persecuting Monarchs for you tell us that it is the special Priviledge of the Christian Church above the rest of Mankind that they are God's peculiar Care and Charge and that he doth not permit any suffering or Persecutions to befal them but what he himself orders and appoints And that it is a great Happiness to have our Condition immediately alloted by God So that it seems it cannot be in the Power of the Cruellest Tyrant utterly to destroy Christianity in any Country where it is truly taught by all the Persecution that he can use This was the State of Christian Religion whilst it was in its Infancy and in which we may observe more particular Declarations of God's Providence by Miracles and the Divine Inspirations of his Holy Spirit than after it was grown up and that all the World became Christians In its Infancy 't is plain that Princes could not destroy it because it was supported by Miracles and supernatural Means but in the other State when Christianity was once grown up settled and able to shift for it self by being made the Religion of the Empire and the greatest part of Mankind embracing it in those and other Countries Princes then could not destroy it if they would because their Subjects had then a Right to it and a Property in it as much as they had to any thing else they enjoyed and consequently might be preserved by the same Human Means Thus during the State of the Iewish Church in the Wilderness and for some time in the Land of Canaan we find the Children of Israel fed and delivered from their Enemies by Miracles But after they had been long settled in it and had Renounced the Immediate Government of God they were then left to preserve themselves by the same natural means with other Nations And tho' I grant that such Persecutions when ever they fall out are very Prâ—judicial to the Peace and Happiness of those Nations that labour under them Yet this is no sufficient Reason against Paâ—ient-suffering for Religion without Resistance For since our Saviour is the Author of our Salvation and hath ordained that it-shall be propagated not by Force or Resistance but by Sufferings and that he hath promised us an Eternal Weight of Glory for our submitting our Wills and Natural Affections to his Divine Commands it is not for us to dispute the Reason of it since that he who pleased to bestow upon us so great a Benefit without our Desert might propose it to us upon what Conditions he pleased tho' never so hard to be performed Yet is this to be so understood as that this Suffering for the Testimony of Christ may serve for that great End for which he ordained it viz. the Propagation of his own true Religion by our beaâ—ing Testimony to it in our couragious and patient Suffering which in a Kingdom or Nation where Christianity or any true Prosession of it is become the general and Naâ—â—onal Religion cannot now be supposed to be necessaâ—y And this may serve also for an Answer to your last Reply For tho' I own that the Municipal Laws of Common wealths cannot abrogate any of our Natural Rights but only in order to some greater good or Benefit tending thereunto yet certainly the Revealed Law of God may and doth in some Case abridge us of divers of those Rights which Men by the Law of Nature might have made use of But as for your Quotation out of Tertullian tho I have good Reason to question the very matter of Fact since I can hardly believe that how numerous soever the Christians might be or whatever mischief they might have done privately by setting the City on fire in the Night time which he also mentions a little before as one of the ways by which they might have revenged themselves Yet do I not think that they were then either for Strength or Number sufficient to have made any Considerable Resistance if they would against the Pretorian Bands and other standing Legions which were then if not all yet for the greatest part Heathens The most part of the Christians of those times consisting of the meaner and mechanical Sort of People altogether undisciplined and unarmed and so perhaps
Arms against their Kings offensive or defensive upon any Pretence whatsoever is at least to resist the Powers which are ordained of God And tho' they do not invade but only resist St. Paul tells them plainly they shall receive to themselves Damnation From which you may plainly see that this Convocation which consisted of as great Men as I think had been for divers Ages do clearly maintain Monarchy to be of Divine Right and Resistance to be in no Case lawful F. I should grant the Canons of this Convocation to be a good Proof of the Iudgment of the Church of England were it not for two very good Reasons I have against them The one I will tell you presently and the other I will keep a while to my self In the first place therefore I suppose you cannot but very well know that this Convocation sate and passed these Canons which likewise received the King's Confirmation after the Parliament that was summoned together with this Convocation was dissolved And I suppose you know that by the Law of England the Convocation having from all times been looked upon as an Appendix to the Parliament was till then always dissolved with it For which Reason all Acts and Proceedings of this Convocation were condemned and declared null and void by the Long Parliament that began to fit the latter End of the same Year And which is more was likewise condemned by the first Parliament after the Restauration of King Charles the second And therefore I think I have very little Reason to own thâ—se Canons as Conclusive M. In the first place I might reply to what you have now said that that very Parliament which first condemned these Canons afterwards ruined the Monarchy it self In the next place that in old time the General or Provincial Synods were not Dependant upon the Assembly of the States at the same time And I likewise farther Answer that these Canons were made and confirmed in a full Convocation of both Provinces of Canterbury and York and the making of Canons being a work properly Ecclesiastical these Canons were made by the Representatives of the whole Clergy of this Kingdom 2. The Canons were confirmed by the King which was all that was of old required in such Cases and tho' the Convocation sate after the Dissolution of the Parliament yet this is not without President even in the Happy Days of Queen Elizabeth not to look back unto Henry the eighth or the Primitive times And as for your Objection that these Canons were reprobated since the Restitution of Charles the II. I say that I quote them not as Law but as the known Sense of the Church of England at that time F. Your first Answer in behalf of these Canons is altogether Invidious For it was not this Parliament that ruâ—ned the Monarchy but only the Rump or Fag end of it after it had suffered divers Violences and Exclusions of Members by the Army and that the House of Lords being by this Iunto voted useless and dangerous were shut out of doors nor is your second Answer any more true for antiently in the Saxons time the Wittena Gemot or Great Counsel and the General Synod made one and the same Assembly consisting both of Clergy-men and Lay men and then all matters of Ecclesiastical Discipline were enacted and confirmed by the King as also the Spiritual as well as Temporal States Nor can you shew me an Example of any General or Provincial Synod which met independently and without the States of the Realm until after the Reign of Henry the first when the Popes took upon them to encroach upon the Royal Authority as also upon our Civil Rights and by his Legaâ—s to call Synods and make Ecclesiastical Constitutions in which neither the King nor the States of the Kingdom had any thing to do And tho' I grant that upon the Reformation the King was restor'd to those Rights as Supream Governour of the Church which the Pope had before usurped yet is not this Act of the Supremacy to be so understood as to give the King all that Power which the Pope unjustly took upon him to execute before for that had been to make their Case no better than 〈◊〉 was before and therefore this Act of the Supremacy being only an Act of Restoration of the King to his Pristine Rights of which that of Calling Synods and Convocations was one of the Principal the King could not call nor continue those Assemblies in any other form or after any other manner than they were held before the Popes Usurpation in taking upon him to call such Independant Synods and notwithstanding what you tell me I am confident you cannot shew me any Precedent of a Convocation so turned into a Synod as this was in all the Reigns of Henry the eighth and Queen Elizabeth But as for your last reply that you quote not these Canons for a Law that obliges the Church but as the Sense of the Church of England at that time if they do not now oblige the Church neither in Point of Belief nor Practice as you may seem to grant it signifieth no more to me what was the Sense of the greatest part of the Members of that Convocation in this matter nor doth it any more shew me what is the true Doctrine of the Church of England than if I should tell you that because in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth the Major part of the Bishops and Clergy of our Church were rigid Calvinists in the Interpretation of that Article about Predestination that therefore Calvinism was then the Doctrine of the Church of England but is not so now And therefore we ought not to take that for a Doctrine of any National Church unless the Synod or Assembly that declares such Doctrine be solemnly and Lawfully assembled according to the Laws and Customs of that Nation or Country wherein they are so declared M. Since you so much contest the Authority of these Canons I shall no longer insist upon them but I shall here shew you out of the Books of Homilies to which all the Clergy in England are bound to subscribe by Act of Parliament as well as to the Articles and Canons as containing wholesome Doctrine and nothing contrary to the Word of God so that these Homilies do indeed thereby become a part of the known Laws of the Land that in these very Homilies there are divers passages so very full and Plain against all Resistance of the Sovereign Powers for any Cause whatsoever that if you are a true Church of England Man as I hope you are you can have no just Reason to deny their Authority The Homily or Exhortation to Obedience was made An. 1547. in the Reign of King Edward the sixth in the second part of which Sermon of Obedience we are told in these Words which I desire you to read along with me That it is the Calling of God's People to be patient and on the suffering side
