been forc'd to fly into Scotland and 〈◊〉 to have defended himself with 1000 or 1500 of his Tenants and followers tho' without Fighting the Kings Forces that should have been seâ—â— against him but flying into the High-lands and had there maintain'd himself as David did by Free Quarters or Conâ—ribuâ—ion of the Inhabitants till his Father dyed would not this have been cryed out upon in all the Pulpits in England as a most Horrid Rebellion of a Son and a Subject against his King and Father tho' he had never done any Act of Hostility against his Forces but always 〈◊〉 from them And yet he being Heir Apparent to the Crown might have pleaded as well as David that he kept these Soldiers about him only to keep himself from being Murdered by those Officious Persons whom his Father or Uncle might send to apprehend him and to have such a Retinue of Valiant Men about him as might render his advancement to the Throne more easie when ever his Father should dye I shall not urge as a farther proof of the Lawfulness of Davids Resistance of Sauls Forces his Intention to have slay'd in Keilah and to have fortified it against Saul had not he been informed that the Men of that City would have saved themselves by delivering him up to Saul Since I confess it doth not certainly appear by the Text whether David would have stayed any longer there than till Saul had approach'd near to that place whether the Keilites would have delivered him up or not much less shall I urge that other example which some Men make use of of Davids going to the last Battle against Saul with Achish King of the Philistines For tho' it be plain he march'd with them as far as Apbek in the Tribe of Issachar yet I confess it is not certain whether he really intended to have assisted them or not in this War against his Country since he might either have gone over to Saul at the beginning of the Battle or else have stood neuter tho' neither of them would have been very Honourable or Consonant with Davids Character therefore I shall say nothing of this since the Lords of the Philistines for fear he should prove aâ— adversary to them in the Battle made him retire again into the Land of the Philistines tho' he seemed to be very much troubled to be so distrusted that he might not fight against the Enemies of that King who had so good an Opinion of him And therefore I pray will you proceed to those other Exâ—mples you have to produce out of the Old Testament M. Well since you are not fully satisfied with this Instance of David tho' I am glad you allow the Persons even of Tyrannical Princes to be Sacred therefore to proceed in the story Solomon who succeeded David in his Kingdom did all those things which God had expresly forbid the King to do He sent into Egypt for Horses He multiplied Wives and loved many strange Women together with the Daughter of Pharaoh VVomen of the Moabites Ammonites c. He Multiplied Silver and Gold For this God who is the only Iudge of Soveraign Princes was very angry with him and threatens to rend the Kingdom from him which was afterwards accomplish'd in the Days of Rehoboam but yet this did not give Authority to his Subjects to Rebel If to be under the Direction and Obligation of Laws makes a Limited Monarchy it is certain the Kingdom of Israel was so There were some things which the King was expresly forbid to do as you have already heard and the Law of Moses was to be the Rule of his Government the standing Law of his Kingdom And therefore he was Commanded when he came to the Throne to write a Copy of the Law with his own hand and to read in it all his Days that he might learn to fear the Lord his God and to keep all the Words of this Law and these Statutes to do them and yet being a Soveraign Prince if he broke these Laws God was his Iudge and Avenger but he was accountable to no earthly Tribunal nor do we find tho' there were so many wicked and Idolatrous Kings of Iudah who broke all the Laws of God given them by Moses that ever any of the Priests or Prophets stirred up the People to Rebel against them for it F. Neither of these Instances do reach the Case in hand For I grant that neither the Breach or non-observance of these Precepts enjoyned the Kings of Israel by God Nor yet their open Idolatry were a sufficient Cause for their taking up Arms or resisting their Kings in so doing since those were offences only against God and in which the People had nothing to do those being no part of that Tacit or implicit Compact of Protection and Preservation that goeth along with all Kingdoms and Supream Powers whatsoever And I have already excepted out of the Causes of Resistance or taking up Arms the Princes being of a different Religion from that of his Subject And tho' I must own that the Kings of Israel were under the direction or Obligation of the Law of Moses and so were limited Monarchs yet this limitation was not from the People but from God whose business it was to revenge the breach of it as often as they offended and if they broke those Laws God only was their Judge and Avenger as you your self very well observe who never failed severely to punish this breach of his Laws Nor yet were the People of the Iews always so nice and temperate as you make them For besides the example of Rehoboam which I have formerly made use of you will find in the 2d of Chronicles concerning Amaziah who when he turned away from following the Lord They viz. the People made a Conspiracy against him in Jerusalem and he fled to Lachish but they sent to Lachish after him and slew him there and made his Son Vzziah King in his stead nor do we read that any were punish'd for killing him as Amâ—ziab put to Death the Servants of his Father King Ioash for conspiring against him as it is related in the 10th Chap. of the 2d of Kings and you 'l find in the same Book that the City of Libna revolted which sure is the highest degree of Resistance from that wicked King Iehoram who had slain all his Brethren with the Sword and walked in the way of the Kings of Israel as did the house of Ahab and wrought that which was evil in the sight of the Lord c. And therefore it is said expresly in the Text that the City of Libna revolted from his hand because he had forsaken the God of his Fathers I bring not these Instances to Iustifie Rebellion but to let you see that it was sometimes practised amongst the Iews tho' you affirm to the contrary But much more lawful was the Resistance which Azariah and the 80 Priests that were with him
without their Consent and therefore Samuel appeals to them how little he had opprest them whose Ox or whose Ass have I taken whom have I defrauded whom have I opprest Neither could they nor the Judges their Successors make any new Laws for the People God himself being their King and Legislator and therefore what you urge as to the Regal Power of Moses and Ioshua after the Sanhedrin had been constituted amounts to no more but that both of them were Heads or Captains of the People to lead them out to War and bring them back again which is exprest by going in and out before them and their Obedience to their Military Orders as also to such things which God hath expresly commanded is understood by these words All that thou commandest us we will do and whithersoever thou sendest us we will go Yet still this was with respect to their obtaining the Land of Canaan for otherwise if either Moses or Ioshua should have gone about of their own Heads to have Led them again into Egypt I suppose you will not say the Israelites were bound either to have followed them or submitted to them but rather might have resisted them in such cases And therefore Iosephus his Speech which he makes Moses to deliver is not so ridiculous as you are pleased to make it for the Laws here mentioned by him and here set in opposition to Monarchy were not such Laws as were made by the Greek Common-Wealth as you suppose but the Law given from God by his hand and these he might well think were sufficient with such Power as he and Ioshua enjoyed without having any recourse to a Human Monarchical Government since God himself was their King and as for the Judges that succeeded them they had much less Power than either Moses or Ioshua Since it is apparent by the Story of Deborah and Barak Iudges the 4th who were the Princes or Generals of the Tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali that they had no power to force the People to go out to fight against the Canaanites whether they would or no. And therefore you will find in the next Chapter in the Song of Victory which they sung that many of the Tribes came not in to their Assistance therefore it is there said That for the Divisions of Reuben there were great thoughts of heart therefore they ask Why abidest thou among the Sheepfolds c. And presently after it is said Gilead abode beyond Jordan and why did Dan remain in the Ships Asher continued on the Seashore and abode in his breaches And so they conclude with Curse ye Meroz curse ye bitterly the Inhabitants thereof because they came not to the help of the Lord against the Mighty So that I am perswaded it was the want of this Power in the Judges of making Laws of imposing Tributes or Taxes and of forcing Men to serve in the Wars against their Enemies which they did before only as Volunteers that made the Israelites the more desirous to have a King over them like those of other Nations who were endued with these Prerogatives And therefore the best Commentators do interpret the Prediction of Samuel concerning the manner of the King that should Reign over them and would take their Sons for his Chariots and his Horse men and to be Captains over thousands c. to relate to his Royal Power of enrolling and making them serve in his Army either as Officers or Souldiers and the taking of their Fields and their Vineyards and the Tenth of their Seeds c. to give his Officers and Servants to signifie no more than his Power of imposing Publick Tribute and Impositions on the People to maintain his Royal Splendor the Necessities of the State as other Neighbouring-Kings were wont to do all which they not being used to before they should cry unto the Lord by reason of them as a great oppression And that Saul when he came to be King used this Prerogative of forcing the People to come and serve in the War in a higher manner than Samuel or the Judges had done before appears by the 11th Chapter of this Book when Nahash the Ammonite came to make War against Iabesh Saul took a Yoke of Oxen and hewed them in pieces and sent them throughout all the Coasts of Israel by the hands of Messengers saying Whosoever cometh not forth after Saul and after Samuel so shall it be done unto his Oxen and the fear of the Lord fell on the People and they came out with one Consent And it seems evident to me that the Power which Samuel had before the Children of Israel desired a King was not Monarchical but mixt of Aristocracy and Monarchy together in which Samuel as Judge had a Judicial Authority and likewise a Supream Military Power of leading them out to War against the Philistines and other Enemies and yet notwithstanding the Supreme Power in all other things remained wholly in the Principal Heads or Fathers of the Tribes which whether they were chosen by the People or enjoyed it by Right of Inheritance I confess the Scripture is silent and therefore I am not at all satisfied with your Notion that the Government of these People when they had no Judges consisted of Twelve petty Monarchies under the Heads or Princes of the Tribes for there is no Authority in Scripture to countenance any such opinion the place you bring for it out of the 1st and 7th of Numbers not at all proving it For tho' I grant there were twelve Princes of the Tribes whose names are there set down and who are called Heads of the Houses of their Fathers yet is it no where said that these were endued with Civil Power or were Chief Rulers over the Tribes for it is apparent all Civil Power remained then in Moses and the Sanhedrim who under him decided all controversies So that it is most natural to suppose that these Heads of the Tribes were not Civil Magistrates but the Military Leaders or Captains of each Tribe when they went out to War and are the same who in this Chapter are called the renowned of the Congregation c. and Heads of the Thousands of Israel Nor doth it follow that because there were such Officers in Moses his time that they must continue the same after under the Judges so many Slaveries and oppressions that this People had undergone or that if they did still continue that their Power was Monarchical or that they could do any thing without the consent of the Heads or Fathers of Families of each Tribe in whom I suppose the Supream Authority was in the Intervals of the Judges and therefore we find in the ninth of Iudges that the men of Shechem and all the House of Millo made Abimelech King that is not over all the Tribes of Israel but over Ephraim and half Manasses only which is to be understood by Israel in this Chapter where it is said v. 18. by Iotham the Son of
