place as to the dispensing Power which the King has lately assumed to himself in matters of Religion and thereby putting into Offices and Commands persons uncapable by Law of bearing them without taking the Test as I shall not now dispute the Legality or Illegality of the Kings Declaration concerning it so as to that part of it that concerns Liberty of Conscience or dispensing with the Papists and Dissenters to meet in Assemblies for their Religious Worship notwithstanding all the Acts made against Mass and Conventicles it was no more than what King Charles the IId had done before with the Advice of his Privy-Council in which if it had been Rebellion to have opposed him sure it is the same crime in the Reign of his Brother 2. As for the Commission for causes Ecclesiastical F. Since I foresee your discourse upon this Subject is like to be long and to consist of many more heads than I doubt my memory will serve to bear away pray give me leave to answer all your instances one after another as you propose them First then as to the late Declaration concerning the Dispensing Power it was so far from being done by Law or so much as the Colour of it that besides its being against divers express Acts of Parliament which tye up the Kings hands from dispensing with the Act against publick Mass and Conventicles as also that disable all Persons whatever to act in any publick Imployments till they have taken the Test appointed by the said Act in which all non obstances are expresly barred But this Declaration was never so much as shewn to the Privy Council till it was ready to be published and then indeed the King caused it to be read in Council declaring that he would have it issued forth tho' without ever Putting it to the Vote or so much as asking the consents of the Privy Councellours there present though I grant the Title of it sets forth that it was done by his Majesty in Council to impose upon the Nation that stale cheat whereby this King as well as the last would have had us believe that their Declarations had been issued by the consent of the Council when God knows there was no such thing And as for any judgment or opinion of the Judges to support it and make it pass by colour of Law it was never as I can hear of so much as propos'd to them in their judicial capacities though perhaps it might be propos'd to the Lord Chancellor and some of the Judges who were of the Cabal which is nothing to the purpose all that I ever heard to have been brought judicially before them was the Case of Sir Edward Hales taking a Commission for a Collonel of a Regiment after he had openly declared himself a Papist in which great point though I grant the Major part of the Judges gave their opinion for the dispensing Power yet was it only in the case of Military commissions as several of them afterwards declared and not of all sorts of Imployments as well Civil as Military much less for Popish heads of Colledges Parsons and Bishops to hold their Livings Headships and Bishopricks if they pleased to turn to the Romish Religion or that the King should please to bestow them upon Popish Priests it would have been as legal in the one case as in the other Since as for Popish Heads of Colledges and Parsons we have had too many instances of it and if we had none for Bishops we must thank either the constancy of most or the timorousness of some of them if they have not openly declared for the Romish Religion and yet might have kept their Bishopricks notwithstanding but I do not at all doubt but that such a general dispensation for professed Papists to take and hold all sorts of Offices and places of Trust not only Military but Ecclesiastical and Civil would have in a little time brought all Offices and Imployments into their hands Nor is this dispensing power in matters of Religion the sole thing aimed at by this Declaration as appears by the very words and whole purport of it which is not confined to matters of Religion only but claims an unlimited power of dispensing with all sorts of Statutes in all cases whatever none excepted and if so pray tell me what Magna Charta or the Statute de Tallagio non concidendo or any other Law will signifie whenever the King pleases to dispense with them either as to raising Money or taking away mens Lives or Liberties or Estates contrary to Law nay the Papists already give out and that in Print that all Laws for taking away Religious Orders and Suppressures of Monasteries are against Magna Charta by which holy Church that is the Popish Religion then in being is to injoy all her ancient Rights and Liberties and the Abbots and Priors do thereby as well as the Bishops and Lay Lords reserve to themselves all their Ancient Rights and free Customs now whether this unbounded Prerogative would not quickly have destroyed not only the Ecclesiastical but Civil constitution of this Kingdom as they now stand establisht by Law and would have soon introduced both Popery and Arbitrary Government on this Nation I leave it to your self or any indifferent person to consider And though I do not say that the bare giving of Papists or Protestant Dissenters a Liberty of Religious Meetings or Assemblies for Mass or Preaching is an infringment of the free exercise of our Religion establisht by Law yet pray take one thing along with you which is a matter of great moment both to the Dissenters and to our selves that if the King can thus by his Prerogative give both Papists and Fanaticks a Liberty to meet publickly contrary to Law let the latter look to it for he may by the same Prerogative whenever he pleases dispense only with the Papists and keep the Laws still on foot against the Dissenters nay he may by the same unbounded Prerogative dispense with all the Laws for the publick exercise of our Religion and under pretence of dispensing with them only in some particular cases shut up our Church Doors one after another beginning with the Cathedrals and so proceeding by degrees to Parish Churches and though I grant King Charles the IId did assume a power of dispensing with all Statutes concerning Religious Meetings contrary to Law yet the Nation had not then any sufficient reason to rise in Arms against this Declaration since it did not extend the Kings Prerogative beyond those Acts concerning Religious Worship and farther the Nation was not out of all hopes of having it redressed by the next Parliament and so was not in that desperate condition in which it was lately before the Prince of Oranges coming over And you may remember that the Late King upon the joint Address of the Lords and Commons against that Declaration was forced to call it in and cancel it which certainly ought to have been better considered
the Nation from his Oppression though the Prince was pleas'd to accept it upon those terms expressed in the late Declaration of the Convention and upon his free promise to preserve preserve our Religion Laws and Liberties which he has since also confirm'd by his Coronation Oath But as to what you say that the Prince made the Kings Army desert him and wrought the People into hatred of his Person by lying Stories and mean Arts is altogether untrue since I know of no Reports he made of the King or his Government but what are in his first Declaration and that is certainly true in every part of it and as has been justified by the express Declaration of the Convention in every particular except that concerning the Prince of Wales which I confess is left still undecided because as I have already proved it is impossible to give any certain judgement in it unless the Witnesses as well as the Infant himself could be brought over hither nor doth the Prince in his said Declaration say any more concerning that business than that there are violent suspicions that the pretended Prince of Wales was not Born of the Queen but for the report of the Secret League with France for the extirpation of the Protestant Religion as there is no such thing in his Highnesses Declaration so the spreading of it cannot be laid to his charge since he never gave it out as I know of yet there are certainly great presumptions and too much cause of suspicion that it may be so as I proved at our last Meeting But though you will not allow the Prince the Title of our Deliverer yet I am sure the greatest part both of the Clergy and Laity of the Church of England were once of Opinion that King Iames's violations both upon our Religion and Laws were so great that nothing could preserve the Kingdom from a total Subversion in its Establisht Religion and Civil Constitution but his Highnesses coming over and most of the Bishops were of that Opinion who now the Government is setled refused to take the Oath of Allegiance to their present Majesties But to answer what you say that the manner of Henry the IV ths and Henry the VII ths coming to the Crown doth not at all agree with this Case of King William because they claimed by right of blood which you say King William cannot do that is not so in respect of the Queen who has certainly a right to succeed her Father by right of blood in case the Prince off Wales be not the true Son of the Queen and untill he can be proved so we must at present look upon him as if he were not so at all so that the Convention hath done no more in setling the Crown upon the King during his Life than what the Great Council of the Kingdom have frequently done before upon other vacancies of the Throne as I have proved from the Examples of William Rufus and Henry the First King Stephen King Iohn and Henry the Third And it is very hard to suppose the whole Nation to have been guilty of Perjury and Treason upâ—n their Swearing to and Fighting for those Princes after they were so Solemnlâ— Elected Crowned and Invested with the Royal Power But as for Edward III. his first and best Title was from the election of the Great Council of the Kingdom who I doubt not but if they had found him unworthy of the Royal Dignity by reason of folly or madness or Tyrannical Principles would have set him aside and have made his youngâ—â— Brother King a Protector to govern in the King's Name with Royal Power having never been known in England till the Reign of Henry the VI th but as for Henry the IV th notwithstanding his claim by right of Blood I have already proved that the Paâ—liament by their placing him in the Throne did not at all allow it nor is any such Right recited in the Act of the 7 th of Henry the IV th which by the Crown is entail'd upon that King and his four successive Sons And though it is true Henry the Seventh also claim'd the Crown by right of