Constitution to have bin in all the Neighbouring Kingdoms in Europe which have bin raised according to the Gothic Model of Government upon the Ruins of the Roman Empire now let us look into Scotland and there we shall find this Institution as Ancient as any History or Record they have If we pass into France we shall find their Assembly of Estates or Great Council to have bin as Ancient as their first Kings and to have had as much Power as any where else in Europe Since they not only frequently Elected but also Deposed their Kings of the first Race and disposed of the Succession of the Crown as they thought fit If we look into Spain we shall find in the two greatest and most Considerable Kingdoms viz. Castile and Arragon the like Assemblies the Power of which was so great in the latter that they could even Depose the King himself if he Tyranniz'd over or Oppress 't them If we go more Northward we shall find in the Ancient Kingdoms of Denmark and Sweden and Norway that their Assembly of Estates or Dyets Elected their Kings and could likewise Depose them till those Kingdoms became Hereditary which was but of modern times I shall omit Poland because perhaps you may dispute whether it is a Kingdom or a Commonwealth But if we pass into Hungary which was Instituted by the Huns a Nation of Gothic Original we shall find not only the like Assembly of Estates as in the other Kingdoms but also that they had a Magistrate called the Palatine who was as it were the Conservator of the People's Liberties and who could Resist even the King himself if he invaded them and which is also very remarkable in all these Kingdoms except Denmark the Representatives of the Cities or Principal Towns which constituted the third Estate or Commons in those Kingdoms had always a place in those Great Councils So that to conclude it is almost impossible to conceive how these Kingdoms I have now mentioned could all agree to fall into the same sort of Government about the same time unless it had proceeded from the particular temper and Genius of the Germane and Gothick Nations from which they were derived Or who can believe that all these Nations and their Kings finding the like Conveniences from these Great Councils and Inconveniences by the want of them should all Conspire to set them up in each of these particular Kingdoms M. I will not deny but that the Institution of Great Councils or Assemblies of the Estates might be as Ancient as the Government it self in several of those Kingdoms you mention which were at first Elective but what is that to England where our Monarchy hath bin by Succession from the first Institution of it and not Elective as you suppose Nor do I much value the Authority of the Mirrour as to the Great Antiquity he Ascribes to this Assembly of Counts or Comites as Bracton calls them and in which by the way no Commons are mentioned And tho I grant the Iudicial Power of the House of Peers is very Ancient Yet that it wholy proceeded at first from the Indulgence of our Kings appears from hence that there was always a necessity of the King's Presence in Parliaments which is very well proved by Sir Robert Cotton in a Learned Treatise written on that Subject wherein he proves that in all Consultations of State and Decisions of private Plaints it is clear from all times the King was not only present to Advise but also to Determine And whensoever the King is present all Power of Iudging which is derived from his ceaseth the Votes of the Lords may serve for matter of Advice the Final Iudgment is only the Kings But indeed of late years Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth by reason of their Sex being not so fit for publick Assemblies have brought it out of use by which means it is come to pass that many things which were in former times acted by Kings themselves have of late bin left to the Iudgment of the Peers who in quality of Iudges Extraordinary are permitted for the Ease of the King and in his Absence to determine such matters as were Anciently brought before the King himself sitting in Person attended by his Great Council of Prelates and Peers And the Ordinances that are made there receive their Establishment either from the King's Presence in Parliament where his Chair of State is constantly placed or at least from his Confirmation of them who in all Courts and in all Causes is Supream Iudge All Judgments are by or under him and cannot be without much less against his Approbation The King only and none but He if He were able should judge all Causes saith Bracton so that nothing seems plainer to me than that the Iurisdiction which the House of Peers have hitherto exercised for the Hearing and Determining all Causes as well Civil as Criminal by way of Appeal not only between Subjects but also in all Accusations against the Lords themselves proceeds wholy from the Kings which may appear by an Ancient Precedent mentioned by Abbot Brampton in his History It is the Case between King Edw. the Confessor and Godwin Earl of Kent whom the King accused for the Death of his Brother Prince Alfred before the House of Peers and there you will find that after the Earl had put himself upon the Iudgment of the Kings Court the King thereupon said You Noble Lords Earls and Barons i. e. Thanes of the Land who are my Liege-Men now gathered here together and have heard my Appeal and Godwin's Answer I will that in this Appeal between us ye Decree Right Iudgment and do true Iustice And upon their Judgment that the Earl should make the King sufficient Satisfaction in Gold and Silver for the Death of his Brother the King being thereof informed and not willing to contradict it the Historian there sayeth He ratified all they had judged I could give you many other Precedents of latter Date were it not too tedious But this is sufficient to shew that what the Pâ—ers acted in this matter was by the King 's Sole Will and Permission I shall only conclude with one Precedent more in Case of some what alike Nature It is that of Hen. Spencer Bishop of Norwich 7 Rich. 2d who was accused foâ— joyning with the French The Bishop complained what was done against him did not pass by the Assent and Knowledge of the Peers whereupon it was said in Parliament that the Cognisance and Punishment of his Offence did of Câ—mmon Right and Ancient Custom of the Realm of England solely and wholy belong to our Lord the King and no other From all which I infer that the Iudicial Power exercised by the House of Peers is meerly derivative from and Subservient to the Supream Power resiâ—â—ing in the King From whence it also follows that if the Peers have no Power nor Honour but what proceeds from the Prince and that the Commons
of Parliament and Taxed with the rest of the Kingdom as often as there were Laws made and Taxes given when their Bishop or Earl was present which was not so for in the first place as for the County of Chester if the Earl had been the Representative in Parliament of his Tenants by Knights Service or otherwise as also of all the Abbeys and the City of Chester it self and all other great Towns in that County his Vote in Parliament would have obliged all of them and there would have been no need of a Common Council or Parliament of the States of the whole County in which they then made Laws and Taxed themselves as a Separate Body from the rest of the Kingdom as may appear from these following Records which Mr. A. hath given us the first of which is a Writ of K. Edw. I. directed Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus Prioriâ—us Baronibus Militibus omnibus â—liis Fidelibus suis in Comitat. Câ—striae reciting that whereas the Prelates Counts Barons alii de Regno had given him a 15 th of their Moveables He desires that they also would of their Benevolence and Courtesie in Latin Curialitate grant him the like Subsidy which Note could not be done out of a Common Council So likewise in another Writ of the 20 th of this King reciting that whereas the Probi Homines Communitas Cestriae sicut caeteri de Regno nostro 15 mam partem omnium mobilium suorum nobis concesserunt gratiose Now supposing as the Doctor always does that these Probi Homines were the Earls Tenants in Capite what can this word Communitas here signifie but another sort of men distinct from them viz. the Communalty or Commons of that County And which is also remarkable this County was now fallen to the Crown for want of Heirs male of the last Earl and