and irresistible the Persons and Authority of Kings were under the Iewish Government and there cannot be a plainer Example of this than in the Case of David He was himself anointed to be King after Sauls death but in the mean time he was grievously persecuted by Saul who pursued him from one place to another with a design to take away his Life How now doth David behave himself in this Extremity What Course doth he take to secure himself from Saul Why he takes the only Course that is left to a Subject he flies for it and hides himself from Saul in the Mountains and Caves of the Wilderness and when he found he was discovered in one place he removes to another He kept Spies upon Saul to observe his Motions not that he might meet him to give him Batâ—le or to take him at an Advantage but that he might keep out of his way and not fall unawares into his hands Well but this was no thanks to David you 'll say because he could not do otherwise He was too weak for Saul and not able to stand against him and therefore had no other Remedy but flight But yet we must consider that David was a Man of War he slew Goliah and fought the Battles of Israel with great success he was an admired and beloved Captain which made Saul so Jealous of him the Eyes of Israel were upon him for their next King and how easily might he have raised a Potent and formidable Rebellion against Saul But he was so far from this that he invites no Man to his Assistance and when some came uninvited he made no use of them in an Offensive or Defensive War against Saul Nay when God delivered Saul twice into David's hands that he could as easily have killed him as have Cut off the Skirts of his Garment at Engedi or as have taken That Spear away which stuck on the Ground as his Bolster as he did in the Hill of Hachilâ—h yet he would neither touch Saul himself nor suffer any of the People that were with him to do it tho' they were very importunate with him to let them kill Saul nay tho' they urged him with an Argument from Providence that it was a plain Evidence that it was the Will of God that he should kill him Because God had now delivered his Enemy into his Hands according to the Promise he had made to David we know what use some Men have made of this Argument of Providence to justifie all the Villanies they had a Mind to act But David it seems did not think that an opportunity of doing evil gave him a License and Authority to do it Opportunity we say makes a Thief and it makes a Rebel and a Murderer too No man can do any wickedness which he has no opportunity of doing and if the Providence of God which puts such opportunities into Mens hands might justifie the wickedness they commit no Man can be chargeable with any Guilt whatever he does and certainly Opportunity will as soon justifie any other Sin as Rebellion and the Murder of Princes We are to learn our Duty from the Law of God not from his Providence At least this must be a settled Principle that the Providence of God will never justifie any Action which his Law forbids And therefore notwithstanding this Opportunity which God has put into his hands to destroy his Enemy and to take the Crown for his Reward David considers his Duty remembers that tho' Saul were his Enemy and that very unjustly yet he was still the Lords anointed The Lord forbid says he That I should do this unto my Master the Lords anointed to stretch forth any Hand against him seeing he is the Lords anointed Nay he was so far from taking away his Life that his Heart smote him for cutting off the Skirt of his Garment And we ought to observe the Reason David gives why he durst not hurt Saul because he was the Lords anointed which is the very Reason the Apostle gives in the Romans because the Powers that are are ordained of God and he that resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God For to be anointed of God signifies no more than that he was made King or ordained by God For this external Unction was only a Visible Sign of Gods Designation of them to such an Office And it is certain they were as much Gods Anointed without this Visible Unction as with it Cyrus is called Gods Anointed tho' he never was Anointed by any Prophet but only designed for his Kingdom by Prophecy And we never read in Scripture that any Kings had this external Vnction who succeeded in the Kingdom by Right of Inheritance unless the Title and succession were doubtful and yet they were the Lords Anointed too that is were plac'd in the Throne by him So that this is an Eternal Reason against râ—sistiâ—g Soveraign Princes that they are Set up by God and invested with his Authority and therefore their Persons and their Authority are Sacred F. I am so far from differing with you in what you have said concerning this Example of David towards Saul tho' his Enemy that I think it ought to be a Pattern to every single Private Man tho never so great in a Kingdom or Common-Wealth how to comport himself towards the Supream Powers if he himself alone be unjustly persecuted by them either in his Life or Estate that is to fly if he can tho' with the loss of all his Estate rather than resist tho' there are some Circumstances in this Story of David that make it evident that he did not think a Defensive War against those Cut-throats that Saul might send to Kill him unlawful and so much Dr. Fearn himself in his first Discourse call'd resolving of Conscience c. against Resistance of the Higher Powers acknowledges For David when he fled from Saul made himself Captain of four hundred Men which number soon encreased to six hundred And still every day grew more by Additions Now why should he entertain those Men but to defend himself against the Forces of Saul that is to make a Defensive War when ever he was assaulted by him M. I think I can give you a sufficient answer to this and therefore you must observe that David invited none of these Men in to him but they came as Volunteers after a Beloved Captain and General which shews how formidable he could easily have made himself when such Numbers resorted to him of their own Accord When he had them he never used them for any Hostile Acts against Saul or any of his Forces he never stood his Ground when he heard Saul was coming but always fled and his Men with him Men who never were us'd to fly and were very ready to have served him against Saul himself would he have permitted them And I suppose you will not call it a defensive War to fly before an Enemy and to hide
themselves in Caves and Mountains and yet this was the only defensive War which David made with all his Men about him nay all that he would make and all that he could make according to his Professed Principles that it was not Lawful to stretch out his hand against the Lords Anointed And when these Men are pursued as David was by an enraged and Jealous Prince I will not charge them of Rebellion tho' they fly before him by thousands in a Company Yet there was sufficient Reason why David should entertain these Men who voluntarily resorted to him tho' he never intended to use them against Saul for some of them served for Spies to watch Sauls Motions that he might not be surprised by him but have timely notice to make his Escape And the very presence of such a number of Men about him without any Hostile Act preserved him from being seiz'd on by some Officious Persons who otherwise might have delivered him into Sauls hands And he being Anointed by Samuel to be King after Sauls Death this was the first step to his Kingdom to have such a Retinue of Valiant Men about him which made his Advancement to the Throne more easie and discouraged any Oppositions which might otherwise have been made against him as we see it proved in the event and have reason to believe that it was thus ordered by God for that very End It is certain that Gad the Prophet and Abiathar the Priest who was the only Man who escaped the Fury of Saul when he destroyed the Priests of the Lord were in Davidâ— Retinue and that David enterpriz'd nothing without first asking Counsel of God But he who had Anointed him to be King now draws Forces after him which after Saul's Death should facilitate his Advancement to the Kingdom F. I cannot think your Answer to this Objection satisfactory for first it is evident that when David was at the Cave of Adullam his Brethren and all his Fathers House as soon as they heard it went down thither to him and tho' it be not expresly said that he sent for any to come to his Assistance yet it is plain he refused none that came and to what purpose should he make use of so many as 400 or 600 Men unless it were to defend himself against those Men that Saul might send against him since half a score or twenty Persons had been enough to have served for Spies and if he had thought himself obliged only to run away three or four Servants had been enough in conscience to have Waired on him in any Neighbouring Country but that David thought it no Sin to defend himself from the Violence of those which Saul should send to Kill him is plain from what he says to Abiathar upon his flight unto him after the Death of his Father Abide thou with me fear not for he that seeketh my Life seeketh thy Life but with me thou shalt be in safeguard And if David had not meant by these Words to have defended Abiathar's as well as his own Life if assaulted and without a Possibility of escaping it had been very cold comfort for David to have only assur'd him that he should be in safe-guard with him till the first assault that should be made upon them but that then he should shift for himself for as for his own part he would rather permit his Throat to be cut by the Kings Officers or Souldiers than resist them And therefore tho' I own that it was not Lawful for him to stretch out his hand against the Lords Anointed Since I do not allow any Private Subject to Kill even Tyrants unless a in State of actual War or Battle wherein