Inheritance in his Speech in Parliament yet they were so far from allowing it that they do not so much as mention it in that Act of Setlement which as I have recited they made of it upon that and the Heirs of his Body And therefore I think I may still maintain that the Convention hath done nothing in the present Setlement of the Crown but what hath been formerly done upon every vacancy of the Throne either by deposition or resignation of the King or Abdication or Forfeiture of the Crown as in the case of King Iames in which the Convention have done no more than exercised that Power which has always been suppos'd to reside in the great Council of the Kingdom of setling the Crown upon such a Prince of the Blood-Royal as they shall think best to deserve it Thus much I have said to preserve the Antient Right of the Great Council of the Nation But to put all this out of dispute I have been credibly inform'd that the Princess of Denmark her self did by some of her Servants in both Houses as well of the Lords as Commons declare upon a great Debate that arose about securing her Highnesses Right to the Crown immediately after her Sister the Queen that her Highness had desired them to assure the Convention that she was willing to acquiesce in whatever they should determine concerning the Succession of the Crown since it might tend to the present setlement and safety of the Nation which I think is a better Cession of her Right to his present Majesty than any you can prove that the Empress Mawd made to her Son Henry the Second or than the Countess of Richmond ever made to her Son Henry the Seventh M. You have often talked of this forfeiture and extravagant Power of your Convention by whom you suppose they are not obliged to place the Crown upon the head of the next Heir by Blood which I shall prove to be a vain Notion for if there be an absolute forfeiture of the Crown the Government would have been absolutely Dissolved for since there is no Legal Government without a King if the Throne were really vacant and that the People might place whom they pleas'd in it yet the Convention can have no Power to do it as their Representatives since upon your suppos'd dissolution of the Original Contract between the King and the People there was an end of all Conventions and Parliaments too And therefore if a King could have been chosen at all it ought to have been by the Votes of the whole body of the Clergy Nobility and Commons in their own single Persons and not by any Council or Convention to represent them since the Laws for restraining the Election of Parliament-men only to Freeholders are upon this suppos'd Dissolution of the Government altogether void and
Sculpture which takes it quite away I think I may very well maintain that it is still left entire to us and is not abrogated by the Law of the Gospel and that it was lawful before our Saviour's coming into the World I have proved by those defensive Arms made use of by David and the Maccabers And as for the Testimonies of the Fathers and the practice of the Primitive Christians of which the Reverend Primate hath made so ample a Collection in that Treatise you know shew me I thank you for your kind offer of it but I do not now need it for since I began to consider this Controversie with you I have carefully read over that Treatise and I cannot find that this vast Collection out of Prophane as well as Ecclesiastical Writers will prove any more than those Principles which I own to be true and yet will not impugne this Principle I here defend In the first part of this Discourse it is proved by Scripture as well as other Testimonies that the Authority of all Soveraign Powers is from God which I also allow yet doth it not hinder but that the Consent and Submission of the People is a necessary means or Condition of conveying this Authority when God doth not please to make or Nominate Kings himself 2 dly That the Persons as well as Power of Soveraign tho' wicked Princes is also Sacred and Irresistible yet this is to be understood whilst they continue to act towards their whole People as the Ordinance of God and by vertue of that Divine Commission which they have received from him In the second Part of this Discourse it is proved from Scripture Testimonies of the Fathers and other Authors that particular Subjects are bound to obey the Supream Powers in all lawful and indifferent things or else to submit and suffer the punishment in case of their unlawful Laws or Commands As also to bear with any Violence and Injury that may be offered to them rather than to disturb the publick Peace and Civil Government of the Common wealth 2 ly That in the time of the Primitive Church and before the Christian Religion was settled By Law and become part of the Civil Constitution of whole Kingdoms and States It was unlawful to Resist the Supream Powers in case of Persecution tho' to death it self for the Testimony of Christian Religion which I have also allowed through this whole Conversation Yet none of these Quotations as I can see do reach the matter in Controversie between us and assert it expresly to be absolutely unlawful for the whole People of any Kingdom or Nation to make use of defensive Arms and Resist the Intolerable Violence and Tyranny of the Supream Powers if they shall happen to make War upon their People and go about to take away and subvert the main Ends of all Government viz. the Preservation of Mens Lives Liberties and Civil Properties Neither do they any where assert that in limited oâ— mixt Governments such as most of those now in Europe where the People by the fundamental Constitutions of the Government or the aster Concessions of Princes restraining their own absolute Power enjoy divers Priviledges and Liberties unknown to those who live under absolute Monarchies That the People may not upon the manifest Invasion of such Legal Right by force Resist and defend themselves and their just Right against the violent Invasion of the Prince M. I cannot deny but you have fairly enough represented the Chief Heads or Principles which the Reverend Primate â—ndertakes to prove in this Excellent Treatise And I think you have your self granted enough to confute all you have already said For in the first place if it be unlawful for every particular private Subject to Resist the Supream Powers it will likewise follow that it will be also unlawful for a whole Nation For a whole Nation is only a Systeme or Collection of particular Persons and Universals have no real Being in Nature but only in our Ideas So that if it be unlawful for every particular Person to Resist and defend himself in case he is injured and opprest it must be also unlawful for a whole People which consists of individuals to make such Resistance and it is a Rule in Logick that nothing can be affirmed of Individuals which may not also be affirmed of the whole Species So likewise if you grant That the Primitive Christians ought not to have Resisted the Supream Powers in case of Persecution for Religion I think it will likewise as well prove that they ought not to Resist upon any account whatsoever since certainly there cannot be greater Wrongs or Violences committed in the World by Supream Powers than to allow them an Irresistible Power of putting those to death that bear witness to the Truth of the Gospel since a whole Nation may be as well thereby destroyed if they prove firm to the Christian Religion and that the Prince continue obstinately Cruel And you might as well argue that Patient Suffering without Resistance ought not to be exercised in this Case because it is destructive to Mankind and the Quiet of a Civil Society as to argue from the same Reason that a whole Nation is not obliged to suffer without any Resistance when their Lives Liberties and Properties are invaded by the Supream Powers So that if the Primitive Christians might not Resist the Roman Emperours when they made so great a part of the People and were so vast a multitude in the Roman Empire in the time of Tertuliian as that he tells the Emperour Severâ—â— in his Apology for the Christians to this effect That had they a mind to profess open Hostility and to practice secret Revâ—nge could they want numbers of Men or sorce of Armâ— Are the Moors the Marcomans or the Parthians themselves or any one particular Nation whatsoever more in number than they who are spread oâ—er the whole World They are indeed not of your way and yet they have silled all you have your Cities Islands Castlâ—s Towns Assemblies your very Tents Tribes and Wards yea the Pallace Senate and Place of Judgment Nor need I to mention at large the famous Story of the Thâ—baean Legion who all of them suffered Death rather than they would either Sacrifice to Idols or Resist the Emperour â—s Forces tho' they were between six or seven thousand Men and might have sold their Lives dear enough And if an Emperour may murder so many thousands without any Resistance I see no Reason why he may not put a whole Nation of Christians to death by the same Reason Nor will one of your Reasons which you bring for it signifie any thing that the Christians were to suffer without Resistance beâ—ause Paganism was then the Religion Established by the Law of the Empire for if a Municipal Law as this was ought to be over-ruled by the Natural Law or self-defence when they happen to Clash then the Christians who lived under the Heathen Emperours might