so according to the Doctors notion the King being their sole Representative needed not to have been beholding to them for these Subsidies since tho not as King yet as Earl of Chester he might have Taxed them himself which yet he thought not fit to do because he knew it was contrary to the Rights and Priviledges of that County which had ever since the grant of it to Hugh Lupus by Will I. always been Taxed by themselves Which Priviledges are also expressly set forth in a Supplication of all the Estates of this County Palatine to K. Henry the Sixth which Mr. P. has given us from an Ancient Copy of it then in the hands of Sir Thomas Manwaring of that County Baronet Wherein the Abbots Priors and Clergy Barons Knights Esquires and Commonalty set forth that they with the consent of the Earl did make and admit Laws within the same c. and that no Inheritors or Possessors within the said County were chargeable or lyable or were bounden charged or hurt of their Bodies Liberties Franchises Lands Goods or Possessions unless the said County had agreed unto it Now what can here be meant by County but the Common Council or Parliament thereof since otherwise they could make no Laws nor do any other publick Act The like I may say for the County Palatine of Durham which from the Grant thereof by William Rufus to the then Bishop had always been Taxed by themselves and not by the Bishop in Parliament and that as low as the Reign of Edw. 3. as appears by this Record of the 14 th of that King containing a Letter or Commission to R. Bishop of Durham reciting that whereas the Prelates Earls Barons and the Commons of Counties had given him a 9th of their Goods there mentioned that therefore the Bishops should convene the Magnates Communitatem Libertatis vestrae to wit of his County Palatine ad certum diem locum with all convenient speed and that done to perswade and excite the said Magnates Communitas to grant the King the like or a larger Subsidy or Aid towards the maintainance of his Wars which had been altogether in vain if the Bishop or the King could in those days have Taxed this County at their Pleasure Now if these great Tenants in Capite could not Tax their Mesne Tenants without their consents much less could the rest of the Tenants in Capite in England impose Taxes on their Tenants in Military Service or in Socage without their consents which last had a much less dependance upon them M. I must confess I never considered these Precedents of the County Palatine of Chester and Durham and therefore can say nothing to them at present since it is matter of fact but as to Reason and Law I think it is consonant to both that not only Tenants in Military Service but Socage Tenure should be found by the Acts of their Superior Lords of whom all the Lands of England were formerly held by Knights Service And tho in Process of time many of these Estates and Lands became free Tenements or were holden in Socage that is were Free holders yet the Lords retained Homage which in the times we now write of was no idle insignificant word and by that a Dominion over the Estate whereby upon Disobedience Treachery or Injury done to the Lords c. the Lands were Forfeited to them and although the Lands nor the Tenants of them which were termed Free-holders were subject to any base Services or Servile works yet the Lords had a great Power over these Tenants by reason of their doing Homage to them which tho now antiquated yet eo nomine their Lands were many ways liable to Forfeiture and Taxes too So that upon all thesâ— accounts it was then as reasonable that the Tenants in Capite should in those days make Laws and grant Taxes for all the rest of the Kingdom as the Tenants in Capite in Scotland should do so to this very day for all the Inhabitants of that Kingdom of never so great Estates and to this Argument which is certain in matter of fact you have yet answered nothing nor do I believe can F. I cannot see notwithstanding what you have now said that the Superior Lords by reason of Homage should have an absolute Power over their Tenants Estates For tho in the Profession of Homage to the Lords I grant the Tenant thereby promised to become the Lords Man yet he never thereby meant to become his slave and there were mutual Duties on both sides so that if the Lord failed to protect his Tenant in his Estate or unjustly oppressed him he might have refused nay renounced his Homage till the Lord had done him right nor can I see how a bare right of having the Forfeiture of the Estate in the Cases you have put which yet let me tell you were never so strict in respect of Socage as Military Tenure as I could shew you were it worth while for if this right of Forfeiture alone could give the Superiour Lord a Power over his Tenants Estate to make Laws for
became less necessary we must have recourse to the Bull of Popâ— Boniface the 8 th in the 24 th of Edward I. by which he forbad all the Clergy of the Western Church as well Superior as Inferior to give any more Taxes of Subsidies to Temporal Princes without his Holinesses Licence whereupon the King summoned the Bishops and Clergy to Parliament at St. Edmunds-Bury in the 24 th of â—is Reign where when they then reâ—used to grant him any supplies he then as all the Historians tell us held his Parliaments at Westminister Cum Baronibus suis excluso Clero without either Bishops Abbots or Inferior Clergy which was the first Precedent of this kind that we ever read of in this Parliament the King with the consent of the Lay Lords and Commons seized all the Temporalities of the Clergy as well Bishops as others and put them out of his Protection untill they were forced to redeem themselves by paying a 5 th part of their Moveables for doing of which they were afterward forced to procure the Popes Absolutions some of which Mr. Pryn has given us in this said Register and yet for all this the Pope maintain'd this Power over the Clergy for the future so that they could not be taxed without his express License which since it could not always be obtained no wonder if our Kings did more frequently omit summoning any more than the Bishops and Abbots who were bound to appear in Parliament by their Tenures and so left out all the Inferior Clergy as useless the main business and cause of their summoning to Parliament viz. giving of Money being now taken away by the Popes usurped Power tho whenever his Licence was obtain'd yet that their own express Consents in Parliaments or Convocation was necessary appears by that Passage in the Annals of Burton in Anno 1255. already cited when the Inferior Clergy being extravagantly opprest between the Pope and King they sent express Messengers when they met in Parliament who were to set forth their greivances to his Holiness I have given you as good an account as I am able how the Inferior Clergy which as well as the Superior did once make a Constituent part of our great Councils before the Conquest nay for above 200 Years after did at last cease to be so partly by the prevailing Power of the Bishops partly by the Usurpation of the Pope tho chiefly by their own silence and consent not complaining of their want of Summons to Parliament as long as they could 'scape scot free and all the rest of the Kingdom pay Taxes notwithstanding which the clause of their Acting and Consulting with all the rest of the Estates in Parliament still remaining in the Writs of Summons is a sufficient Monument to Posterity to prove their ancient Right And the Clergy of the lower House of Convocation was so sensible of this that among certain Petitions by them made to Dr. Cranmer then Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of the Prelates in the higher House of Convocation in the Reign of King Edward the 6th the 2 d Article of which runs thus Also that according to the ancient Custom of the Realm and the Tenor of the Kings Writ for summoning of the Parliament which now and ever have been directed to the Bishop of every Diocess the Clergy of the lower House of Convocation may be adjoyned and associate with the lower House of Parliament or else that all such Statutes and Ordinances as shall be made concerning all matters of Religion and causes Ecclesiastical may not pass without the sight and assent of the Clergy and there is in the same place a second Petition as also a Paper of Reasons offered to Queen Elizabeth and after to King Iames to the same effect And lastly to shew you that the Government of the Church and State of Scotland was anciently all one and the same in respect of their Clergy as well as Laity with that of England in their great Councils or Parliaments appears by the Agreement between King Edward the â— and the States of Scotland concerning the Marriage of his Son Prince Edward with the Princess of Norway then Heiress of Scotland which is publisht at large in Mr. Pryns 1 st Vol. of the Popes Usurpation where you will find this Agreement to have been made between the said King Edward ex una parte venerabiles Patres custodes scil Scotiae Episcopos Abbates totum Clerum nobiles viros Comites Barones totamque communitatem Regni Scotiae ex altera de matrimonio contrabendo c. From whence you may observe that as the same stile was observed there in the Titles of their general Councils or Parliaments as with us and as the Inferior Clergy there put after the Bishops and Abbots did not hold in Capite but frank Abnoign in that Kingdom So likewise by the same Analogy between the lowest Temporal State with the Spiritual the Commonalty of Scotland here stiled Communitas Scotiae could not then consist onely of Tenants in Capite as your Dr. and those of this Opinion suppose it did M. I must confess you have shewn me more for the Inferior Clergies being once a Constituent part of the Parliament than ever I knew before I will take time farther to consider them but that the word Populus must needs then take in any more than the Tenants in Capite I much doubt since the other word Plebs which you so much insist upon from the old Book of Ely signifies no more than Populus which as the Dr. shews us in his Glossary In it self signifies neither Great nor little People but only Laity and therefore as it is used and restrained signifies either the Lay Plebs or the Lay Magnates as I can shew you by several Examples as particularly out of Mat. Westminster Ann. Dom. 1295. 