they are Aggressors nor then neither if it can possibly be avoided Yet do I not find it at all unlawful for David or any other private Man to defend his own Life against such Assassinates as his Prince may send against him So it may be done without a Civil War or endangering the Peace of the Common-Wealth And so much you your self tho' Coldly seem to yield when you say that the very Presence of such a number of Men about David without any Hostile Act preserved him from being seiz'd on by some Officious Persons who otherwise might have delivered him into Sauls Hands For I cannot think that David would have been at the trouble of keeping so many Men only for shew and a Terrour to those Officious Persons you mention without resisting of them if there had been occasion And tho' you tell me that his being Anointed by Samuel to be King after Sauls Death was the first step to the Kingdom to have such a Retinue of Valiant Men about him which made his Advancement to thoâ—punc Throne so much the â—aster and discouraged any Opposition which might have been made against him and that we see it proved so in the Event and therefore have Reason to believe that it was thus ordered by God to that very End I must take the Liberty so far to differ from you For first I desire to know by what Authority David could List 600 or 700 Men in Arms in Sauls Territories and whether according to your Doctrine they were not Rebels for joyning themselves with one who was declared a Traytor by the King And tho' you say it was thus ordered by God I grant indeed it was yet doth it not appear that it was done by any Divine Revelation to Nathan or Abiathar but only by the Ordinary Course of his Providence like other things in the World and therefore it is no fair way of Arguing for you to affirm that what ever David did in the matter of his own Defence contrary to your Principles he must needs do it by express order from God of which the Scripture is wholy silent much less doth it appear from the Story that these Men whom David kept with him were only to facilitate his attaining the Kingdom as you affirm since the Scripture mentions no such thing only that after Saul's Death he went up by Gods Command to Hehron with the Men that were with him and thither the Men of Iudah came and there they Anointed David King over the House of Judah but 't is no where mention'd that these Men were of any use to David for the Obtaining of the Crown since the Tribe of Iudah would have made him King tho' these Men had not been with him for what could 600 or 1000 Men do against so vast a Multitude as the whole Tribe of Iudah And therefore it is evident that these Forces were for no other End than his own defence And tho' you make very light of this State of War in which David was in relation to Saul yet pray tell me supposing that the Duke of Monmouth had really been as he Pretended the Legitimate Son of King Charles the II. but by some Particular Disgust of his Father or by the Intrigues of his Competitor the Duke of York had
made against King Vzziah when he would have burnt Incense in the Temple pray turn with me to the Place and read what is there said And they viz. the Priests withstood Uzziah the King and said unto him It appertaineth not unto thee Uzziah to burn incense unto the Lord but to the Priests the Sons of Aaron that are consecrated to burn Incense go out of the Sanctuary for thou hast trespassed neither shall it be for thine Honour c. And when he persisted therein and took the Censer in his hand to Burn Incense and that thereupon the Leprosy arose in his Forehead the Priests thrust him out of the Temple The LXX render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. they resisted him Iosephus says they drove him out in haste so that you see they went somewhat farther than Solomons Question Who may say to a King what doest thou And which is more remarkable they withstood him before the Leprosy rose upon his Forehead and no doubt but they would have done the same to him whether that Judgment had happened or not since he went about to Vsurp the Priests Office it not being so much as Lawful for him that was no Priest to set his foot within the Temple But if you look into the History of the Kings of Israel after their Division from Iudah they are so far from teaching us these Lessons of Passive Obedience and Non-resistance that you will scarce find any other manner of Succession amongst them but the Killing of one King and the setting up another and Iehu for Rebelling against and destroying the house of Ahab had the Crown entailed by Gods Promise to his Posterity unto the fourth Generation And tho' I do not produce any of these Examples as fit for our Imitation at this day since what Iehu did was done by Gods express Warrant and Command yet I think they are sufficient Evidences that neither the Person or Power of the Kings of Iudah or Israel were always look'd upon as so Sacred and Irresistible by their Subjects as you suppose M. I am glad you are so ingenuous to confess that most of these Examples you have brought of the Resistance and Murders committed by the Iews and Israelites upon their Kings were not Lawful or can be proposed for the Imitation of Christian Subjects and if so pray make what other use of them you please since à facto ad Ius non valet Consequentia I cannnot deny but that the Succession of the Kings of Israel after Nadab the Son of Ieroboam was very confused God stirring up some or other to Rebel against them and make them away as a Punishment for their former Rebellion and Idolatry Thus Baasha killed Nadab the Son of Ieroboam and Reigned in his stead and for this and his other Sins God threatned Evil against Baasha and against his House Zimri slew Elah the Son of Baasha but he did not long enjoy the Kingdom which he had Vsurped by Treason and Murder for he Reigning but seven days in Tirza which being Besieged and taken by Omri he went to the Palace and burned the Kings House over him with fire and died This Example Iezebel threatned Iehu with Had Zimri Peace who slew his Master And yet Nadab and Elah were both of them very wicked Princes And if that would Justifie Treason and Murder both Baasha and Zimri had been very Innocent but as for the example of Iehu's killing his Master King Ioram you say it was by the particular Command of God and is no more to be produced as an Example for Rebellion and the murder of Princes by the General of their Armies than that because the Children of Israel had a Power given them by God to extirpate and destroy those seven Nations whose Countreys God had given them to Inherit therefore they had a like Right to destroy all other Nations whatsoever that lay near them And therefore those Actions in Scripture which are sometimes Commanded by God for the bringing about the great Designs of his Providence by those Human means that may seem unjust to us are not to be produced for Authorities nor alledged as Examples F. I so far agree with you and I do by no means allow that particular Private Men of what condition soever they are should disturb the Common Wealth and Murder their Lawful Princes tho' wicked or Idolatrous only to satisfy their own private Zeal or Ambition and to set up themselves who perhaps are altogether as oâ—d or worse than him they depose or make away But yet I think I might very well produce these to convince you that there were no better Examples for Loyalty or Passive Obedience among the Iews than other Nations And therefore that your Examples out of the Scripture do hitherto prove insignificant Yet I cannot but take notice of one passage wherein by following the ordinary English translation you fall into a great mistake where you make Baasha to be slain by Zimri because he killed Nadab which as it is there rendered in the English is false for the Words in 〈◊〉 Translation are because he killed him viz. Ieroboam to whom it there immediatelâ— relates which is false for Baasha did not kill Ieroboam but Nadab his Son Neither was it suitable to Gods Justice to destroy Baasha for that which he himself had ordained him to do For God by Iehu the Prophet said to Baasha for as much as I exalted thee out of the Dust and made thee Prince over my People Israel and thou hast walked in the way of Jeroboam and hast made my People Israel to Sin to provoke me to anger by their Sins And therefore the Text concludes this Narration with there words that the Word of the Lord came against Baasha and against his House even for all the Evil which he did in the sight of the Lord in provoking him to anger with the work of his Hands in being like the Housâ— of Jeroboam but the words which immediately follow and because he killed him i. e. Ieroboam cannot be truly rendred in our English Translation for the Reason already given and therefore the best Criticks upon this place Translate it thus leaving out and therefore He viz. the Lord smote him i. e. Nadab by the hand of Baasha Whereas our Translation makes the Scripture to contradict it self I have no more to observe from this History of the Kings and Chron. and therefore I pray proceed to what other Testimonies you have to produce M. Well I think I can make it much more plain from other Examples and Precepts out of Scripture that the Iews were not only under high Obligations to be Subject to the Higher Powers after they were carried Captives to Babylon but also not to resist them tho' they went about to exercise their Power never so cruelly and Tyrannically even to the Destruction of the whole Nation Now the Prophet Ieremiah had given them an express Command Seek the Peace
to consider the force of your own Comparison for you say he who Resisteth any Subordinate Magistrates Resists the Princâ— from whom they receive their Authority and Commission yet it is only in such things which the Prince hath given them Authority or a Commission to do as for Example a Bayliff may Arrest me for Debt by vertue of the King 's Writ yet if he goeth about to Rob or Kill me I may lawfully Resist him and if I kill him it is no murder The same may be said of all other Subordinate Ministers how great soever they are therefore to carry on your Parallel the same that Subordinate Magistrates are in Relation to Princes the same are Princes in respect of God Therefore if they never received any Commission or Authority from God to destroy and enslave their People they so far cease to be the Powers ordained by God and sure may then be Resisted by their opprest people As for the rest of your Speech as far as Earthly Princes are placed in the Throne by God and Govern there like his Vicegerents I own they are not to be Opposed but since you will have them to be submitted to because they may be Ordained by God for a Punishment for a Wicked People I thank you for putting me in mind to answer what you have before said upon that Subject I do not deny but God may often for the Punishment as you say of a sinful Nation give them a wicked or Tyrannical Prince and likewise that such a Prince when thus Imposed by God is to be born without Resistance as far as is possible or that may consist with their being a People and with those Enjoyments of Life which are necessary to their being Subjects and Freemen and not Slaves And tho' I grant that God doth likewise sometimes punish a wicked Nation by appointing Conquerours such as the King of Assyria to carry them away captive and to reduce them to the Lowest Condition of Poverty and Slavery as in this Case of the