from that 7th Edward the First I think that can by no means do the business for which you design it for in the first place this is only Declaration of the Bishops Lords and Commons of the Land that it belongs to the King to defend i. e. forbid all force of Arms but mark Sir what force sure it is only meant of such Force as belongs to the King's Prerogative to forbid viz. force of Arms against the Publick Peace and such as he might punish according to the Laws and Usages of the Realm and therefore the Statute expresly declares that as Subjects they are hereunto bound Aid him their Soveraign Lord the King at all times when need shall be but does this Act any where say that he hath an Irresistible Power to disturb this Peace by his own private Illegal Commissions or that any men are bound to assist him in it or because for example he hath Authority to punish all men according to Law that shall come to Parliaments with force of Arms that therefore he hath an unlimited power of raising what Forces he would and in prisoning or destroying the whole Parliament if he pleased and that no bodâ— might resist him if he had gone about so to do The like may be said if the 〈◊〉 should notoriously and insupportably by force invade all the Civil Liberâ—â—â—â— and Properties of his Subjects by Levying Taxes and taking away theâ—r Estates by down-right Force contrary to Law now can any body in his senses believe that the Act of 25th of Ed. 3. was made to prevent all Resistance of suâ—h Tyrannical Violence and that the Resistance of those Forces whether forreign or domestick that might be sent by the King 's private Commissioners to murder or enslave us is making War against his Person or that it comes within any of the Cases expressed in that Statute and therefore cannot fall within the compass of Sir Edw. Coke's Comment upon this Staâ—ute all the offences therein specified being Treasâ—ns at Common Law before that Statute was made nor is the Reformation there mentioned to be understood of a just and necessary Defence of our Lives Liberties Religion and Properties as setled and established by the Laws of the Land to be looked upon as making War against a weak or seduced King but is rather in defence of him and the Government by opposing Tyranny which will certainly bring both him and us to Ruine at last so the Reformation he there mentions is only to be be understood of such Insurrections and Rebellions as have been made under the meer pretence of Religion or obtaining greater Liberties for the common sort of People than they had by the Law of the Land such as were the Rebellions of Wat Tyler in King Richard the Second and Mortimers in Hâ—â—ry the 6th Reigns not to mention the other Rebellions raised by the Papists in the times of King Henry the Eighth Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth's Reigns all which being begun by Seditious or Superstitious men were certainly rank Rebellions and so are and ought to be esteem'd by all good Subjects M. I grant these pretences seem very fair and specious yet notwithstanding this your pretended right or a necessity of Resistance of the King or those commissioned by him in case of Tyranny has been still looked upon as Rebellion in all Ages and the Actors dealt with accordingly where ever they were taken F. I do not deny but as long as Arbitrary and Tyrannical Princes could get the better of it and keep the Power in their own hands they still Executed for Traytors whosoever opposed or resisted their wicked and unjust Actions tho' they were never so near Relations to them thus both Edward and Richard the Second put their Uncles the Dukes of Lancaster and Gloucester to death meerly because they joyned with the rest of the Nobility and People to prevent their designs So that it is not the Execution of the Man but the Cause that makes the Traytor since Princes are seldom without a sufficient number of Judges and Jury-men to condemn whomsoever they please to fall upon But that the Clergy Nobility and People of England have always asserted this right of Self-defence in case their Liberties and Properties were uniustly invaded by the Tyrannical or Arbitrary Practices of the King or those about him I think I can prove by giving you the History of it in so many Kings since your Conquest as will render it indisputable if you please to give me now the hearing or else to defer it till the next time we meet M. I confess I was so weary of sitting up so long at our last Conversation that I made a Resolution not to do so any more and therefore since it grows late let us leave off now and I promise to meet you here again within a night or two and then I will hear how well you can vindicate your right of Resistance from Law or History but if you have no better proofs for it than the Rebellion of the Barons in King Iohn and Henry the Third's Reigns you will scarce make me your Convet since Impunity does never sanctifie a wicked action or render it the more lawful and you have already given it me for an Axiom that a facto ad Ius non valet consequentia F. I accept of your Appointment with thanks but pray do not forâ—judge my Arguments till you hear them and as for the Axiom I allow it for good provided I may urge it in my turn but in the mean time I shall wish you good night M. And I the same to you FINIS Bibliotheca Politica OR A DISCOURSE By WAY of DIALOGUE Upon these Questions Whether by the ancient Laws and Constitutions of this Kingdom as well as by the Statutes of the 13th and 14th of King Charles the II. all Resistance of the King or of those commissioned by him are expresly forbid upon any pretence whatsoever And also Whether all those who assisted his present Majesty King William either before or after his coming over are guilty of the breach of this Law Collected out of the most Approved Authors both Antient and Modern Dialogue the Ninth LONDON Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane near the Oxford Arms where also may be had the First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh and Eighth Dialogues 1693. Authours chiefly made use of in this Dialogue and how denoted in the Margin Dr. Sherlocks case of Resistance S. C. R. Mr. Iohnsons Reflections upon it I. R. S. Dr. Hick's answer to Iulian Intituled Iovian H. I. I desire the Reader to remember that whenever I make use of the word People in this or the following Discourse I mean thereby the whole diffusive body of the Nation consisting of the Clergy Nobility and Commons The PREFACE TO THE READER I Must beg your pardon if I have exceeded my intended design in the Preface to the first of these Dialogues of reducing what I had to say on the
extremity or else that the King should be thus invested with an irresistible Power of doing whatever he pleased with us I durst leave to any indifferent person to judge M. I confess you have told me more concerning the History of this Oath than ever I knew before but let the legal sense of it be what it will and setting aside the Precepts in Scripture for absolute Submission without any resistance I think I am able to prove from your own grand Topick of the common good and preservation of Mankind that it is much better to submit to the worst and greatest Tyrant that ever was than to resist him if he be our lawful Prince for if you consider what is the Subject of all Humane Happiness and Contentment it is certainly life now what Tyrant ever in his whole Reign destroyed so many Mens lives by force or unjust Prosecutions as a Civil War if carried on with violence and animosity does in a years time so vast a distance there is between the Evils of Tyranny and Rebellion and so much is the Remedy worse than the Disease the Cruelty of a Tyrant says one is like a Clap of Thunder it strikes with great terrour but Civil War is like an Inundation it sweeps away all before it without noise Thus one Man brought to the Scaffold by the Arbitrary Command of a Tyrant makes more noise than ten Thousand killed in the Field in a Civil War but that does not make the Evil the less but the greater Evil while we are made willing to destroy our selves and do it more effectually in one day than the bloodiest Tyrant could find in his heart to do in his whole Reign All the men put to death by the Arbitrary Commands of Tyrants since the beginning of the World in all the Kingdoms of it will not amount to half the number of those who have perish'd in the Roman or English Civil Wars so much safer are we in God's hands than in our own and in theirs under whom God hath placed us and tho' he often makes them like the Sun and Sea tho' highly useful in themselves scourges for our Sins yet he has promised to keep their hearts in his hand and to turn them as seemeth best unto him we have more Promises of safety there than when we are delivered over to the Beasts of the People whose madness David compares to the raging of the Sea In short The strict Restraint of the People by Government is their truest Liberty and Freedom since if they were at Liberty from Government they would be exposed to Combat one another which would be worse than the greatest slavery in the World the great mistake is in the foolish Notion we have of Liberty which generally is thought to consist in being free from the lash of Government as School-boys from their Master and proves in the consequence only a Liberty to destroy each other and yet it is for such a Liberty as this that men most commonly begin Civil Wars and fall a cutting of each others Throats Therefore tho' I grant it were much better for all Princes to let their Subjects live happily and enjoy a competent share of Ease and Plenty but on the other side if they will not permit them so to do but will tyrannically oppress them it were much better for them to sit down contented with poverty nay slavery it self rather than to destroy so great part of a Nation as may be lost in a Civil War whenever it begins Thus even the Poet Lucan tho' of Cato's party reckoning up the Miseries of the Civil Wars of Rome which were all for Liberty as if envying the happy Condition of those who lived under absolute Tyrants crys out Faelices Arabes Medioque Aeaque Tellus Quos sub perpetuis tenuerunt Fata Tyrannis I could give you instances of the truth of this in most Nations enough to make a History and if such a History were written of the Mischiefs of this false and pretended Liberty and good of the people I durst undertake the Comparison that more visible Mischiefs come upon the people more destruction of the publick good and greater loss of Liberty and Property by this one Method than by all the Tyranny and Violence of Mankind put together and consequently that there is no Comparison 'twixt the Evils of Tyranny and of a Civil War for publick good and that the Mischiefs of this pretence of publick good is infinitely less tolerable and a more Universal Ruine to the people than any Tyranny of lawful Governors that ever was in the World whereas this is by many degrees the greatest and most lawless Tyranny and always brings greater mischief along with it such as Confusion Rapin Violence Contempt of all Laws and legal Establishments with more intolerable Evils of all sorts than those it pretends to remedy But of all pretences for Rebellion Religion is the most ridiculous since a Man's Religion can never be taken from him or a false one imposed upon him whether he will or not and also because a Civil War introduces greater immorality and more loosens the Reins of Discipline and is more contrary to the Spirit of true Religion than any other Thing in the World true Religion is not propagated by the Sword it is a small still Voice that cannot be heard in War War confounds it and debauches it the most profligate and licentious Court bears no proportion in wickedness to the lewdness blasphemy and contempt of all that is Sacred which reigns and overflows in Camps It was an old and true Saying Nulla sides Pietasque viris qui Castra sequuntur F. I see when neither the Scripture nor the Law can justifie your absurd Doctrine of Passive Obedience then you fly back to your old Topick the Law of Nature and common good of Mankind I allow your Principles but not the deductions you draw from thence which are indeed but Paralogisms as I will shew you by and by but I see there is nothing so false and absurd which Prejudice and Education will not make men swallow I confess you have made a long and ingenious Harangue in a Commendation of the Benefits of Tyranny and Slavery which had you done only for an exercise of your Wit I should have ranked it with Cardan's Panegyrick of Nero and the praise of the Government but if you vent such Notions in good earnest I cannot forbear shewing you the absurdity of them First therefore admitting what you say for truth that a Civil War does destroy more men in one Battel than the greatest Tyrant hath ever done in his whole Reign Is this an Argument that no man may defend either his Life or Liberty against Arbitrary Power if this were true Reason it were the greatest folly in the World for the Poles or any other Nation that are at Wars with the Tartars ever to resist them for their Emissaries might thus make use of your Argument to make them submit to