23 d Edward I. where speaking how the Popes Legates were received in England who came to make up the differences between England and France He thus relates their Reception Quos in Regnâ— Angliae applicatos excepit Plebs debito honore accita per Regem apud Westmonasterium Primatum Optimatum suorum Caterva Here the Plebs were the Kings Great or Chief Men that is the Earls and Barons which he had called to Westminster who so honourably received these two Cardinals So likewise the same Author Ann. Dom. 1297. 25. Edward I. The King and Barons being at some difference about the Observation of Magna Charta and the Charter of Forrest speaking how the King declared that he intended to observe those Charters after this he relateâ— that the King thereupon required to be given him by the Incolae or Inhabitants the eighth Penny and says thus Articulos in praedictis Chartis Contentos innovari insuper observari Rex Mandavit exigendo pro hac Concessione ab Incolis Octavum denarium sibi dari qui mox Concessus est a Plebe in sua
of their and succeeding times had ever heard any thing of Dr. Brady's Annus Mirabilis or 49th of Henry 3d. which was but 43 years before the Reign of Edward 2. his Grand-child and little above 60 years before that of Edward his great Grand-son M. Well notwithstanding all this whosoever will reflect upon what the Doctor hath writ may suspect that the Judges nay Parliaments were very ignorant in the History of this Nation or that they spoke out of design And it is a great Argument that the Lawyers studied and knew only Popular and Lucrative Law and not the Constitutions of the Nation before their own time And tho' I must confess what you have now said may seem to me to carry some weight with it yet since I do not easily change my Opinion upon the first hearing of a new Argument or Authority give leave better to consider what you have said but in the mean time since you have now mentioned the German Dyets pray Sir before we leave off shew me what you undertook to prove at the first entrance on this Subject viz. that in all the great Councils or Assemblies of Estates in Europe which are derived from the Germans and Goths there are found Representatives for the Plebeians or Commons distinct from the Clergy and greater and lesser Nobility F. I readily agree to your desires but since my own Notes concerning this matter are very long and that I have them not about me pray give me leave to make use of the Authority of Dr. Heylin an Author you have no reason to look upon aâ— partial since he was not only remarkable for his great skill in History but also as being a great Friend and Disciple to Sir Robert â—ilmer in Politicks was a vehement assertor of Absolute Monarchy and an utter Enemy to the Power of Parliaments yet this very person in his Treatise called The Stumbling of Disobedience and Rebellion c. printed 1658. in his 5th Chapter I have already quoted for the Inferiour Clergy's being anciently a part of the great Council or Parliament of the Kingdom proves the Uniformity of the three Estates to have been the same in all the Christian Kingdoms on this side of Europe he runs thorough them all beginning with Germany which I shall contract because he there says a great many other things not so material to our present purpose And first beginning as of right with the German Empire Thuanus gives this Note in general Imperium in tria omnino membra dividitur that the Empire is divided into three Estates over all which the Emperor is the Head or Supreme Prince Of these the first Estate is ex sacro Ordine of the holy Hierarchy composed of the three Spiritual Electors together with the residue of the Arch bishops and Bishops and many Abbots Priors and other Prelates The second is of the Nobility consisting of the three Temporal Electors the Dukes Marquesses Lanâ—graves Bâ—tgraves Earls and Barons of which there is no determinate number the Emperor having power to add daily to them as he sees occasion The third Estate is of the free or Imperial Cities in number sixty or thereabouts who represâ—â—t themselves at the General Diâ—ts by such Commissioners or Deputies as are authorized to that purpose Next pass we over into France and there we find the Subjects marshalled into three Estates whereof the Clergy is the first Rex coactis tribus Ordinibas Sacerdotio Nobilitate Plebe subsidia rei pecuniariae petiit So Paulus Aemilius doth inform us Out of these three are chosen certain Delegates or Commissioners some for each Estate as often as the King's occasions do require their meeting the time and place whereof is absolutely left unto his disposing and these thus me do make up the Conventus Ordinum or L' Assemblie des Estats as the French men call it in form much like the English Parliament and of the meeting of these three Estates not only this Author but all the other French Historians and in particular Phil. de Commines make frequent mention Pass we next over the Pyrenâ—â—s to the Realms of Spain and we shall find in each the same three Estates whose meeting they call there by the name of Curia the Court 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of eminency consisting of the Clergy the Nobility and the Commisioners of the Provinces and most Ancient Cities For proof of which we need but look into the General History of Spain translated out of French by Grimston and we shall find a Court of Parliament for the Realm of Aragon consisting of the Bishops Nobles and Deputies of Towns and Commonalties having place in the said Estates convened by K. Iames at Saragassa Anno 1325. for setling the Succession and declaring the right Heir Also for Castile we find a Parliament of Lords Prelates and Deputies of Towns summoned at Toledo by Alfonso the Noble Anno 1210. upon occasion of an Invasion made by the Moores another before that at Burgos under the same King Anno 1179. for levying of Money on the People to maintain the Wars Also that great Convention of the States held at Toledo by Ferdinand the Catholick 1479. for swearing to the Succession of his Son Don Iohn in which the Prelates the Nobility and almost all the Towns and Cities which sent Comissioners to the Assemblâ— are expresly named Thus finally do we find a Meeting of the Deputies of the three Estates of Navarre at the Town of Tosalla Anno 1481. for preserving the Kingdom in obedience to King Francis Plâ—eoâ—s being then a Minor under age and for Portugal that the Deputies of the Clergy Nobility Provinces and good Towns of Portugal assembled at Tomaâ—a Anno 15â—1 to acknowledge Philip the second for their King and to settle the Government of that Kingdom for the times to come Now let us take a view of the Northern Kingdoms and still we find the People ranked in the self same manner and their great Councels to consist of the Clergy the Nobility and certain Deputies sent from the Provinces and Cities as in those before In Hungary before that Realm received the Gospel we read of none but Nobiles Plebeii the Nobility and common People who did concur to the Election of their Kings but no sooner was the Faith of Christ admitted and a Clergy instituted but instantly we find a third Estate Episcopos Sacerdotum Collegia Bishops and others of the Clergy super added to them for the Election of the Kings and the dispatch of other businesses which concerned the publick as it continueth to this day In Danemark we shall find the same if we mark it well For though Pontanus seem to count upon five Estates making the Regal Family to be the first and subdividing the Commons into two whereof the Yeomanry makes one and the Trades man or Ciâ—izen the other yet in the body of the History we find only three which