Iews by the King of Babylon who was then the Rod of Gâ—d's Anger and whom he raised up for the punishment of an Hypocritical Nation Yet when he doth so excluding all farther Resistance in the People it can only be known by Dâ—vine Revelation and cannot extend to all Conquerours whatever whether by Right or Wrong And therefore as God doth often in his Arger deliver the People up to the Power of some Cruel Conquerour or Tyrant so likewise will he in his good time and upon their Repentance deliver them from it again Now this Deliverance must be performed either by Miracles or Human Means Now Miracles are ceased and therefore since only Human Means remain these must be either 1 st by changing the Hearts of such Tyrannical Princes into a better and more merciful Temper towards their Subjects as Solomon says The King 's Heart is in the Hand of the Lord as the Rivers of Water he turneth it whithersoevâ—r he will Or else 2 dly by taking away such a Tyrannical Prince out of the World and putting another in his stead who may Govern the People more mercifully and who will not any more destroy or oppress them as his Predecessors did Or 3 dly by stirring up some Neighbour Prince to revenge the Injuries and Oppressions done unto such a persecuted and almost ruined People and to restore them to the Enjoyment of their former Liberties Religion and Estates Or lastly by stirring up the People themselves to Rise and Resist those Oppressions they lie under by their own single Forces or by imploring the Assistance of some Powerful Neighbouring Prince or State Now I suppose you will not deny but that the first of these ways does never happen the second very rarely and as for the 3 d. we seldom find that when a former Prince is taken out of the way his Successor grows so sensible of the Tyranny and Misgovernment of his Predecessors as to let go any of that Arbitrary Power which he hath usurped or to remit any of those intolerable Taxes and Oppressions which He hath laid upon them but are commonly like Rehoboam when they come to the Crown so far from making their People's yoak more easie that they rather lay it more heavy upon their Necks as we may see in the Kingdom of France in these three last descents where every Prince hath been still more severe and Tyrannical than his Predecessor for finding himself invested in this Absolute and Despotick Power without any unjust Act of his own he will exercise it as he found it and will think himself not at all obliged in Conscience to restore any of those just Rights his Predecessors had formerly usurpt upon the People since we find Princes seldom lose any thing they have once got and this may continue to all generations for ought we know which is much too long for a punishment unless some extraordinary Accident fall out as we now see by the Example of the Greek Christians who having lain divers Ages under the Mahometan Yoak are now restored to the Liberty of their Religion by the Arms of the German Emperour and Venetians and are so far from being blamed for joyning themselves to their Deliverers that they are rather commended by all Christendom for so doing And I see no Reason why all good French men as well Protestants as others may not as justly joyn themselves to the Prince of Orange or any other Foreign Prince who will be so generous as to undertake their Deliverance from that Cruel Yoak they lie under and will restore them to their Antiens Liberties and the Protestants to the Free Exercise of their Religion Nor can I see any Reason why God should deliver a People into Servitude when ever a Tyrannical Prince hath sufficient Power to oppress them and why God may not be as well said to deliver them as often as the People find fit means and opportunity so to set themselves free For doth such a Tyrant derive his Power from God to oppress only because he hath Power And may not the People likewise from the same Original derive a Right to defend themselves against such an intolerable Oppression Otherwise God would chiefly regard and provide for this destructive Tyrannical Power of Princes as the chief end of all Civil Society and make the Good and Happiness of the People as subordinate to that or rather only by the by which is contrary to Reason 'T is true the Prophet Amos saith That there is no Evil in a City which God hath not sent So likewise are all Natural Evils such as Famine Pestilence Inundations and Foreign Enemies and yet have not the People in these Cases a Power to rid themselves of them if they can by all natural human means and yet they may be likewise Punishments sent from God And if they may Resist and decline such common and natural Iudgments without staying for an express Revelation for that purpose why
that King last mentioned per Commune Consilium 〈◊〉 Regni yet there is likewise no mention made of any Knights and Citizens 〈◊〉 Burgesses F. Before I answer this main Argument of yours which I freely grant carrieth the greatest shew of probability of any you have yet brought give me â—â—â—ve to take notice that I think you are very much out in your first Conclusion that before this Charter the King exercised a Royal Prerogative of Imposing Taxes without the Assent of Parliament for if you mean that this Exaction was exercised de facto and from thence you would make it a Prerogative of the Crown I grant this was true not only before but after this Charter before the Statute de Tallagio non concedendo was made but if you mean de Iure I affirm that our Kings were as much tyed up by the 55th Law of William the First which you have already Cited from Levying any unjust Taxes or Exactions 〈◊〉 Communi Consilio totius Regni as they could be afterwards by any other subsequent Law that could be made But I shall proceed to answer the Authority you have now brought from this Clause in King Iohn's Charter to prove That none but Tenants in capite had any place in our Great Councils or Parliaments But though I confess the Charters of Henry III. and Confirmation of Edward I. are the same with this in the most material parts yet there are several Clauses of which this Clause in question is one which are in King Iohn's Charter and yet are totally omitted out of both those of Henry III. as I shall shew you hereafter So that let â—â—e sense of this place be what it will I defie you to shew me any Great Council of the Kingdom that was ever summoned according to this Imaginary Model of yours and that I do not speak without Book that Parliament or Council of 9. Henry the Third when but 11 years after King Iohn's Charter was Conâ—â—â—med Mâ—t. Paris as I have already observed tells us it consisted of Cleâ—â— Populus cum Magnatibus Regionis But give me leave to read this Clause according as your Dr. himself hath Printed and Transcribed it and as your self have now read it and I doubt not but it will appear plain enough that the Clause you insist on in this Charâ—â—r doth not at all concern the Great Council of the Kingdom and for the proof of this I desire you only to observe that by the 15th and 16th Clauses of this Charter you have now read both the City of London and all other Cities Barâ—â—ghs and Towns had a Right to have a Great Council of the Kingdom for the â—â—â—essment of Aids otherwise than in the Three Cases there expected And â—ay take the Dr's Paraphrase to this Clause along with you in his Appendix to his compleat History of England viz. That they viz. the Citizens Burgesses and Cinque Ports shall send their Representatives or Commissioners to the Common Council of the Kingdom for the Assessment of Aids So that according to his Concession there must have been Citizens and Burgesses in the Great Council in the Reign of King Iohn and if so I desire you to tell me whether those Gentlemen were Commoners or not But I will not insist too much upon his Concessions for I think it is very plain from the Words themselves which point out a distinction between the Common Council of the Kingdom mentioned in the first Clause which was to meet to grant or assess Aids or Subsidies and that other tho not Common Council or Assembly consisting of all the Tenants in capite which by the 17 th and 18 th Clauses of that Charter are to meet to assess Escuage and to do such other Business as was express'd in their Summons So that nothing seems plainer to me than that this Assembly mentioned in this Charter for assessing Escuage was a distinct Council from the Great Council of the Kingdom which was appointed for the granting of other Taxes called Auxilia and for the making of Laws M. I confess this Gloss of yours seems at first sight very plausible and agreeable enough to the way of Reading and Pointing with which the Dr. himself published this Charter but for all that I much doubt whether you are in the right or not therefore pray give me leave to put off this Debate till our nâ—â—t Meeting since it now grows late and in the mean while I will take time to consider the Arguments and Authorities you have now made use of F. Pray take your own time but do not defer it above a day or two for I have a great mind to have this Question dispatch'd off our hands I am your Servant M. Good night Sir FINIS Books Printed for Richard Baldwin near the Oxford-Arms in Warwick-Lane A Brief Disquisition of the Law of Nature according to the Principles and Method laid down in the Reverend Dr. Cumberland's now Lord Bishop of Peterborough's Latin Treatise on that Subject As also his Confutation of Mr. Hobb's Principles put into another Method With the Right Reverend Author's Approbation The Gentleman's Iournal Or the Monthly Miscellany By way of Letter to a Gentleman in the Country Consisting of News History Philosophy Poetry Musick Translations c. Compleat for the Year 1692. Printed for Rich. Parker and are to be sold by Richard Baldwin near the Oxford-Arms in Warwick Lane Where are to be had the Single Iournals for each Month or Compleat Setts bound The Tragedies of the Last Age consider'd and examin'd by the Practice of the Ancients and by the Common sense of all Ages in a Letter to Fleetwood Shepherd Edq A Short View of Tragedy its Original Excellency and Corruption With some Reflections on Shakespear and other Practitioners for the Stage Both by Mr. Rymer Servant to their Majesties Bibliotheca Politica OR A DISCOURSE By Way of DIALOGUE WHETHER The Commons of England represented by Knights Citizens and Burgesses in Parliament were One of the Three Estates in Parliament before the 49th of Henry III. or 18th of Edw. I. The Second Part. Collected out of the most Approved Authors both Antient and Modern Dialogue the Seventh LONDON Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane near the Oxford-Arms where also may be had the First Second Third Fourth Fifth and Sixth Dialogues 1693. Authors made use of and how denoted 1. Mr. Petut's Ancient Right of the Commons of England Asserted P. R. C. 2. Dr. Brady's Answer thereunto Edit in Folio B. A. P. 3. The said Doctor 's Glossary at the end of it B. G. 4. Animadversions upon Mr. Atwood's Treatise Intituled Iani Anglorum faces nova B. A. I. 5. Mr. Atwood his Confutatin of the said Doctor Intituled Ius Anglorum ab Antiquo I. A. A. 6. Dr. Brady's Preface to his History B. P. H. 7. Dr. Iohnston's Excellency of Monarchical Government I. E. M. G. THE Seventh Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. MEANWELL a Civilian AND Mr. FREEMAN a Gentleman F. YOU are