Man hath in an Estate which is his Right let him be what he will or let him mannage it how he will Whereas in the Right to a Kingdom I take it to be a true Maxim That the Representatives of a Nation as the Convention was ought to have more regard to the happiness and safety of the whole People or Common-wealth than to the Dignity or Authority of any particular Person whosoever or howsoever nearly related to the Crown when it is evident that the advancement of such a Person to the Throne will prove destructive to our Religion Civil Liberties and Properties Now give me leave to apply what I have said to the Point now in question Let us therefore at the present suppose that your Prince of Wales is true and lawful Son to King Iames and Queen Mary and let me also farther suppose that in his late passage over Sea he was taken by the Pyrates of Argiers or Tunis and by them been carried to one of those places and been bred up in the Mahometan Religion and after he had been Circumcised and fully grounded in that abominable Superstition the Grand Seignior together with the Kings of Argier and Tunis should send this Nation word that if they would not admit him quietly for their King and allow him all those Priests he should bring with him a free exercise of their Religion in England they would then make War upon this Nation with all the Forces they could raise I ask you what we ought to do in this case whether we should receive him for our King or keep him out M. I must confess it is a nice Question and since it is a thing that never did yet nor I hope will ever come to pass I think I may freely Answer you That supposing this Prince could be proved to be the very same who was carried away so many years ago we ought notwithstanding his false Belief to receive him especially if he would solemnly Swear only to worship God in private after his own way and that he would Swear not to violate our Religion or invade our Liberties and Properties and this being done I think we ought then to admit him for our lawful Sovereign since as you your self have already acknowledged at our third Meeting the Supreme Powers are not to be resisted because they are of a different Religion from that of the People or Nation they Govern F. Very well But let me tell you In this you are much more kind to Mahometan and Heretical Princes than the Church of Rome who have decreed That no Prince ought to be received as right Heir to a Crown who is a Pagan Turk or Heretick and upon this ground it was that the States of France during the time of the League by the Pope's Decree refus'd to own Henry King of Navarre for their Sovereign and also that the Papists of the Nuntio Party in Ireland during the late Rebellion refused to own the late Duke of Ormond for Lord Lieutenant of that Kingdom because the King was a Protestant But pray answer me a Question or two further Suppose this Prince refus'd to promise these or such things or else if he did promise and Swear them pray tell me how could we be assured that according to the Principles of that Religion he had been bred under and those Arbitrary Notions he had learned concerning the Absolute Power of Kings in Barbary and which he would believe due to himself as being as Absolute a Monarch as any of them I say how such a Prince ever could be trusted Since if he had the whole Power of the Militia in his hands he might bring in what number of Turkish or Moorish Guards he should think fit who might easily set up that Religion and Government too in this Nation since according to your Principles of Passive Obedience and Non-resistance no Man ought to lift up so much as a Finger against him though he went about to make us all Turks and Slaves M. Well supposing all this as long as it is his Right he ought to have it let the consequence be what it will F. You have said enough I desire no more but I hope every true Protestant and English man will be of another mind if ever such a case should happen but indeed it appears very strange to me that a natural Disability such as Ideocy or Lunacy should be esteem'd sufficient in all Kingdoms to debarr the next Heir from the Government and yet that a Moral or a Religious Disability should not have the same effect and though I grant that a King ought not to be Rebelled against or resisted meerly because he is of a different Religion from that of his Subjects for I was never for resisting King Iames meerly upon that score yet it is another thing when a Prince is not actually possessed of the Throne but is to be admitted to it upon such Conditions as may appear safe for the Religion and Civil constitution of a Kingdom In this case if a Prince be certainly infected with such pernicious Principles either in relation to Religion or Civil Government it is much otherwise as for Example That no Faith is to be kept with Hereticks That his own Religion is to be propagated by Arms Blood or Persecution That no Government can be safe for the Prince or in which he can appear Great or Glorious but as an absolute Monarch let such a Prince be either a Christian or a Mahometan I think it would be a certain ruine to a Kingdom to be obliged to receive such a Prince when they were morally sure that he would not only subvert their Religion but destroy the very professors of it and not only those but alter the Civil constitution too by turning it from a limited Kingdom into an absolute despotick Tyranny To conclude I shall only desire you to consider into what a Country your Prince of Wales is carry'd and what Instructors he is like to have and what Principles he will receive from them and then pray tell me if he continues there till he is a Man what difference there will be between this young Prince bred up in such a Religion and such Principles and the same if he had been carried away by Pyrates to Argier as I at first suppos'd M. This is a very invidious Comparison for though I do not approve of the Roman-Catholick Religion yet sure there is a great deal of difference between that which professes all the Articles of our Creed and in which we of our Church own Salvation may be obtained and the Mahometan Superstition which denies that fundamental Article of our Creed viz. That Jesus Christ is the Son of God and as for Civil or Political Principles I hope the King his Father will take care to have him instructed by some of those English Noblemen or Gentlemen who are now with him in the Customs and Constitutions of the English Government and wherein it differs from the French
as we read Chancellor Fortescue did Prince Henry Son to Henry the VIth and I hope he will come over again to practise them in his own Country before he comes to be infected with the Arbitrary Principles of the French Government but as for those of not keeping Faith with Hereticks and a propagating his Religion by Persecution I doubt not but the King his Father will take care not to commit his Education to any of those who are infected with such Principles and I am the more inclin'd to believe it because it is very well known that his Majesty's tenderness and moderation in matters of Religion and not persecuting any body for the belief or bare profession of it as it was the greatest cause of his late Declaration of Indulgence so it was the main original of all his late Misfortunes nor can I see any reason why a King by being a Roman Catholick must necessarily be a Tyrant and a Persecutor since you cannot deny but that we have had many good and just Kings of that Religion and it is from those Princes that professed it that we derive our Magna Charta and most of the priviledges we now enjoy F. Though I would not be thought to affirm that the Romish Religion is every way worse than the Mahometan yet this much I may safely affirm that there is no Doctrine in all that Superstition so absurd and contrary to Sence and Reason as that of Transubstantiation held by the Church of Rome in which the far greatest part are certainly Idolators which can never be objectâ—d against the Turks and therefore though I will not deny but that a Man may be saved in the Communion of the Romish Church yet it is not for being a Papist but only as far as he practises Christ's Precepts and trusts in his Merits that he can ever obtain that favour from God But as for those evil Principles both in Religion and Civil Government which you cannot deny but are now commonly believed and practiced in France and which you hope King Iames will take care that the Prince his Son shall be bred to avoid I wish it may prove as you say but if you will consider the Men that are like to be his Tutors and Instructors in matters of Religion viz. his Fathers and Mothers Confessors the Jesuits and for Civil Government those Popish Lords and Gentlemen of notorious Arbitrary Principles and Practises who are gone over to King Iames you will have small reason to believe that there is ever a Fortescus now to be found among the English-men in France or who is likely to instill into him those true English Principles you mention And though I do not affirm that every Popish Prince must needs be a Persecutor yet since that wholly depends upon those Priests that