have made use of to wit Rex habet Superiorem Legem Curiam suam viz. Comites Barones c. who ought if he transgress the Law to put a Bridle upon him yet by this as I have already proved neither Bracton nor Fleta could mean any co-active â—orce but only a Moral restraint upon the King by Petitions Remonstrances or denial of aids till he would be Reform'd by fair means but that it does not go farther appears by the parrallel Bracton there makes between our Saviour Christ and the Virgin Mary who being both free from the Law of Moses yet voluntarily chose to be obedient to it which sufficiently proves that those Authors never designed that the Parliament should oblige the King by force or whether He would or no to amend his faults since that was as you your self must acknowledge against their very institution since both their meeâ—ing and their dissolution wholly depend upon the Kings Will. F. I confess you have made a long and elaborate speech in answer to my notion that a King may forfeit his Crown that is by his own act cease to be King but I shall be able to give you a satisfactory answer to all this if you please to take it In the first place therefore I cannot but observe that all your Discourse depends upon two Principles alike false first that no absolute Monarch can by his own act forfeit or lose his right to the Government without a formal resignation of the Crown or secondly that the Kings of England have ever been such absolute Monarchs which if they are both great mistakes all that you have said on this head falls of it self Now that a King tho' an absolute Monarch may do such an act as shall make a forfeiture of his Crown without any solemn resignation of it you your self are forced to allow in the two cases you have put viz. that of such a Monarchs becoming an Enemy to his People and going about to destroy them and that of his making over his Kingdom to another without the Peoples consent now if the diffusive body of the People in an absolute Government can judge of these two cases whenever they happen without appealing to any General Council or Assembly of the whole Nation I desire to know why it may not be as easie and lawful for the People to judge without a Parliament when the fundamental Laws of the constitution are generally and wilfully broken and violated and that violation persisted in by the King for the introduction of Tyranny and an Arbitrary Government since the Rules I have laid down to know it are but a few and easie to be known and judged of by the most common capacities Now that a Superiour or Governour may lose all that power and authority he once had and that without any act of the party governed may appear by those great and natural relations of a Husband and a Master in the former of which if a Husband in the state of nature use his Wife so cruelly that she can no longer live or co-habit with him without danger of her Life I doubt not but she may quit him and may also when she is out of his Power Marry her self again to another Man that will use her better so in the other relation of a Master if such a one in the state of Nature have a Slave and will not allow him sufficient Cloaths Victuals or will beat him or use him so cruelly for no just cause that he cannot enjoy the ordinary comforts of Life no man will deny but that such a slave may lawfully run away from such a Master and â—s at liberty either to live of himself or to chuse another Master if he think good and this instance is much more strong in an hired Servant who is to serve his Master for such and such Wages or to do such and such Work and no other if in this case the Master refuse to pay him his Wages or put him to do other work than what was agreed upon between them or instead of an hired Servant will make him his absolute Slave in these cases no man can doubt but by this unjust treatment of the Master the Servant is discharged of his Service and may go whether he pleases and of these actions I have already proved at our first meeting the party injured be they Wife or Servant must be the only Judges in the state of Nature where there is no Civil Power over them or else if the Husband or Master shall Judge for himself the Wife or Servant is never like to get any Redress apply this to the case of a limited or conditional King and his Subjects and see if it be not absolutely the same upon the total breach of the Original constitution of the Government and whether the Bond of Allegiance is not then as absolutely dissolved by the sole act of the Prince without any authoritative power in the Subjects as it is in the case of such a Wife or Servant by the sole Act of the Husband or Master without any Superior Authority in such Wife or Servant to quit them and so to discharge themselves of their Wedlock or Service Therefore as to your accusation that my notion is worse than that of the Rump Parliament that put the King to death I deny it for they supposed that there was no way of being rid of a Tyrannical King but by making the People and consequently the Parliament as their Representatives his Superiours or Judges to call him to an account and Judge and Punish him for his Tyranny this I abhor as much as your self for I grant that a King cannot be properly the Supream and at the same time own another Power above him to Punish or call him to an Account for his Miscarriages but this Power that I insist on is not as I have all along told you a power of punishment but a right of resistance for self-defence in the first place and of Judging and Declaring the King to have forfeited his Crown or Right to Govern if he persist in his Tyranny without any amendment or satisfaction given to the People Nor is this Doctrine of the Peoples thus Judging for themselves so dangerous as that of the Rumpers as you suppose who put this right of Judging when the King had thus forfeited his Power in the Parliament of which they thought themselves the only lawful or necessary Members but indeed it was not so for they still supposed him to be their lawful King and yet at the same pretended to Arraign him as you may see by the Title of the Charge or Indictment they drew up against him all which I grant to be altogether unjust and illegal but it is not more but rather less dangerous to put this power of Judging when the King has thus dissolved the Government and forfeited his Crown upon such notorious and wilful breaches of the Fundamental Laws in the whole or diffusive body
not because he kept a Kingdom bequeathed to him by K. Edward since some Writers relate this King named not him but Harold for his Successor tho' others say that he recommended Edgar to the good will of the English Nobility So that the only true and just cause D. William had of making War upon Harold was his breaking the Promises and Oath he had not long before made him of securing the Kingdom of England for him upon the Death of K. Edward instead of doing which he had seized it for himself and which is worse refused to restore it or so much as to hold it of Duke William as his Homager So that tho' for the strengthning of his own Tide he pretended to the Will or Donation of King Edward and to avoid the envy of the name might out of modesty or to put a better colour upon this matter refuse to take the Title of Conqueror and to insist upon the Donation of K. Edward yet nothing is plainer than that he could claim by no other Title but the Sword and that he looked upon himself as no other than an Absolute Conqueror may appear by these great and evident instances 1. His change of the English Laws and introducing the Norman Customs in their stead and also changing the Tenures of Lands not only of the Layety but also of the Bishops and greater Abbeys 2. By his debarring all those of the English Nation from enjoying any Honour Office or Preferment either in Church or State and also in taking away the Estates of all the Nobility and Gentry not only from those of their Heirs that had been slain in the Battle of Hastings but also of the rest so that they had left them but what they could purchase of those Norman or French Noblemen to whom King Wiiliam had given their Lands as a reward of their good service for the proof of both which Assertions I have so very good authority on my side and that of Writers of or near those times in which these things were done that I think no indifferent man can have any cause to doubt the matter of Fact to have been as I relate it nor did he by any after act ever renounce this right of Conquest as you suppose much less refer it to the Election of the English or Normans since the former were not in a condition to make any farther resistance against him the Clergy and great men of the Kingdom having been forced to submit themselves to him without any other precedent conditions or stipulations than for the saving of their lives and as for the Normans they were his Subjects and they Conquered the Kingdom only for his use and benefit as his Souldiers and Vassalâ— and it is not likely he would owe the Kingdom which he had thus acquired by the Sword to their Votes or Election neither does any Author that I know of mention any Election before his Coronation when tho' it is true he took such an Oath as you mention yet it was in too general terms to bind him to any observation of the ancient English Laws much less to preserve their Rights and Priviledges farther than he thought fit and therefore could never take the Crown upon your Conditions of Resistance or Forfeiture in case of any alteration in that which you call the Fundamental Constitution This being the true matter of Fact without any disguise it is easie to answer all that you have said against K. William's requiring an Absolute Hereditary Right to the Crown of England for himself and all his descendants by the Sword first then as to the Justice of the War and Conquest it self I suppose you will not deny but that Duke William had a good cause of War against Harold for the breach of his Oath and if so against all that took his part at the Battle of Hastings so that upon the Conquest of Harold and those that were in that Fight he also acquired a Right by Conquest to all that they enjoyed and consequently had a right to Harold's Crown as well as his other Estate as also to the Estates of all those that were either slain or escaped alive from that Battle and not only to these but also to all the Lands of the whole Kingdom since the War was made not only against Harolds Person but against the Kingdom of England the People of which according to their Allegiance assisted him in that War either with Men or Money but admitting the War to have been in it self