accepit c. Now pray tell me what Common Council was this Of the Bishops and chief Men of the Kingdom that Anselm referred himself to Was it not ex more by Custom You cannot find in Eadmer any Summons to it neither Rex asâ—ivit nor praecepâ—o Regis convenerunt nor Rex sanctione suâ adunavit In short not to multiply Examples look where you will in Eadmerus or any other of the ancient Historians you have cited and you will still find that the Persons who met ex more and without any Summons were the same who Assembled by the Kings Summons at other times that is the Principes and Episcoâ—i Regni or Terrae or called more generally Priâ—ates utriusque ordinis or the Barones or Majores Regni who did at these great â—easts pro more go to Court and hold a solemn Curia or great Council there And that these made up the Vniversity or whole Body of the Kingdom pray see what Matt. Paris says In die Pentecostes Dominus Rex Anglorum Loâ—dini Festum tenens Magnum serenissimum â—unc compositâ per Regni Vniversitatem Eleganti Epistolâ c. This was about the Pope's Exactions as hath been before delivered And Hen. III. in his Letter to the Pope calls the same Persons Magnates Angliae which in his Letter to the Cardinals about the same matter he calls Magnates Nostri as you may see in the former Citations of them F. But pray give me leave to ask you this question might not our first Norman Kings often Summon the Common Council of the Kingdom at one of the said usual Feasts since it was so much for the conveniency of the Bishops great Lords and Tenants in Capite who I grant were then all Members of the Great Council to meet all the rest of the Kingdom or Representatives of the Commons at the same time Though the Writers you have quoted may not mention their being Summoned at all And as for the Writs of Summons those of much later Parliaments being lost how can it be expected we should now prove their being Summoned so many Year before M. I confess it might be so that upon extraordinary business and when the occasion was great and the King desired a great and full appearance they might also receive an express Summons at those times But then I must desire you to shew us any mention of a Summons to any of these Common Councils which when called at other times are most constantly mentioned in this Author And I desire to know of you what you will say to those words pro more convenit which is spoken of the most general Councils when the Community of the Kingdom met at the King's Court You cannot deny but that the Tenants in Capite were the Kings Barones Milites Magnates c. Upon this we will joyn issue And I affirm without bringing Proofs which are infinite in this Case that all the Bishops Earls and Barons of England did hold their Lands Earldoms and Baronies of the Crown or which is all one of the King as of his Person and that was in Capite William the Conqueror as I said before divided most of the Lands in England amongst his great followers to hold of him he made Earls and Barons such as he pleased They and their Descendants held upon the same Terms with the first grantors which was to find so many Horse and Arms and do such and such Services both Titles and Lands were Forfeitable for Treason or Felony to the King did Homage for them and every Bishop Earl and Baron of England was in those circumstances and held of the King after this manner Other Lands were given to other Persons for meaner Services as to his Woodwards Foresters Hunts-men Faulconers Cooks Chamberlains Gouldsinlibs Bayliffs of Mannours in his own hands and many other Officers which in Doomsday-Book are called Terrae Thanorum Regis and sometimes servientium Regis And I doubt not whatever the Notion of Petyt Sergeanty now is but that originally this holding of Lands was the true Tenure not but presenting the Lord with a Bow an Arrow a pair of Spurs every Year c. might also be called Petyt Serjeanty though not so properly as the other F. Not to multiply words to no purpose I think your Reply is far from being Satisfactory for in the first place it is very unreasonable to demand that we should now shew the express Summons to these common Councils which were not held de more since you know that all antient Records of that kind are destroyed and lost for if we could produce them at this day the difference between us and those of your Opinion would quickly be at an end as appears by those great Councils which are said expresly by the Historians I have cited to have been summoned and yet no such Writs of Summons are to be found nor is it any good Argument that because our ancient Historians mention no distinct Summons to the great Councils when met at the usual times of the meeting of the Tenants in Capite that therefore there were none such since we find they often pass by much more material Matters than this And though I grant that the Tenants in Capite were then part of the great Council of the Barones Milites Magnates Regni yet does it not follow for all this that none but the Kings Barons and Tenants in Capite were Members of this great Council since there might be in those times other Barons or great Freeholders who though they held their Lands of the Tenants in Capite yet might be there as Knights of Shires or else appear in Person at those Assemblies as well as the other and besides there were others who though they did not hold of the King in Capite but of some great Honor or Castle or else of some Abbot or Prior yet were Men of very great Estates and very numerous all which must otherwise have had their Estates tax'd and Laws made for them without nay against the consent of themselves or any to represent them Nor is your Assertion at all true That William the Conqueror divided most of the Lands in England to be held of him in Capite For besides those Servants and Officers you last mentioned above two third parts of the Lands of the Abbies and Priories in England were not held as also much other Lands in Kent and other Countries per Baroniam or Knights Service but in libera Elecmosina only or Socage as I have already prov'd and consequently neither they nor their Tenants could according to your Hypothesis have any Representatives in Parliament And farther you your self grant that those Lands you mention which were given out by your Conqueror to his Woodwards Foresters c. did not capacitate them to appear in Parliament since their Tenure was only by Petyt Serjeanty and not by Knights Service Nor could they become the King's Tenants in ancient Demesne because such Tenants
continued on now the Doctor upon second thoughts in â—is Edition in Folio will have them never to be Summoned any more than that once because forsooth he cannot find them mentioned in such express words as that he cannot evade them by saying the sense is equivocal and if the Commons not being expressly mentioned in our Statutes were a sufficient reason to prove them not to have been there were the Writs of Summons lost as well after as they are before the 23â— of Edward the First you might as well have faced us down that there were none in all that time till the Statute de Tallagio non concedendo you now mentioned And for proof of this pray see the Statute called Articuli super Charâ—â—s made in the 28 th of this King which is said to be made and granted by the King at the Request of the Prelates Earls and Barons who are only mentioned in this Statute and yet certainly the Commons were then at this Parliament as appears by the Writs of Summons and Expences I but now mentioned and sure their assents were given to it as well as the Bishops and Lords I could shew you the like in many other Statutes of this King nor are the words Communitâ—s or Commonalty ever mentioned above twice in all the Statutes of this King's Reign viz. in that of Westminster the first and that against Bearing of Arms neither is the word Commons to be found above once or twice in all the Statutes of Edward the Second in the Statutes made at Lincoln in the 9 th of this King 't is said to be done by the King the Counts Barons and other Grands of the Kingdom now if these general words did comprehend the Commons in those times you grant they were constantly Summoned to Parliament I desire you would give me any good reason why the same words may not as well comprehend them long before and if the bare omission of the distinct Orders or States of Men that gave their assents to the making of any Statute and the different penning of Acts of Parliament were a sufficient reason to prove they had no hand in it I doubt two parts in three of the old Statutes of Henry the Third and Edward the First would have been made without the Consents either of the Bishops or Lords since in most of them there is no mention made of either and that what I say is true pray at your leisure peruse these Statutes following viz. de Districtionâ— Scacarti of the 51 of Henry the Third with other Statutes made in the latter end of that King's Reign as also that of Actoâ— Burnel made in the 11 th of Edward I. that of Winchester made in the 13 th of this King that of Merchants in the same year as also those of Circumspecte agatis and Quo Warranto and see if you can find any mention either of the Lords or Commons in them But to come to direct proofs tho I grant the words Knights Citizens and Burgesses was not expressly mentioned in our old Statutes yet I shall prove to you by other words of a much more comprehensive signification that they appeared in Parliament in the very beginning of Henry the Third's Reign for this we need go no farther than the old Manuscripts as well as Printed Copies of Magna Charta which was first Granted in the second year and again confirmed in the 9 th of Henry the Third both which conclude thus Pro hac autem Donatione Concessione Archiepiscopi Episcopi Abbates Priores Comites Barones Milites libere Tenentes omnes de Regno nostro dedâ—iunâ— quintâ—m decimam paâ—tem omnium mobilium suorum Now can any thing be more express than this Clause viz. That the Archbishops Bishops Abbots Priors Earls Barons for themselves and the inferior Orders viz. the Knights and Freeholders and all others of the Kingdom by their Lawful Representatives gave this 15 th of their Moveables at both those Parliaments in which this Charter was first made and afterwards confirmed M. I confess this Authority looks very plausible at first but if it be strictly looked into I believe it will prove nothing at all for as to your interpretation of these words I do not allow it for reasons I shall shew you by and by but in the first place give me leave to dispute the Antiquity of this Charter which I do not take to be so ancient as you make it for tho I grant there was such a Charter made in the 2d and again confirmed in the 9th of Hen. III. yet you have already had my thoughts of this Charter which you suppose to be Henry the Thirds viz. that this which we now have is not properly his but his Son Edw. I. since it concludes this His testibus Bonifacio-Cantuariâ—nâ—is Archiâ—piâ—copo E. Londinensi Episcopo c. Anno. Regni-nostri Scil. Henrici 3. nono whereas this Bonifac here mentioned was not Arch-bishop of Canterbury before the 27. Hen. III. nor was there any one whose name began with E. Bishop of London during the time that Boniface held the See of Cantâ—rbuâ—y F. I am very glad you have made these Objections against the Validity of this Charter for if I can prove to you that what you have now urged from your friend the Dr. is a meer Evasion against the Charter it self I think you have reason to be my Convert In the first place pray give me leave to confirm the Valiâ—ity of the Charter it self I therefore freely grant that the Original of this Charter is not to be found among the Statute Rolls in the Tâ—ner where there is nothing left of it on Record except this confirmation of it by a Charter of Impeximus of Edw. I. the Conclusion of which is as you have now given and I think there cannot be a greater Pâ—oof of the careless keeping or voluntary imâ—ezlement of the ancient Statutes and Records of the Kingdom than the loss of this great Charter which certainly must have been inrolled at the time when it was made as well as every common Grant made by the King to ordinary Persons of Markets and Pairs since we find Copies of it still Exâ—ant in the ancient Annals of divers Monasteries where they were formerly kept as in particular in the Annals of the Abby of Barton Published in the first Volum of ancient English Writers lately Printed at Oxford which fully answers your Objection for instead of Boniface it is there Witnessed by S. Archibis Cant. i. e. Stephen Langton who was then Arch-bishop of Canterbury near 20 Years before Boniface there is also an c. after the name of this Arch-bishop And the same Charter is likewise recited word for word with the former and hath the same Conclusion concerning the granting of this 15th by all the Parties above mentioned in the Chronicle of Walter Hemingford Published by the Learned Dr. Gâ—â—e in his 2d Volum of English Historians only it hath no Witnesses Names