have the management of their Consciences shew me a Prince in Europe who has a Jesuit for his Confessor and tell me if he hath not deserved that Character But though I am so much of your Opinion that King Iames ownes the greatest part of his Misfortunes to his Declaration for Liberty of Conscience yet was it not so much to the thing it self as to his Arbitrary manner of doing it by assuming a Dispensing Power contrary to Law and you may be very well assured by the little opposition which the late Acts met with for taking off the Penalties against Conventicles and not coming to Church in respect of all Dissenters except the Papists that King Iames might have as easily obtain'd a like Act to pass in respect of those also as to the free profession of their Religion and having Mass in their Houses which is more than the Papists will allow the Protestants in any Country in Europe And therefore I must beg your pardon if I still find great reason to doubt whether K. Iames his tenderness towards those that differ'd from him in matters of Religion and the Indulgence he gave them were purely out of consideration of tender Consciences and not rather thereby to destroy the Church of England Established by Law since the Dispute began between King Iames and his Parliament was not about Liberty of Conscience but those Offices and Commands which the King was resolved to bestow upon the Papists whether the Parliament would or not And certainly there is a great deal of difference between a Liberty for a Man to enjoy the free profession of his own Religion and the power and benefit of having all the chief Imployments of Honour and Profit in the Common-wealth But that the Indulgence of Popish Princes towards those that dissent from them in matters of Religion may not always proceed from pure Tenderness and Compassion appears from a Manuscript Treatise of F. Parsons that great Jesuit in Queen Elizabeth's time which I have been told was found in King Iames's Closet after his departure This if you can see it will shew you that the subtil Jesuite doth there direct his Popish Successor in order to the more quiet introducing the Romish-Catholick Religion to grant a general Toleration of all Religions out of a like design Thus did Iulian the Apostare long ago tolerate all the Sects and Heresies in the Christian Religion because he thereby hoped utterly to confound and destroy it But as to what you alledge concerning Magna Charta's being granted by Popish Princes and that there has been many good Kings of that persuasion As I will not deny either the one or the other so I desire you to remember with what struglling and great difficulties this Charter was at first obtain'd and afterwards preserved though it was no more than a Declaration of most of those Antient Rights and Liberties which the Nation had always enjoy'd And you may also remember that they were Popish Princes who more than once obtain'd the Pope's Dispensation to be discharged from those solemn Oaths they had taken to observe those Charters and though there hath been divers good Princes before the Reformation yet even the very best of them made the severest Laws against Protestants and were the most cruel in their Persecutions witness King Henry the IVth Henry the Vth and Queen Mary And indeed it is dangerous to rely upon the Faith of a Prince who looks upon it as a piece of Merit to destroy all Religions but his own and when he finds it cannot be done by Law will not stick to use any Arbitrary means to bring it about To conclude pray consider whether the strict observing or violation of Magna Charta and his Coronation Oath hath been the cause of King Iames's Abdication Pardon this long Discourse which your Vindication of the Opinion and Practises of Popish Princes hath drawn from me M. Pray Sir let us quit these invidious Subjects which can do no good since Princes must be own'd and submitted to let their Principles and Practice be never so Tyrannical and let us return again to the matter in hand I will therefore at present suppose
fifty years ago but I do not look upon them as the Antient Establisht Doctrine of our Church because these Canons are not confirmed but condemned by two Acts of Parliaments and consequently never legally Established as they ought to be by the publick Saction of the King and Nation Our Old Queen Elix Divines such as Bishop Bilson and Mr. Hooker being wholly ignorant of these Doctrines nay teaching in several places of their Writings the quite contrary Noâ— was this Doctrine of absolute Subjection and Non-Resistance ever generally maintained until about the middle of King Iame's Reign when some Court Bishops and Divines began to make new Discoveries in Politicks as well as Divinity and did by their Preaching and Writings affirm that the King had an absolute Power over Mens Estates So that it was unlawful in any Case to disobey or resist his Personal Commandâ— if they were not directly contrary to the Law of God as may appear by Dr. Harsâ—et then Bishop of Chichester his Sermon upon this Text Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's wherein he maintained That all the Subjects Goods and Money were Caesar's that is the Kings and therefore were not to be denied him if he demanded them for the publick use which Sermon thô order'd by the Lords and Commons to be Burnt by the Hangman yet was so grateful to the Court that he was so far from being out of Favour for it that he was not long after Translated to Norwich and from thence to the Archbishoprick of York So likewise about the beginning of the Reign of King Charles the First Dr. Manwaring preached before him the substance of whose Sermon was somewhat higher than the former viz. That the King was not bound by the Laws of the Land not to impose Taxes or Subsidies without the Consent of Parliament and that when they were so imposed the Subjects were oblieged in Conscience and upon pain of Damnation to pay them which if they refused to do they were guilty of Disloyalty and Rebelion For which Sermon he was Impeacht by the Commons in Parliament 4. Car. I and thereupon Sentenced by the House of Lords to be Disabled to hold or receve any Ecclesiastical Living or Secular Office whatever and also to be Imprisoned and Fined a Thousand Pound Notwithstanding all which we find him presently after the Parliament was disolved not only at Liberty but also presented by the King to a Rich Benefice in Essex and not long after made Bishop of St. Davids So likewise one Dr. Sibthorp about the same time preached an Asâ—ize Sermon at Northamtâ—n on Rom. 13.7 wherein he maintained much the like Doctrines as that it was the King alone that made the laws and that nothing could excuse from an active Obedience to his Commands but what is against the Law of God and Nature And that Kings had Power to lay Pole Money upon their Subject Heads But this much I have read that this Sermon was Licensed by Dr. Laud then Bishop of St. Davids because Archbishop Abbot had refused to do it as contrary to Law for which he was very much frwoned upon at Court and it is supposed to have been one of the main causes of his Suspension from his Arch-Episcopal Jurisdiction which not long after happened But as for this Siothâ—rp tho he lived long after even till the Kings Return yet being as Archbishop Abbot describes him a man of but small Learning I cannot learn that he was ever preferred higher than the Parsonages of Barchley and in Northamptonshire But I find a New Doctrine broach'd by some Modern Bishops and Divines about the middle of the Reign of King Iames the first That Monarchy was of Divine Right or Institution at least so that any other Government was scarce warrantable or lawful and of this New Sect we must more especially take notice of Sir R. F. who hath written several Treatises to prove this Doctrine and which is worse That all Monarchs being Absolute they cannot be limited or obliged either by Oaths Laws or Contracts with their People farther than they themselves shall think fit or consistent with their supposed Prerogatives of which they only are to be the Sole Judges So that whoever will but consider from the Reign of our four last Kings what strong inclinations they had to render themselves Absolute and that few Divines or Common or Civil Lawyers were preferr'd in their Reigns to any considerable Place either in Church or State who did not maintain these New Opinions both on the Bench and in the Pulpit You need not wonder when the Stream of Court Preferment ran so strong that way if so many were carried away with it since it was but to expose themselves to certain misery if not to utter ruin to oppugn it All who offered by Speaking or Writing to maintain the contrary being branded with the odious Names of Puritans Common-wealths-men Whigs c. Some of whom you may remember were not long since imprisoned Fined nay Whipt for so doing So that it was no wonder if there were but very few to be found who durst with so great hazard speak what they thought nor could any thing but the imminent danger upon our Laws Religion and Properties proceeding from the Kings illegal practices have opened the Eyes of a great many Noblemen Gentlemen and Clergy who contrary to the Opinions so much lately in vogue did generously venture both their Lives and Estates to joyn their Arms with the Prince of Orange against the King's unjust and violent Proceedings M. I do not doubt notwithstanding all you have said to prove before I have done these Doctrines of Non-Resistance and of the Divine institution of Monarchy to be most consonant to the Word of God and to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church and also to that of our Reformed Church of England Nor were those Divines you mention in K. Iames the First 's time the Authors or inventers of these Doctrines which were publickly received and Decreed by both Houses of that Convocation which began in the first Year of K. Iames and continued till the Year 1610. as appears by divers Manuscript Copies of the Acts or Decrees of this Convocation the Original of which was lately in the Library founded by Dr. Cousins late Bishop of Durham besides a very fair Copy now to be seen in the Archbishops Library at Lambeth which if you please to peruse you may be quickly satisfied that the Church of England long before ever Sir R. F. writ thoses Treatises you mention held that Civil Power was given by God to Adam and Noah and their Descendants as also that absolute subjection and obedience was due to all Soveraign Powers without any resistance as claiming under those Original Charters These Doctrines being there fully and plainly laid down and asserted as the Doctrines of our Church So that you deal very unjustly with the memory of those Divines as also of Sir R. F. to