never so unjust yet all Writers on this Subject even Grotius and Pufendorf agree that Conquest even in an unjust War with a thorough settlement in the Conqueror and his Successors by the non claim dereliction submission or exstinction of the next Heirs of the former Kings together with a long uninterrupted possession beyond all time of memory will confer as good a Title especially when all these confirmed by a constant submission and recognition of the People testified not only at the first Conquest but in all succeeding times by as absolute and unconditioned Oaths of Allegiance as can be invented or that were ever taken to the most Absolute Monarch and such Oaths are always to be interpreted in favour of the Prince to whom they are sworn and as strictly against the People that take them as all Writers also agree now granting this to be the case of K. William the Conqueror that by all or some of these means he acquired a right to the Crown not only for himself but his Heirs this Power was Absolute without any conditions to be observed on their part for the Oath of Allegiance is positive without any condition or restriction so that I can see no manner of pretence that the People of this Nation can have of forcing their K's to the maintenance or observation of those rights and priviledges which they or their Predecessors have so freely granted to them or their Ancestors As Pusendorf whom you now cited very rightly observes and consequently can have no right to repel force by force since our Kings do not now hold their Crown by force or right of Conquest alone but by all things required by the Law of Nations to create a full and absolute right viz. a long uninterrupted Possession and the Absolute submission of the People for themselves and all their descendants so that tho' I grant bare conquest considered as a Force can give no right alone yet it may often be the Mother of Right and may at last grow to a Right by the means I have already mentioned F. Before I reply any thing farther to what you have now said to the matter of Right acquired by your Conqueror and his Heirs pray in the first place prove the matter of Fact to have been as you lay it and therefore produce your quotations from the Authors you mention but first give me leave to tell you that Dr B. and you are the first I have heard to
its Original to Conquest but either to a long possession the Extinction or at least Dereliction of the right Heirs together with the consent of the People to confirm their Titles So that it is not only my Opinion but that of the most Learned Writers in your own faculty such as Grotius and Pufendoâ—f that Conquest alone though in the justest War can confer no Right over a Free People without their recognition or consent I have added of a Free People because I much doubt upon the Conquest of a Kingdom or Territory as for example where the People do own themselves meer slaves to their Sultan Whether their consents be at all necessary or not since they fall to the Victor as the movable goods of the Prince Conquered But then the Power he has over them is not properly a Civil Authority but that of a Lord over his Slaves And hence it is that in all Kingdoms and Territories obtained by Conquest among us in Europe Princes do not think themselves to have any Title to their Subjects Allegiance before they have acknowledged them for their Lawful Soveraignâ— by some publick Act either of the Estates or Representatives of the Kingdom or else by the particular Oaths of all the chief Subjects or Inhabitants of those places M. I shall not at present dispute this point any farther with you but yet there remains one great difficulty behind concerning the manner of Gods conferring this Supream Power upon Princes and States For you your self have already granted that the Power of Fathers and Masters of Families is not of the kind but somewhat specifically different from Civil Power or Authority And if so since they had not this Civil Power in themselves I cannot see how they could confer it upon another since nemo dat quod non habet And therefore there still seems a necessity of Gods conferring a new Power upon that Prince or upon those Persons whom they shall pitch upon to Rule over them F. I hope I shall as easily remove this difficulty if you will please to consider the manner how God confers this Civil Authority upon men which is certainly by Natural Means and is to be found out by Natural Reason without any Divine Revelation since Civil Government was instituted and men were obliged to obey it long before the old Testament was written But the true Original of it is thus to be traced First It is without doubt that right Reason sufficiently taught Mankind when it began to multiply and that they were sensible from the great wickedness and corruptions of mens Natures that their common peace and safety could not be well maintained unless Common-Wealths were instituted which could not subsist without a Supream Authority placed in some one or more persons This being a dictate of the Law of Nature or Right Reason and so highly conducing to the good of Mankind it must needs owe its Original to God the Author of all Truth and the Giver of every good and perfect Gift From whence it follows that not only the Institution of Common-Wealths themselves but also the Supream Power with which they are indued do's not proceed meerly from men but from Gods command exprest by the Law of Nature or Right Reason So that the same Legislator who first prescribed Civil Society also prescribed the order of that Society but a Supream Civil Authority either in one or more persons is the Life and Soul thereof without which it cannot Live or Subsist Now it is certain that those things are not only said to proceed from God which he immediately Institutes without any human act intervening but those also which men by the conduct of Right Reason and according to their present occasions and necessities have introduc'd to fulfil that Obligation that lay upon them to promote the common good and safety of Mankind and since in a promiscuous ungoverned multitude that great Law of Nature which prescribes the publick Peace and Concord of Mankind cannot well be exercised the unruliness of mens passions considered nor be well maintain'd without some Supream Civil Authority to keep men in order it is plain that God who enjoyn'd men this do's also command that Civil Societies should not be only Instituted but their Authority also obeyed as derived from himself and as the necessary means of obtaining this great end of all the Laws of Nature the common good and safety of Mankind and hence it is that he hath not any where prescribed or instituted any particular Form of Government but leaves the choice of it to the particular Genius and Temper of each Nation and People This being setled your Objection is easily answered how Civil power can be conferr'd without an immediate conferring of it from God since the people in the state of Nature had it not before which proceeds from your not considering that this Supream Authority is not like the Soul of Man an immaterial form that gives knowledge and understanding to the Body and may be separated from it but is only a moral quality which may be produc'd by the mutual consent of those that institute it as the productive cause thereof tho' they had it not formally in themselves before just as from many Voices singing in Consort though in different Tones there arises a Harmony which was not in any single Voloe alone Therefore since Civil Authority proceeds from the non-resistance of the Subjects and their Concession that the Supream Powers should freely dispose of their Bodies and Goods for the publick safetâ— it plainly appears that in each particular Master of a Family and Freeman there lay though hidden and disperst the seeds or rudiments of Supream Power which by mutual Compacts did afterwards grow into a perfect Civil Authority And thus not only many Masters of Families and Freemen may combine together for their mutual safety to erâ—ct a Common-wealth by appointing one or many men to rule over them for their mutual safety but it is not impossible but that from the Government of a Master of a Family having many Villages and Slaves under his power there may â—ise â— perfect Kingdom for though Paternal power do's chiefly respect the Education of Children and that of a Master the Government of Servanâ—â— for his own advanâ—â—gâ— yet is there not so great a distance between the power of a Master of a Family and Civil Authority that there can be no passing from one to the other without a new Authority immediately created by God for that purpose for suppose a Master of a Family having a numerous train of Children and Servants should permit both of them by way of emancipation or manumission to enjoy such a portion of Lands or other Goods to their own use as also to Govern their own private Families and Affairs as they shall think fit provided they will still obey him and contribute the utmost assistance of their Lives and Fortunes for the publick safety I cannot see any thing that would be