his Father and to be Exiled from the Realm of England and that therefore the King that now is and the Queen his Mother being in so great Jeopardy in a strange Countrey and seeing the destructions and disinherisons which were notoriously done in England upon holy Church the Prelates Earls Barons and the Commonalty of the same by the said Spencers Robert Baldock and Edmund Earl of Arundel by the Encroachment of Royal Power to themselves and seeing they might not remedy the same unless they came into England with an Army of Men of War and have by the Grace of God with such puissance and the help of the great Men and Commons of the Realm vanquished and destroyed the said Spencers c. therefore our Soveraign Lord the King by the Common Council of the Prelates Earls Barons and other great Men and of the Commons of the Realm have provided and ordained c. as follows That no great Man nor other of what Estate Dignity or Condition soever he be that came in with the said King that now is and with the Queen in Aid of them to pursue their said Enemies and in which pursuit the King his Father was taken and put in Ward c. shall be impeached molested or grieved in person or in goods in any of the King's Courts c. for the pursuit and taking in hold the body of the said King Edward nor for the pursuit of any other persons not taking their goods nor for the death of any Man nor any other things perpetrated or committed in the said pursuit from the day of the King and Queens Arrival until the day of the Coronation of the said King This Act of Indemnity is so full a Justification of the necessity and lawfulness of the Resistance that was then made against King Edward the Second and his wicked Councellors the Spencers that it needs no Comment And tho' King Edward the Third took warning by the example of his Father and was too wise then to follow the like Arbitrary Courses yet Richard the Second his Grandson being a wilful hot headed young Prince fell into all the Errours of his great Grand-father and found the like if not greater Resistance from his Nobility and People for when he had highly mis-governed the Realm by the Advice of his favourites Alexander Arch-Bishop of York the Duke of Ireland and others a Parliament being called in the 10th Year of his Reign the Government of the Kingdom was taken out of their hands and committed to the Bishops of Canterbury and Ely with Thomas Duke of Gloucester the King's Uncle Richard Earl of Arundel and Thomas Earl of Warwick and nine or ten other Lords and Bishops but notwithstanding this the King being newly of Age refused to be governed by the said Duke and Earls but was carried about the Kingdom by the said Duke of Ireland and others to try what Forces they could raise and also to hinder the said Duke and Earls from having any Access to him But see what followed these violent and arbitrary courses as it is related by Henry de Knighton who lived and wrote in that very time and is more exact in this King's Reign than any other Historian he there tells us that when Thomas Duke of Gloucester and the other Bishops and Earls now mentioned sound they could not proceed in the Government of the King and Kingdom according to the Ordinance of the preceding Parliament through the hinderance of Mich. de la Poole Robert de Vere Duke of Ireland Nich. Brembar and Robert Tresillian Chief Justice and others who had seduced the King and made him alienate himself from the Council of the said Lords to the great damage of the Kingdom whereupon the said Duke of Gloucester and the Lords aforesaid with a great Guard of Knights Esquires and Archers came up towards London and quartered in the Villages adjacent and then the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury the Lord Lovat the Lord Cobham the Lord Eures with others went to the King in the name of the the Duke and Earls and demanded all the persons above-mentioned to be banished as Seducers and Traitors to the King and all the Lords then swore upon the Cross of the said Arch-Bishop not to desist till they had obtained what they came for the conclusion of this Meeting was that the King not being able to withstand them was forced immediately to call that remarkable Parliament of the 11th Year of his Reign in which Mich. de la Poole and the Duke of Ireland were attainted and Tresillian and divers other Judges sentenced to be hanged at Tyburn upon the Impeachment of the said Duke of Gloucester and the Earl of Arundel for delivering their Opinions contrary to Law and the Articles the King had not long before proposed to them at Nottingham I shall omit the Resistance which Henry Duke of Lancaster made after his Arrival by the Assistance of the Nobility and People of the North of England against the Arbitrary Government of this King being then in Ireland not only because it is notoriously known but because it was carried on farther than perhaps it needed to have been and ended in the Deposition of this King Only in the first Year of Henry the 4th there was the same Act of Indemnity almost word for word passed for all those that had come over with that King and had assisted him against Richard the Second and his evil Councellors as was passed before in primo of Edward the Third I shall not also insist upon the Resistance of Richard Duke of York in the Reign of King Henry the 6th who took up Arms against the Evil Government of the Queen and her Minion the Duke of Suffolk because you may say that this was justifiable by the Duke of York as right Heir of the Crown nor will I instance in the Resistance made by the Two Houses of Parliament during the late Civil Wars in the time of King Charles the First since it is disputed to this day who was in the fault and began this Civil War whether the King or the Parliament Only thus much I cannot omit to take notice of that the King in none of his Declarations ever denied but that the People had a right to Resist him in case he had made War upon them or had introduced Arbitrary Government and expresly owned in his Answer to one of the Parliaments Messages that they had a sufficient power to restrain Tyranny but denied himself to be guilty of it and still asserted that he took up Arms in defence of his just Right and Prerogative to the Command of the Militia of the Kingdom which they went about to take from him by force M. I have with the greater patience hearkened to your History of Resistance in all the Kings Reigns you have mentioned because I cannot desire any better Argument to prove the unlawfulness of such Resistance than those Acts of Pardon and Indemnity You cannot but confess have
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
he was made King nor can I see how their taking of Lands from Him could make him become an Absolute and Irresistible Monarch over them and their Descendants so that if upon your supposition all the owners of Lands in England at this day hold their Estates either by descent or purchase from those Antient Normans or French Proprietors they must also succeed to the same Liberties and Priviledges as those under whom they claim did formerly enjoy But before I conclude I cannot but take notice of what you have said against my proofs of the formal election of King William for if the keeping of a guard about the place where the King is Elected and Crowned should void the freedom of the Election I doubt whether the election of any elective Kings or Monarchs no not of the German Emperor himself would hold goods as for the other reason that they could not chuse but â—lect him that is yet mâ—re trivial for there being no more than one thaâ— stood to be chosen they could indeed chuse no other but if not having a Liberty to refuse must void the Right of Election pray consider as I told you before whether there be any Canonical Election of Bishops in the Church of England at this day therefore I doubt not but that King William I. was as lawfully and freely elected as K. Edward the Confessor his Predecessor whom all Authors agree to have had no other Title and Williâ—lmus Gemeticensis in the place I now cited tells us he was Elected King as well of the Norman as English Nobles and if the custom had not â—â—en â—â—cen to Elâ—â—â— the King before he was Crowned it is not likely thaâ— your Conqueror would have introduced a new custom to the prejudice of his pretended right by Conquest but indeed there is not only more cogent argument to prove that the Crown was formerly elective than â—he constant usage as you your self confess ever since your preâ—ended Conquest to this day of asking the People whether they are content to have such a one for their King As for your Doctors quotation out of William of â—oictoâ— pray take notice that he places your Conquerors Hereditary bequest together with the Oaths of the English as his best Title and the right of War last by which this Author did not understand a Conquest of the People of England but his prevailing against Harold M. I do own with the learned Dr. B. that the Descendants of those ancient Norman and Freâ—â—h Earls and Baâ—ons than came in with the Conquerour and their Posterity afterwards seeing the Yoke of feudâ—l Tenures and other prerogatives this King and His Descendants exercised over them to press as hard upon them as the Antient English were those that made such a disturbance for their Right and Liberties in the Reigns of H. Iohn and Henry the third and tho' I grant their Ancestors were never conquered and consequently could not be obliged to him as to a Conqueror 〈◊〉 may for all this maintain that they and their Posterity were as much bound to an Absolute Subiection without any resistance aâ— the English whom they conquer'd for they were either his own Subjects in Aâ—â—mandâ— before his coming oâ—eâ— hither or else were such Volunteers who followed him but of hopes of Estates and Brâ—ferment was for all those of the former 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 were his subjects before they were tied not