make them the first breachers of it whereas you may find that it was the opinion of the whole Convocation for many years before ever those Divines or that Gentleman began to Preach or write upon this subject Nor were these the only men who maintained these Principles but Archbishop Usher and Bishop Sanderson whom I suppose you will not reckon among your flattering Court Bishops have as learnedly and fully asserted those Doctrines you so much condemn as any of that party you find fault with and have very well proved all resistance of the Supream Powers to be unlawful not only in absolute but limited Monarchies Of the Truth of which you may sufficiently satisfie your self if you will but take the Pains to read the Learned and Elaborate Treatises written by those good Bishops viz. The Lord Primate Usher's Power of the Prince and Obedience of the Subject and the Bishop of Lincoln's Preface before it as also the said Bishop's Treatise de Iura nouto written whilst he was Doctor of the Chair in Oxford F. I must beg your pardon Sir if I have never yet seen or heard of that Convocation Book you mention much less of the opinions therein contained since there is no mention made of their proceedings in any History or Record of those times either Ecclesiastical or Civil as I know of But this much I am certain of That these Determinations or Decrees you mention call them which you please never received the Royal Assent much less the confirmation of the King and Parliament one of which if not both is certainly requisite to make any opinion either in Doctrine or Discipline to be received by us Lay-men for the Doctrine of the Church of England otherwise the Canons made in 1640 would oblige us in Conscience tho' they stand at this day condemned by Act of Parliament so that however even according to your own Principles you cannot urge this Book as the Authoritative Doctrine of the Church of England unless their Determinations had received the Royal Assent which you your self do not affirm they had for you very well know that as in Civil Laws no Bill is any more than waste Parchment if once the King hath refused to give his Royal Assent to it so likewise in Spiritual or Ecclesiastical matters I think no Decrees or Determinations of Convocations are to be received as binding either in points of Faith or Manners by us Lay-men till they have received the confirmation of the King and the two Houses of Parliament or otherwise the consequence would be that if the King who hath the nomination of all the Bishopricks and Deaneries as also of most of the great Prebendaries in England of which the Convocation chiefly consists should nominate such men into those places which would agree with him to alter the present establisht Reformed Religion â—n Governmenâ— and to bring in Popery or Arbitrary Power the whole Kingdom would be obliged in Conscience to embrace it or at least to submit without any contraditioâ— to those Canons the King and Convocation should thus agree to make which of how fatal a consequence it might prove to the Reformed Religion in this Kingdom this Kings choice of Bishops and Deans such as he thought most fit for his turn would have taught â—s when it had been too late M. You very must mistake me Sir if you believe that I urge the Authority of this Book to you as containing any Ecclesiastical Canons which I grant must have the Royal Assent but whether that of the two Houses of Parliament I very much question since the King without the Parliament is Head of the Church and diverse Canons made under Queen Elizabeth and King Iames are good in Law at this day tho' they were never confirmed by Parliament But I only urge the Authority of this Book to you to let you see that these Doctrines are more Antient than the time you prescribe and also that the Major part of the Bishops and â—lergy of the Church of England held these Doctrines which you so much condemn long before those Court Bishops or Divines you mention medled with this controversie and I suppose we may as well quote such a Convocation Book as a Testimony of their sense upon these subjects as we do the French Helvetian or any other Protestant Churches Confessions of Faith drawn up and passed in Synod of their Divines tho' without any confirmation of the Civil Power F. If you urge this Convocation Book only as a Testimony and not Authority I shall not contend any further about it but then let me tell you that if the Canons or Decrees of a Convocation though never so much confirmed by King and Parliament do no further oblige in Conscience than as they are agreable to the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures sure their determinations without any such Authority can only be look'd upon as the Opinions of so many particular private Men. And tho' I have a very great Reuerence for the Judgments of so many Learned Men yet granting those Doctrines you mention to be contained in this Book I think notwithstanding that we may justly examine them according to the Rules of Reason and express Testimonies of Scripture by either of which when I see you can convince me of the falshood of my Tenets I shall count my self happy to be beâ—â—er informed But as for those Treatises of Bishop Usâ—er and Bishop â—anderson which you now mentioned I must needs confess they are learnedly and elaborately writen and tho' I am against Rebellion as much as any man and do believe that subjects may too often be guilty of it yet am I not therefore convinced that it is absolutely unlawful in all cases whatsoever even in the most Absolute and Arbitrary sort of Civil Government for the People when violently and intolerably opprest to take up Arms and resist such unjust violence or to join with any Foraign Prince who will be so generous as to take upon him their deliverance So that though I freely acknowledge that those good Bishops you mention were very Pious and Learned men â—im â—hat I bear great reverence to their memories yet doth it not therefore follow that I must oâ—â— them to be Infallible or as great Polititians as they were Learned Divines or that they understood the Laws of England as well as they did the Scriptures or Fathers and perhaps there may be a great deal more said on their behalfe than can be for divers others who have since Wâ—â—een and Prâ—â— so much upon those subjects for if you please to consider the times of their writing those Treatises you will find them written about the beginning or middle of the late Civil Wars which they supposed to be begâ—n and carried on contrary to all Law and Justice under the pretenced Authority of the two Houses of Parliament against King Charles the First and therefore it is no wonder if they thought themselves obliged to Write very high for the Prerogatives
this point without better consideration but methinks you have not yet fully answered one of my main Arguments to prove the Power of Life and Death to proceed from God alone and therefore must have been conferred as first on Adam since no Man hath a Power over his own life as I said before and therefore cannot have it over that of others F. I thought I had already as good as answered this doughty objection when I had yielded to you that neither private Men nor Masters of Families have any Right to defend their own lives much less to take away those of others but as it is granted them by God in the Law of Nature in order to the procuring the great end of it viz. the happiness and propagation of Mankind which I own could not in this lapsed and depraved State of Nature we now are in long subsist without such a Power Yet I think I have already sufficiently proved that we have no need to recur to I know not what divine Charter granted by God to Adam or Noah and from them derived to all Civil Magistrates that ever have been or shall be in the World the consequence of which would be that no Sentence of Death could be justly given against any Man but in such Kingdoms or Common-wealths who own this Authority as conferred on them by God in Adam or Noah from which they must deride their Title to it Now I desire you would shew me how many Kingdoms or Common-wealths there are in the World who ever heard of much less owned this Divine Charter this fine notion yea scarce reaching farther than some few Divines and high Royalists of our own Island But be it as it will the Antecedent or first Proposition is not true that no Man in any case whatsoever hath power over his own life and therefore neither is your consequence for I suppose that for the same End for which the Civil Powers may take away another Man's life viz. in order to the greater good of Mankind of which my Religion or Countrey is a part I am likewise Master of my own and may lay it down or expose it when I think it can conduce to a greater good than my single life can amount to And therefore the Example of Codrus the Athenian King is highly celebrated by all ancient Authors and is not condemned by any Christian Writer that I know of for Exposing himself to certain death to gain his Citizens the Victory the loss of which would have been the ruin of the State And in the first Book of Maccabees Chap. 6.43 which thâ— it be not Canonical Scripture yet is allowed to be Read in our Churches as containing Examples of good manners you may Read that Eleazar the younger Brother of Iudas Maccabeus is there highly commended for his valour in killing the Elephant on which the supposed King Antiochus was mounted that he might thereby destroy him likewise tho he might be assured of his own death by the Elephants falling upon him And the zeal for the Christian Religion amongst the Primitive Christians was so great that we may read in Tertullian and divers Ecclesiastical Historians of whole Troops of Martyrs who tho unaccused yet offered up their lives at the Heathen Tribunals to a voluntary Martyrdom and farther Eusebius himself doth not condemn but rather commends some Primitive Christians that being like to be taken by their Heathen Persecutors cast themselves down head long from the top of their Houses esteeming as he their tells us a certain Death as an advantage because they thereby avoided the cruelty and malice of their Persecutors I could likewise give you if it were not two tedious several other Examples of Ancient Martyrs who have given up themselves to certain Death to save the Lives of some of their friends or else of Christian Bishops