the Government in the unsetled state it is in to follow Cromwell's Example and to impose no Oaths of Allegiance at all since the Government may be as secure without it as for all that I can see they can be with it and as it is now managed I see little it can serve for but to distinguish and divide us one from another and besides its being a snare to the Consciences of so many that take it it is like also to prove the ruine of divers of our Bishops and other honest Men both of the Clergy and Laity who will certainly rather lose their Dignities and Imployments than ever take it which will also cause a great Schism in the Church as I doubt you will find when it is too late whereas if these men might have held their Bishopricks and all other Preferments and Offices without having this Oath impos'd upon them I doubt not but they would serve both the Church and State in their several stations according to their duties and as far as lawfully they could F. I cannot deny but you have spoken very honestly and like a good English Man in many things you have now said in case your intentions towards the present Government were real as your words are fair and therefore I cannot wonder that you have been formerly a stiff asserter of the lawfulness and necessity of the Oath of Allegiance should now be for taking it quite away now it grows too hard for you self and those of your Opinion to digest As if to oblige Subjects to defend their Governours were a necessary security for your rightful Princes but were unnecessary for those whom you shall think fit to suppose to be Usurpers And though I confess I must very much pity the over-nice Principles of those of your way who are truly peaceable and consciencious and are like to be ruin'd by their refusal of it yet for all that I very much doubt whether it would be for the best to take this Oath quite away since it would make a strange alteration in the Government to admit all persons into ordinary Charges much less into Imployments of Trust and Profit without taking any Oath at all Your only Objections against it are these First that you doubt that it is unlawful to impose promissary Oaths and the next is that it will not perform the end for which it is intended viz. to distinguish those who will serve the Government faithfully and those that will not since you confess that a great many who are not at all satisfied in their Consciences will for interest not only hold their old Imployments but will also take new ones under it which I grant is not to be avoided if men will venture to be damned So likewise on the other side I must tell you that the quite taking away the Oath of Allegiance will not at all mend the matter but make it much worse since then not only those whose Consoiences will give them leave to take the Oaths but also those who think they ought not to take them will be alike capable of Imployments and when they are in them though I grant they may be both alike free to act as they please against the present Government and for restoring of King Iames yet I must needs tell you for all that that I am much more fearful of the ill will or malice of those who think themselues oblig'd in Conscience to overthrow the present settlement and who continue stiff to their first Principles than of those who will so far comply with this present Government and their own interest as to take the new Oath of Allegiance in whatever sence they please for I am very well satisfied that such men though they are not so right for the Government as I could wish them yet either fear of punishment or else the consideration of their own self-interest will always make them desire to retain those Imployments they have already got since they can never be assured of bettering their Condition under King Iames and a Popish Government should he ever return whereas those that are bigotted to Principles will always think it their duty by vertue of this notion of a Natural Allegiance as well as their former Oath to endeavour to restore him by all the ways and means that can ever lie in their power But as for the unlawfulness of a promissory Oath since you your self speak doubtfully of it and few Casuists except Grotius have been of that Opinion I think it is not safe to quit our antient Laws which particularly prescribe that not only all Magistrates and Officers but also all other of the Kings Subjects should take the old Oath of Fidelity or Allegiance as we now stile it in the Court Leet or Sheriffs Torne when they come to the Age of fourteen years which Oath as appears by what we can find of it in Edward the Confessors and King William's Laws which we have already recited as also you may find it in Sir H. Spelman's Glossary Tit. Fidelitas was made to the King as their Leige Lord of Life and Limb and which implies an active Obedience to defend him against all his Enemies without any exception of such as may claim by Inheritance or right of Blood Now this being so I cannot be perswaded that the Government ought to quit any lawful means whereby it may preserve it self and distinguish those who would really serve it from those who will not and though perhaps the Government may find it self mistaken in its account in some Men whose Consciences are large enough to swallow any Oath whatsoever yet I think I may still safely maintain that it is still in less danger from a few such Libertines than from those of your Opinion who would not only keep their Places under this Government but will also continue in a perfect state of War against it let them be treated never so kindly and therefore as to those dreadful Consequences of Schisms in the Church and the lessening and dividing our Party as to the former we must run the hazard of it since it was never heard of that the Bishops who are in some respects Temporal Barons held their Bishopricks under any King since the Conquest without owning his Authority And I can also shew you that the King and Parliament have either actually deprived or else declared such Bishops Traytors to the Government So that if any such a Schism be made it will proceed from a scandal unjustly taken by some scrupulous Men and not by the Government And as for the other inconvenience I think it is much safer for the Government to imploy fewer Men then by not knowing who are Friends or Foes to trust all promiscuously though perhaps notwithstanding their utmost care some Men of little or no Consciences will places in this as well as they have done formerly which can by no other means be prevented as I know off but by chusâ—ing Men of honest Principles
extremity or else that the King should be thus invested with an irresistible Power of doing whatever he pleased with us I durst leave to any indifferent person to judge M. I confess you have told me more concerning the History of this Oath than ever I knew before but let the legal sense of it be what it will and setting aside the Precepts in Scripture for absolute Submission without any resistance I think I am able to prove from your own grand Topick of the common good and preservation of Mankind that it is much better to submit to the worst and greatest Tyrant that ever was than to resist him if he be our lawful Prince for if you consider what is the Subject of all Humane Happiness and Contentment it is certainly life now what Tyrant ever in his whole Reign destroyed so many Mens lives by force or unjust Prosecutions as a Civil War if carried on with violence and animosity does in a years time so vast a distance there is between the Evils of Tyranny and Rebellion and so much is the Remedy worse than the Disease the Cruelty of a Tyrant says one is like a Clap of Thunder it strikes with great terrour but Civil War is like an Inundation it sweeps away all before it without noise Thus one Man brought to the Scaffold by the Arbitrary Command of a Tyrant makes more noise than ten Thousand killed in the Field in a Civil War but that does not make the Evil the less but the greater Evil while we are made willing to destroy our selves and do it more effectually in one day than the bloodiest Tyrant could find in his heart to do in his whole Reign All the men put to death by the Arbitrary Commands of Tyrants since the beginning of the World in all the Kingdoms of it will not amount to half the number of those who have perish'd in the Roman or English Civil Wars so much safer are we in God's hands than in our own and in theirs under whom God hath placed us and tho' he often makes them like the Sun and Sea tho' highly useful in themselves scourges for our Sins yet he has promised to keep their hearts in his hand and to turn them as seemeth best unto him we have more Promises of safety there than when we are delivered over to the Beasts of the People whose madness David compares to the raging of the Sea In short The strict Restraint of the People by Government is their truest Liberty and Freedom since if they were at Liberty from Government they would be exposed to Combat one another which would be worse than the greatest slavery in the World the great mistake is in the foolish Notion we have of Liberty which generally is thought to consist in being free from the lash of Government as School-boys from their Master and proves in the consequence only a Liberty to destroy each other and yet it is for such a Liberty as this that men most commonly begin Civil Wars and fall a cutting of each others Throats Therefore tho' I grant it were much better for all Princes to let their Subjects live happily and enjoy a competent share of Ease and Plenty but on the other side if they will not permit them so to do but will tyrannically oppress them it were much better for them to sit down contented with poverty nay slavery it self rather than to destroy so great part of a Nation as may be lost in a Civil War whenever it begins Thus even the Poet Lucan tho' of Cato's party reckoning up the Miseries of the Civil Wars of Rome which were all for Liberty as if envying the happy Condition of