only by their 〈◊〉 Oaths of a Regiance which they had taken in Normandy but were also bound by the same obligation of Non resistance as all other subjects must always be both in that and all other Governments to all which was added another Obligation in respect of those who were not his subjects before his entrance since this whole Kingdom was by Conquest the Conqueâ—ors as appears in that he bestowed the 〈◊〉 part of 〈◊〉 his Followeâ—â— whose blood runs at this day in the Veins of most of our English Genâ—ry and Nobility as a reward for their Service and Assistance tho' he might have some part to the English Natives and their Heirs yet so aâ— that he altered the Tenure and made it descend with such burdens as he pleased to lay upon them so that as well â—his own Countrymen Normans as those of all other Nations who thus became Subjects and Feudataries to him for all the Lands they possessed in England since he was the only Directus Dominus or Lord Paramount of the whole Kingdom were also his Vassals and Subjects for in case of Treason and Rebellion or Death without Heir those Lands were to return to him again and to be aâ— his dispossal so that all subjects as well Normans as other Foreigners who had Lands granted to them by the Conqueror thus became his homines Ligei Liegemen and did owe Faith and true Allegiance to him as their Supream and Liege Lord as the King is called in several Statutes and the definition of Liegeancy is set down to the grand Customary of Normandy Ligeantia est ex quâ domino tementur vasalli sui c that is Liegeancy is an obligation upon all subjects to take part with their Liege Lord against all men living to aid and assist him with their Bodies and Goods and with their advice and power 〈◊〉 to lift up their hands against him nor to support in any wise those who oppose him and tho' I grant that the Supream or Liege Lord is likewise bound to govern and defend his Liege People according to the Rights Customs and Laws of the Countrey yet is he not liable to resistance much less forfeiture if he neglect it For tho' if Subjects break their Covenants and prove disloyal all their Lands and other Rights are forfeited to the King yea if the King or Supream Lord break his Oaâ—â—â— notwithstanding his sailing therein neither his Crown nor any Rights belonging to his Royal Dignity are thereby â—orfeiâ—ed the reason of this inequality is because the King gave Laws to the â—eople but the People did not give Laws to him so that it is plain that however you 〈◊〉 the Conquerors entrance whether by the Sword or to avoid the Envy of the Title of a Conqueror by a voluntary submission of the English Nation to him as to their Sovereign the conclusion cannot vary because the duty of Non-resistance arises from their own Act they taking an Oath of Allegiance to be his True and Loyal Subjects with which Oath Resistance can by no means consist F. I must beg your pardon if I cannot take what you have now said for a satisfactory answer since I doubt it will do you little service whether you make use of it either in respect of the Normans or other Foreigners for as to the soâ—mâ—r it appears from the Antient Constitution of Normandy that the Duke was no absolute Monarch there but Feudaâ—ary to the King of France and farther could make no Laws nor impose Taxes in Normandy without the consent of the Estates of that Dutchy as
without Children should be Heir to the Deceased And so far were they from thinking this Agreement stood in need of Ratification of a great Council that there was but twelve of the Principal Men on each side sworn to see it duly observed But if we come to consider the next putting by of Duke Robert from his Right to the Crown you will find it to have been done with a far less colour of Right than the former for he being then absent in the Holy Land at the time of Rufus's death Henry his Younger Brother laid hold of the opportunity and assembling divers of the great Men of the Kingdom he promised them to make a full Restitution of all their Antient Laws and Liberties and confirm them by his Charter and abrogate such severe ones as his Father had made thereupon they did unanimously consent to Crown him King Now I cannot see how this managed with so much Artifice corruption can properly be call'd an Election since that ought to be a deliberate sedate Action and at which all the persons concern'd ought to be present but this could not possibly be for King William was kill'd on the second of August and buried the next day and the day after that being Sunday this pretended Election was made and the Saxon Chronicle tells us That those great Men who were near at hand chose his Brother Henry King So that this looks more like the Combination of a Faction of Bishops Lords and great Men than the free Election of a King since it was impossible for all that were or ought to be present from all parts of the Kingdom to have notice to assemble and dispatch that great Business in two days time But to let you see that Duke Robert did not fit down contented with this Usurpation upon his Right for as soon as ever he came from the Holy Land he straight made War upon his Brother and many great Men of the Normans took his part and this War was eagerly carried on for some time and Duke Robert Landing in England with an Army K. Henry marcht against him with all his Forces but as the Saxon Chronicle also tells us some principal Men going between them brought them to an Agreement upon conditions that K. Henry should pay Duke Robert 3000 Marks Pension yearly and that he of the Brothers who surviv'd the other should be Heir of all England and Normandy unless the party deceas'd should have Children of his own so that though I grant King Henry recites in his Charter in Matthew Paris that he was Crowned King by the Common Council of the Barons of England yet his saying so could not give him a Right and he must say this or nothing for no other pretence or Title he could have and there never was any other Usurper in his circumstances but must say that or some such thing to make out a Title and therefore to answer your Question why Duke Robert took not upon himself the Title of King neither upon the death of his Father nor after that of his Elder Brother I think this may serve for an Answer that he parting with his Right to both his Brothers successively he then lookt upon it as needless to take the Title of King upon him as not looking upon himself then to be so F. I confess you have from your Dr. together with some assistance of your own made a very cunning gloss upon these two great Instances of Vacancy and Election to evade if it were possible that Right which the Common Council of the Kingdom then challeng'd to themselves and therefore I shall make bold strictly to examine what you have now said In the first place as to the Title of King William Rufus though I grant it was founded upon his Fathers Testament yet you see that this was not good alone without the consent and approbation of the Common Council of the Kingdom I think I have sufficiently prov'd at our last Meeting but one when we discourst of the Force of the like Testament made by King Edward the Confessor to King William the First which according to the English Saxon Law that â—as still observed was never valid until confirm'd by the consent of the Wittena Gemot or Great Council and he that had both these whether next Heir by Blood or not was always esteem'd as lawful King as I have also proved from the Testament of King Alfred and though you will take no notice of it yet was this Testament of King William I. then produced and read in the Common-Council of the Bishops Earls and Barons of the Kingdom as appears by all the Antient Historians who treat of this matter I shall only give you a taste of them Matthew Paris expresly relates the circumstances of it in these words Optimates frequenteâ— â—d Westmonasterium in concilium convenere ubi loci post long am consultationem Gulielmum Rusum Regem fecere and Abbot Brompton tells us that it was done in a full Council Convocatis Terrae magnatibus so that here was nothing wanting to a full Election or Confirmation at least of King William's Title and till this was done it is plain the Throne was Vacant But as for the claim that Duke Robert made to the Crown though I do not deny but he might think himself to have a just Title to it by a received custom among divers Nations by which the eldest Son is looked upon to have a right before the younger yet that this is no Law of Nature or Reason and consequently not Divine I think I have sufficiently prov'd at our second meeting But that this right of Succession of the eldest Son to be no fundamental Law of this Kingdom I think I can sufficiently prove from our English Saxon Histories as well as Laws and as for what you say concerning those Norman Lords and Bishops who joyn'd with Duke Robert after his Brother was Crown'd King it is call'd no better than Treason by all the Writers of those times for Florence of Worcester and Sim of Durham both tell us that the King thereupon call'd together the English and open'd unto them the Treason of the Normans and the Saxon Chronicleâ— who seem'd to have lived about that time compares the Treason of Bishop Odo to that of Iudas Iscariot against our Lord and though I grant King William might make such an agreement with his Brother Duke Robert as you mention yet as for the 3000 Marks Pension which you say he was to pay him I very much doubt it since no Historian but Matthew of Westminster who lived between two and three hundred years after makes mention of it and therefore I think it is to be referr'd to the following agreement betwixt this Duke and his Brother King Henry which the Saxon Chronicle expresly mentions Having now examin'd and clear'd the Title of King William Rufus I come next to justifie that of King Henry I. to the Crown