whom they lookt upon as more useful to the Church than themselves and which St. Paul himself does likewise suppose to be Lawful when he tells the Romans That the scarcely for a Righteous Man would one dye yet per adventure for a good Man somâ— would even dare to dye that is a Man highly beneficial to others And the same Apostle in the last Chapter of this Epistle returns thanks to Priscilla and Aquila not only on his own behalf but also for all the Churches of the Gentiles because they had for his Life laid down their own Necks that is hazarded their lives to save his and where ever they might have thus exposed them surely they might have lost them too And therefore I think I may with reason affirm that in most Cases where a Prince or Commonwealth may command a Man to expose his Life to certain destruction for the publick good of his Religion or Countrey he hath power likewise to do it of his own accord without any such command the Obligation proceeding not only from the orders of his Superiour but from that zeal and affection which by the Laws of God and Nature he ought to have for his Religion and Country even beyond the preservation of his own Life M. Well I confess that this that you have now said carries some colour of reason with it and is more than I had considered before But pray resolve me one difficulty more which still lies upon my mind By what Authority less than a Divine Commission from God himself revealed in Scripture do Supream Powers take upon them to make Lawâ— And that under no less penalty than Death it self against such offences as by the Laws of Nature do no ways deserve Death such as Theft Counterfiting the publick Coyn with divers other offences needless here to be reckoned up And if a Father as you will not allow him hath no Right over the Lives or Persons of his Wife and Children I cannot see how a Master of a separate Family can have any such Power more than his Wife or any other of the Family and the Scripture seems to countenance this Power of punishing for Murder to be in any that will take it upon them and therefore you see Cain said whoever meets me will slay me And God tells Noah whoever sheddeth Mans Blood by Man shall his Blood be shed without restraining it to any Man particularly who is to do it F. This Objection is easily answered if you please to consider what you your self did a good whâ—â—â— since urge to me that God endowed Adam with so much Authority as should enable him to govern his own Family and Children as long as he lived which I readily granted you and I only differed in the manner of its derivation you affirming it to proceed from a Divine Charter or Grant by Revelation conferred upon him by God and I maintaining that both he and every other Master of a separate Family derive it only from Gods Natural and not Revealed Law which if it be well proved such Masters of Families as also all Civil Powers whom I suppose to be endued
therefore not being Slaves before they cannot be Alienated without their own Consents and consequently they may take up Arms and defend themselves if they are able â—nleâ—s the Prince or State to whom they are so Alienated will give them the like assurance to preserve their Lives Liberties and Properties as their former Governours did and therefore I do conceive the People of the Islands of Cyprus and Candy might very well have refused to become Subjects to the Grand Seignior in case the Venetians should have Sold or Alien'â— their Dominion over them before he had actually conquer'd them But in Limited or Hereditary Kingdoms which are so by their fundamental Constitution I suppose the Prince cannot upon any account whatsoever make over his Dominions to a Foreign Prince without the consent of his People and next Heir And therefore granting the Story to be true I doubt not but the People of this Kingdom might very well have opposed King Iohn if he had gone about to have subjected it to the Dominion of the Emperour of Morocco upon Condition that he would Assist him with an Army of Moors to subdue hâ—s Barons and Nobility then in Arms against him M. I confess it is not worth while to dispute about that which so seldom happens and is indeed almost impossible to be put in practice and therefore I shall not much oppose you in what you have said upon this Case yet that I may be as good as my word and give you my Judgment concerning what you have lately said I must freely tell you that as it may happen that a Prince or State may sometimes abuse their Power so as to take away the Liberties and Estates of all their Subjects as you have set forth and which I confess is a very great mischief yet upon second thoughts I think it were much better that this Inconvenience should be suffered rather than the work mischief of leaving Subjects to be the sole Iudges when their Liberties and Estates are invaded or like to be taken away nay every private Subject would be first Iudge of it or else the whole People could never come to pass their Iudgment upon it which would leave too great a latitude for â—urbulent and Rebellious Spirits to make disturbances in Kingdoms and Commonwealths especially if there be any small Grievances on the Subjects especially too 〈◊〉 they touch at those things they account their Hereditary Liberties and Properties these tho' never so small if the People are suffered to be their own Iudges as you make them to be in their own Case will soon be aggravated and blown up to intolerable Oppressions of and Invasions upon their Liberties and Properties when indeed they are not This is a pernitious Doctrine for it will be a perpetual Cause of Quarrels Civil Wars and Rebellions which would turn all Commonwealths tho never so well Constituted into Anarchy and Confusion So that as you have stated this Question you have broached a Principle highly destructive to all Civil Government for if All or Any of the People may Resist or Rebel call it what you please whenever they think themselves oppressed in their Liberties and â—sâ—ates this is for them only to be obedient when they think themselves well governed but stubborn and Rebellious when they believe they are not which would be to make all Government Precarious and Conditional and the People not only Parties but Iudges and Executioners too in their own Case how far these Conditions are observed on the Governours part and then the Regularity or Irregularity of the Administration will no longer be the Question but the Validity of the Power to Command And there wants no more to dissolve such a Government than for Dick or Tom and every Rascal of the Mobile to say This or That is destructive to the Peoples Liberties and Properties and therefore an insupportable grievance and oppression And if you will once allow any number of the People tho' never so many to Iudge This or That Law or Order of the Government not to be for their Good and that they may likewise Resist and Right themselves by Arms when ever they thus fancy they will quickly come to say that the Government it self is not for their good neither and upon this ground all the Rebellions â—aâ—sed by an Incensed and mistaken Multitude against the Government in all Ages may easily be justified and Waâ— Tyler and Massâ—anâ—llo shall be so far from being Rebels that they may pass in future Ages for Heroes and Noble Assertors of the Peoples Liberties and I hope you will believe I do not speak this out of any liking or Approbation of Tyranny or that I desire that Princes should stretch their Power to the utmost to Invade their Subjects Liberties or Estates but only to let you see how far your Principles may serve the Pretences of wicked Men to set whole Kingdoms together by the Ears whenever they find the People so far discontented with the Government as to believe their Malicious and wicked Insinuations of all which those long and cruel Civil Wars and Rebellions which for several Years tormented and almost ruined these three Kingdoms are too late and sad Examples F. I confess Sir you have made a very Pathetick speech and exerted I suppose the utmost Strength of your reason and Eloquence on this Subject for you have made the Consequences of this Principle viz. That the People may judge when their Liberties and Properties are invaded to seem very dreadful but after all it is no more than what you have urged in great part already and the main Strength of your Argument lyes here that if the People should take upon them but once to judge when they were notoriously injured or oppress 't and thereupon take Arms to right themselves they would soon make bold to put this Power into use and Practice when they had no occasion for it at all or at least not sufficient to make any open Insult But to shew you that there is no need of such an infallible Iudge as you suppose to be necessary in a Commonwealth any more than there is in the Church pray tell me Sir would it not have been very convenient if Christ had appointed an Infallible Iudge be it the Pope or General Counsel or both together â— to decide all Controversies in Religion and to whose Judgment all People ought to submit M. I cannot deny but it would have been a very ready way to end all Disputes about Religion but since God hath not thought fit to appoint any such Iudge it were very great Presumption in us to set up one to please our humour since such a one could have no Infallibility unless it were given him from above F. You Judge very well and doth it not therefore follow that since there is no such infallible Judge all Men ought to Iudge for themselves of the Truth of their Religion and also in the Christian Religion what Doctrines are agreeable