those who lived under absolute Tyrants crys out Faelices Arabes Medioque Aeaque Tellus Quos sub perpetuis tenuerunt Fata Tyrannis I could give you instances of the truth of this in most Nations enough to make a History and if such a History were written of the Mischiefs of this false and pretended Liberty and good of the people I durst undertake the Comparison that more visible Mischiefs come upon the people more destruction of the publick good and greater loss of Liberty and Property by this one Method than by all the Tyranny and Violence of Mankind put together and consequently that there is no Comparison 'twixt the Evils of Tyranny and of a Civil War for publick good and that the Mischiefs of this pretence of publick good is infinitely less tolerable and a more Universal Ruine to the people than any Tyranny of lawful Governors that ever was in the World whereas this is by many degrees the greatest and most lawless Tyranny and always brings greater mischief along with it such as Confusion Rapin Violence Contempt of all Laws and legal Establishments with more intolerable Evils of all sorts than those it pretends to remedy But of all pretences for Rebellion Religion is the most ridiculous since a Man's Religion can never be taken from him or a false one imposed upon him whether he will or not and also because a Civil War introduces greater immorality and more loosens the Reins of Discipline and is more contrary to the Spirit of true Religion than any other Thing in the World true Religion is not propagated by the Sword it is a small still Voice that cannot be heard in War War confounds it and debauches it the most profligate and licentious Court bears no proportion in wickedness to the lewdness blasphemy and contempt of all that is Sacred which reigns and overflows in Camps It was an old and true Saying Nulla sides Pietasque viris qui Castra sequuntur F. I see when neither the Scripture nor the Law can justifie your absurd Doctrine of Passive Obedience then you fly back to your old Topick the Law of Nature and common good of Mankind I allow your Principles but not the deductions you draw from thence which are indeed but Paralogisms as I will shew you by and by but I see there is nothing so false and absurd which Prejudice and Education will not make men swallow I confess you have made a long and ingenious Harangue in a Commendation of the Benefits of Tyranny and Slavery which had you done only for an exercise of your Wit I should have ranked it with Cardan's Panegyrick of Nero and the praise of the Government but if you vent such Notions in good earnest I cannot forbear shewing you the absurdity of them First therefore admitting what you say for truth that a Civil War does destroy more men in one Battel than the greatest Tyrant hath ever done in his whole Reign Is this an Argument that no man may defend either his Life or Liberty against Arbitrary Power if this were true Reason it were the greatest folly in the World for the Poles or any other Nation that are at Wars with the Tartars ever to resist them for their Emissaries might thus make use of your Argument to make them submit to
them Life is the only state of Happiness in this World and without which nothing can be enjoyed It is therefore better for you to be made Slaves than to venture a Battel for in the Fight God knows how many of you may be destroyed whereas if you quietly submit we promise to hurt none of you we will only carry you away and sell you for Slaves and sure Slavery is better than Death for even Slaves enjoy a great many Comforts of life tho' with some hardships and you may be redeemed again or make your escape but life once lost can never be recovered The same Argument a Tyrant may use for the exercise of his Arbitrary Power over mens lives that he will not nay cannot destroy the whole Nation but only use them as Butchers 〈◊〉 their Sheep cull out the fattest and let the poor ones live thrive and grow fat till they are likewise ready for the Knife This perhaps may be a proper life for those Beasts that cannot live without Man's protection but what man of any courage or sense would be willing to live under a Government where his Poverty was to be his only Protection who would not venture his life in one brisk Battel rather than live in such a vile and slavish Condition and who would not rather argue thus It is great odds if among so many Thousands I am the person ordained for Death or if I am I may perhaps purchase Victory for my Countrymen and Liberty for my Posterity but let the worst happen I venture my life for the publick good and it is better once to die than always to live in fear But if the Calculation of the number of mens lives that may be lost in the recovery or maintaining any right whatever should be the only rule to render War either reasonable or lawful I doubt whether most of the Wars Princes make for small Territories or Punctilio's of Honour as lowering the Flag for example nay even for the recovery of their Crowns when unjustly detained or taken from them can upon your principle ever justifie either Princes in Conscience to make such Wars or oblige Subjects in prudence according to your Rule of the publick good to fight in such quarrels since none of them but often cost more Lives to defend or regain them if lost than the things are worth that the Princes of the World usually make War about against each other But if you tell me that men are bound by the Law of God and of their Country to assist their Prince in any Wars he shall Command them without inquiring into the Consequences of it and let what will happen as to the loss of mens Lives Estates or Liberties that we are likewise to obey and submit to lawful Princes because let them tyrannize enslave or destroy us never so much yet God has put us into their hands and we are safe in God's hands whilst we are in theirs This is all a meer fallacy for what is this to your main Argument from the destruction of Mankind for if so many men are to lose their lives in the War what difference is it as to them whether the War be made by a lawful or unlawful Power it is still upon this Principle unlawful to be made and consequently unlawful to be fought for and if you once grant that Princes may tyrannize without resistance kill or enslave any of their Subjects what difference is it as to the people that are to suffer it whether he be a lawful Prince or a Tyrant or Usurper that does it for as for being delivered by God into the hands of a lawful Prince to be dealt withal as he shall think good it is all meer Jargon pray prove to me if you can that whil'st a Prince thus tyrannizes oppresses and enslaves his people that God ever thus deliver'd the people into his hand for that design or that whil'st he does so he acts as God's Minister This I have urged you to prove at our 4th meeting but since you could not do it I take the case for desperate But to answer your Comparisons of the Sun and Sea to which you compare lawful Princes that turn Tyrants they are as easily retorted upon you if the rays of the Sun are too hot we may resist them and put on thicker Cloaths or set up shelters to defend our selves from them the like we may say of his malignant Influences or Effects upon mens Bodies could there be any means found out as easily to avoid them So likewise for the Sea suppose the breaking in of it upon any Country to be sent by God for their Sins you will not say it is unlawful for the people to make Banks or Dikes or use any other natural means to keep it out or to drain it away and the case is the same as to Tyranny for if resistance be as natural a means against it as these I have mentioned are against the too violent heat of the Sun or breaking in of the Sea I cannot see why we may not as lawfully exercise it But since we are â—alking of Waters this puts me in mind of the place you have now cited out of Proverbs That the heart of the King is in the hand of the Lord which without doubt is a great truth but then you should have added what immediately follows as the Rivers of Waters he turneth it whithersoever he will now how does God turn Rivers of waters it is not by any super-natural means but either by a strong VVind or else by the hands of Men. So likewise that Solomon's Comparison of God's turning the Hearts of Kings like Waters is but an allusion to the Custom of those Eastern Countries that as a Gardiner draws the streams of water through the trenches he cuts into what part of the Garden he thinks good so doth God turn the Hearts of Princes to act or do quite contrary to their first intentions nay to what they have actually done before but how is this performed it is only as he makes use of the Gardiner to turn the streams of Water it is wholy by Humane means such as Advice of good and wise Counsellors and a prudent Consideration upon it to which also may be added the Resistance of their Subjects when after all Remonstrances and Intreaties to the contrary Princes still go on outragiously to oppress them when they see they will no longer bear it and find themselves engaged in a troublesom War with them they then see their Errour and send to their Subjects and offer them terms of Peace Thus divers of our Kings hearts were turned when they saw the Nation would all as one Man resist their tyrannical Arbitrary Proceedings they came to Terms with them and granted them Magna Charta and other good Laws for the security of their just Rights and Liberties But as for what you say of our being safe in the hands of Tyrants as being in God's hands I grant we are