one thing more to add in relation to somewhat I promised at the end of the Preface to the last Dialogue concerning the late Revolutions being different from the last Civil War and Murther of King Charles the First which though I have finish'd and thought to have inserted into this Discouese yet since it proves rather too long without it and that the Bookseller urges for its speedy Publication I have thought fit to omit it since also the greatest part of it relates to matter of fact which is variously stated by those who write the History of those times yet I shall make bold to give you the heads of those inquiries I have made and shall leave you to satisfie your self in these Points following first if after King Charles the first had not only passed all Bills for redressing those Grievances the Nation lay under at the beginning of the Parliament in 1640. but had also passed the Bill to make it not to be Prorogued or Dissolved without their own consents I say whether there were then any such violations of our Religion and fundamental Laws which should require the Parliament and Nations puting themselves in a posture of defence against the King's Arbitrary Power Secondly whether the fears and jealousies of Popery and Arbitrary Government which notwithstanding all that the King had done still troubled many Mens minds were a sufficient ground for the two Houses to demand the putâ—ing the whole Militia of the Kingdom out of his own Power into such hands as they should nominate and appoint Thirdly whether upon his refusal of their Adresses for the Militia their going about to take it out of his hands by force and particularly their shutting him out of Hull was not an actual making War upon the King when he was as yet unâ—armed and had given out no Commissions to raise Men or Arms. Fourthly when the War was begun whether the King did not in all his Messages to and Treaties with the Parliament propose and seem to desire Peace upon equal and reasonable terms Fifthly Whether the two Houses did not instead of complying with those reasonable Proposals still insist upon higher Terms as their Victories and Successes over the King increased Sixthly when the King was deliver'd up by the Scots whether the Parliament and Army did not keep him as good as a close Prisoner and vote no more Addresses to be made to him meerly because he refused to pass whatever Bills they brought to him Seventhly When at last he was forced by necessity to grant them at the Isle of Wight almost whatever they demanded whether he was not hurried away from thence by Cromwell's Army and for the major part of the House of Commons who had Voted the King's Concessions satisfactory excluded the House by force till the far less Party had reversed all that the rest had done and then Voted the King should he called to an account for making War upon the Parliament and for Treason against the Kingdom Eighthly Whether in pursuance of this they did not appoint Iudges to Trie the King who upon his refusal to own their Authority Condemned him to death and cut off his head before the Gates of his own Palace Ninthly Whether this fag end of a Parliament did not alter the whole frame of the Government both in Church and State destroying both Monarchy and Episcopacy and Voting the House of Peers useless and dangerous and setting up a Democratical Commonwealth or rather an Oligarcy in their stead consisting of about fifty or sixty Men wholly governed and awed by Cromwell and the Officers of the Army Now let any Man but impartially consider all these Transactions with the late Revolution and read what hath been said in the three last Dialogues and then let him tell meingenuously whether he thinks this Revolution hath been begun upon the like grounds and carried on by the same violent Courses or has ended with the same direful effects as the late Civil War and Murther of King Charles the First I have no more to propose on this Subject but only to wish that these Discourses written with a real design for the publick good and peace of my Countrey may be read with the like affection with which they were written and may really promote that end for which they were designed but if not that they may at least serve as an Impartial History to Posterity of those Principles and Opinions on which this late great Revolution hath been brought about in England and also those on which it hath been so violently opposed by the dissenting Party THE Thirteenth Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. MEANWELL a Civilian AND Mr. FREEMAN a Gentleman F. SIR I hope I do not interrupt you by coming too soon for the truth is since I intend that this shall be the last Dispute I shall ever have with you upon this Subject I was very desirous to have it dispatched as soon as I could that when I have once discharged the duty of an old Friend and Acquaintance my mind may be at rest which side soever you take M. Dear Sir I thank you and though I intended to go abroad this Evening upon an Appointment yet I will not put it off that I may enjoy your better Conversation therefore pray begin where you left off and prove to me that I may lawfully take this new Oath of Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary F. I cannot see any reason why you may not safely do it since our best Common Lawyers are of this Opinion for my Lord Coke in his Third institutes in his Notes upon the Statute of Treason the 25 th of Edward the III d gives it for Law that this Act is to be understood of a King in possession of the Crown and Kingdom for if there be a King Regnant in possession although he be Rex de Facto non de Iure yet is he Seignior Le Roy within the purview of that Statute and the other that hath Right and is out of possession is not within this Act c. And if it be Treason to Levy War against him or to Conspire his Death as long as he continues King it can only be so because the Subjects Allegiance is then due to him for that all Men have either taken the Oath of Allegiance or else are supposed to have done it M. I must beg your pardon if I cannot come over to your Opinion neither in point of Law or Reason for as long as I am perswaded in my Conscience that King Iames is King de Iure so long must the obligation of my former Oath last and I suppose that you will grant that it is as impossible to owe Allegiance to two Kings at once as it is to serve two Masters and therefore you must pardon me if I suppose that my Lord Coke depending too much upon the commonly received sence of the Statute of the Eleventh of Henry the VII th which he quotes in the Margin may be
addition of new arguments I hope you will not think me tedious if I am also necessitated to repeat the same things again and put you in mind of what I hayh already prov'd which when I have done I doubt not but this argument of yours will signifie very little Your first mistake therefore is that King Henry the VIIth being an Usurper had no power to alter the course of Hereditary Succession setled by the Statute of the first of Edward the IVth whereby he was declar'd lawful King in answer to which I must put you in mind that this was the first time that ever this Point was so setled before and that not till after a long War and that by subduing all those that held with the House of Lancaster he had made such a perfect Conquest of all that oppos'd him that there was no Lords or Commons in this Parliament but what were intirely of his Party yet we see that when Henry the VIth got the upper hand again and his party revers'd this Statute of Edward the IVth and declar'd the Crown to belong to Henry the VIth and his Heirs which Act was to revers'd again by the next Parliament in the eleventh of Edward the IVth when he again recover'd the Crown by another Battle against Henry the VIth so evident it is that whoever is once seated in the Throne and is recognized by Act of Parliament tho' of his own summoning all his Acts till they are repeal'd do hold good though he were declar'd an Usurper and himself attainted by Act of Parliament and therefore admitting that Henry the VIIth was an Usurper at the time when this Act we now discourse of was made yet would it not render this Act void as you suppose since it was never yet repeal'd by any subsequent Statute But indeed Henry the VIIth was no Usurper at the time when this Statute was made for you your self have already granted that he had a good Title in right of his Wife which he never renounc'd or disavow'd and therefore we may very well suppose that she though Queen de jure gave her tacit consent to this Act in the person of her Husband and if so I cannot see any reason why it should not stand good not only against her self and her own Children 〈◊〉 also against all others who should claim under her Title but if you say she could not do this in prejudice of her own right Heirs because the Crown had been already declar'd by Act of Parliament to be Hereditary and not to be acquir'd by Usurpation this is to beg the question and to suppose an Hereditary descent to have been the fundamental Law and constant practice of the Succession of the Crown before that time whereas I have already prov'd that till the Reign of Edward the First the Crown was partly Hereditary and partly Elective and ever since that time though it has been still claim'd as Hereditary yet has it been always believed to be the right of the Parliament to declare who was Lawful King and that whosoever was so declar'd and recogniz'd has been always looked upon in the eye of the Law as the only Rightful and Legal King to whom the Allegiance of the Subjects was due and whose Statutes are obligatory at this day This being so as it cannot be deny'd your Argument from the Act of recognition to King Iames the First may be easily answer'd though I should grant at present for discourse sake that their now Majesties King William and Queen Mary are only King and Queen de facto for if all the Statutes of these three Kings of the House of Lancaster and of Richard the Third nay even those Statutes by which themselves were declar'd to be lawful Kings and the Crown setled upon them and their issue have at all times held good till they were lawfully repeal'd I desire you would shew me any sufficient reason why the late Act of Recognition of their present Majesties Title and for the settlement of the Crown upon their right Heirs of the Protestant Religion should not have the like force and effect in respect of our Allegiance to them as it had been to all other Kings de facto who have hitherto sate upon the Throne though perhaps it may derogate from the intent of that Statute of Recognition of King Iames the First nor does it make any difference though we suppose that this Act was made by a King by descent and that we now discourse of only by a King and Queen de facto and a Parliament call'd or own'd by them since the Law allows no difference as to their Legislative Power between Acts made by a King de facto and one de jure And therefore though I grant that those conclusions you draw from this Statute are true that there is no inter-regnum or vacancy of the Throne And Secondly that the assent of the King is that which gives the life being and vigour to the Laws yet as for your first conclusion that there can be no vacancy of the Throne it is only to be understood that ordinarily and according to the common course of Succession there can be none and yet extraordinarily there may as you your self must grant since upon the death of Queen Elizabeth there might have happen'd a contest between King Iames and the then Earl of Hartford as Heir to Mary the French Queen second Sister to King Henry the VIIIth upon whose Heirs the Crown was setled by Henry the VIIIth's Will as I have already mention'd at our last Meeting and if it had been a doubt whether this Will had been rightly made or not could have been no otherwise decided but by War or else the solemn Judgement and recognition of Parliament of that Title they had judged to be best and he who had been so declared would certainly have been lawful King and all the Nation had been oblig'd to swear Alleglance to him Apply this to the present case admitting King Iames to have truly Abdicated the Throne and see whether it be not exactly the same supposing for once your Prince of Walts to have been indeed the Son of the late King and Queen and though it is true he is not yet declar'd an Impostor yet is he neither acknowledged as their right Heir for the Reasons I have already given But as for your next conclusion that it is the assent of the lawful King that gives force and vigour to a Law from whence you would infer that the late Act of Recognition and Settlement is void because not made by those who were lawful King and Queen at the time of the making this Act this is also to beg the question for though it is true the Act of Recognition to King Iames declares this Act could not be compleat without his Majesties Royal Assent yet it is not there said that no other King but he who claims by descent as King Iames did could pass an Act that should be good