of an Incensed Prince may justly inflict upon such Rebels in this Life but also the Wrath of God and those Punishments that he hath denounced in the Holy Scriptures in the Life to come against such Rebellious Subjects as dare resist the Supream Powers ordained by God F. Before I answer the main part of your last discourse give me leave first to justifie my Simile for tho' I grant Similes are no Arguments yet they often serve to expose the absurdity of several things which either the â—alse colours of Eloquence or the too great Authority of learned men might otherwise have hid from our Eyes and therefore if the Supream Powers have no Authority from the Revealed Will of God or the Law of Nature nor by the Municipal Laws of any Countrey to invade their Subjects Lives Liberties or Estates they may be so far compared to Thieves and Robbers when they do nor are such violent Actions of theirs to be submitted to as the Ordinance of God And I suppose you will not deny but that a Prince or State that does thus Acts as directly contrary to Gods Will as Thieves themselves and consequently all honest men or Subjects having so far no obligation to suffer or obey may justly Resist them So that if this be true all the rest of the Comparison currit quatuor pedibus But as for your reflections upon MAGNA CHARTA it is you your self not I that asserted it to have been extorted by force and dâ—fended by Rebellion for it is very well known to those who are at all Conveâ—sant in our English Histories and Laws that there was nothing granted in that CHARTER which was not the Birth-right of the Clergy Nobility and People long before the Conquest and were comprised under the Title of King Edwards Laws and which were after confirmed by William the first as also more expresly by the Grants of his Son Henry the first and King Stephen as appears by their Charters still to be seen And therefore these fundamental Rights and Priviledges were not extorted by force from King Iohn as you suppose The War commencing between him and his Barons was not because he would not grant them fresh Priviledges which they had not before but because he had not kept nor observed the Fundamental Laws of the Land and those Rights and Priviledges which before belonged to the Clergy Nobility and People as well by the Common Law of the Land as the Grants of former Kings And therefore if King Iohn by his apparent breach of them forced the Nobility and People to defend them it was no Rebellion for so doing nor was it ever declared to be so by any Law now extant But to come to the main force of your Argument I confess it were an admirable expedient not only against Rebellion but also the Tyranny of Princes to PREACH that they should not oppress their People nor yet that the People should rebel against them but the preaching of these Doctrines or getting as many as you can to believe them will no more make Princes leave keeping standing Armies or laying great Taxes upon their People than Constant Preaching against Robbery or Murder will take away the necessary use of Gallows out of the Nation Since we know very well that as long as the Corruption of humane Nature continues so long must likewise all Powerful Remedies against it And therefore your Instance of William the Conqueror will signifie very little for I believe had all those learned Divines who have of late so much Written and Preached for Passive Obedience and Non-resistance been then alive and had exerted the utmost of their Reason and Eloquence to prove them necessary nay farther I do not believe tho' all the People of England should have given it under their hands that they would not have Resisted or Rebelled against King William that yet he would have trusted them the more for all that or have kept one Soldier the less for it nor have remitted one Denier of those great Taxes he imposed for he was too cunning and Politick a Prince not to understand humane Nature which cannot willingly endure great and intolerable Slavery and Oppression without Resistance if men are able and therefore he very well knew that after the forcible taking away of so many of the English Nobilities Estates there was no way but force to keep them in Obedience And as Princes can never be satisfied that their Subjects have been throughly paced in these difficult Doctrines so they can never be secure that they will not play the Iades and Kick and fling their Riders when they spur them too severely and press too hard upon them And therefore I doubt such Princes whose Government is severe will always find it necessary to Ride this Beast as you call it the People with strong Curbs and Cavessons But besides all this there is likewise another infirmity in the Nature of Mankind and of which Princes may as well be Guilty as other men that they are more apt to oppress and insult over those whose Principles or Natural Tempers may be against all Resistance and for this I appeal to your Example of the Primitive Christians who were not one jot the better used by the Roman Emperours tho' they expresly disclaimed all Resistance of those Emperours for Persecution in matters of Religion and tho' some neighbouring Princes are thought to have their Subjects in more perfect Subjection and that either their Religion or Natural Tempers makes them less apt to resist the Violence and Oppression of their Monarchs than the English or other Nations Yet I desire you to enquire whether Taxes and all other oppressions do not Reign as much under those Governments however sensible the Princes may be of their Subjects Loyalty and Obedience Therefore to conclude I shall freely leave it to your Judgment or that of any indifferent Person which is most agreeable to the main Ends of Civil Government viz the Common good of Mankind and the Happiness and Safety of each particular Kingdom or Commonwealth that the Violence and Tyranny of Princes should be sometimes Resisted than that the People under the Pretence of this irresistible Power should be liable to be made beggars and Slaves whenever any Prince or State had a Mind to it And I appeal to your own Conscience if the supposed belief of the Passive Obedience of some of our Church was not one of the greatest encouragements which the King and the Iesuited Fâ—ction had to bring in the Popish Religion under the Colour of the dispensing Power Ecclesiastical Commissioners and force of a standing Army from which Unavoidable mischiefs nothing under God but this wonderful Revolution could have rescued us And therefore I think it becomes any honest man to thank God for it and join with his Highness the Prince of Oriâ—â—ge as the only means now miracles are ceased which God hath been plâ—ased to ordain by the course of his Providence for our Deliverance M. I
of the City whither I have caused you to be carried away Captives and pray to the Lord for it for in the Peace thereof you shall have Peace Which made it a necessary duty to be Subject to these Powers under whose government they lived And accordingly we find that Mordecai discovered the Treason of Bigthana and Teresh two of the Kings Chamberlains the Keepers of the Door who sought to lay hand on the King Ahasuerus And how numerous and Powerful the Iews were at this time and what great disturbance they could have given to the Empire appears evidently from the Book of Esther King Ahasuerus upon the suggestions of Haman had granted a Decree for the Destruction of the whole People of the Iews which was sent into all the Provinces Written and Seal'd with the Kings Ring This Decree could never be reversed again for that was contrary to the Laws of the Medes and Persians And therefore when Esther had found Favour with the King all that could be done for the Iews was to grant another Decree for them to defend themselves which accordingly was done and the effect of it was That the Jews at Shusan slew 300 Men and the Jews of the other Provinces slew 75000 and rested from their Enemies Without this Decree Mordecai did not think it Lawful to resist which yet was a Case of as great extremity and Barbarous Cruelty as could ever happen which made him put Esther upon so hazardous an Attempt as to venture into the Kings Presence without being called which was Death by their Law unless the King should graciously hold out the Golden Scepter to them yet when they had obtained this Decree they were able to defend themselves and to destroy their Enemies which is as famous an Example of Passive Obedience as can be met with in any History And pray see here what the Prophet Daniel acknowledges to Belteshazzar The most High God gave Nebucadnezzar thy Father a Kingdom and Majesty and Glory and Honour and for the Majesty that he gave him all People Nations and Languages trembled and feared before him Whom he would be slew and whom he would be kept alive and whom he would be set up and whom he would â—e pulled down And if these Heathen Kings received such a Power from God as the Prophet here affirms St. Paul has made the Application of it that he that resisteth resisteth the Ordinance of God And I think these Examples may serve out of the Old Testament and therefore I shall conclude with the saying of the Wise Man who was both a Prophet and a King Where the Word of a King is there is Power and who may say unto him What doest thou F. Tho' this last proof be the stongest you have yet brought yet I think it will not reach the Point in Question to prove that no Resistance whatsoever tho' for saving the Lives of a whole Nation can be Lawful I grant indeed that the Command of the Prophet Ieremiah of Praying for the Peace of the City whither they were carried away Captives was to be obeyed being obliged to do it not only by the Laws of Nature and in Regard of those Benefits of Protection and injoying the Free exercise of their Religion and Liberties without being made Slaves tho' they had been carryed Captives which was no more than removing them out of one Country and setling them in another according to the Custom of the Eastern Princes of those times when they would by removing of the best and greatest of the People out of a Conquered Countrey prevent their Rebelling against them as they had done before but that they enjoyed a Property in their Lands and Estates after their Captivity is certain by the Prophets commanding them to Build and Plant Vineyards in the Country of Babylon during the 70 years Captivity foretold by him from God So likewise I grant it to be a necessary Duty in Subjects tho' strangers to be Faithful and Obedient to those Princes and States under whose Governments they live and therefore Mordecai no doubt performed his Duty when he discovered the Treason of the Kings Chamberlains that thought to kill him But to come to your main Argument that it was unlawful for the whole Nation of the Iews to resist those who were impowered by the Decree of King Ahasuerâ—â— to Massacre and Destroy them I shall not dispute with you about the Matter of Fact as you have related it but only in this particular that whereas you suppose till the King had Issued out a second Decree wherein he granted the Iews which were in every City to gather themselves together and to stand for their Lives to destroy to slay and Cause to Perish all the Power of the People and Province that should assault them c. and to take the spoil of them for a Prey without which Decree you suppose Mordecai did not think it Lawful to resist tho' it was a Case of as great extremity as could ever happen and that therefore Esther was put upon so Hazardous an Attempt as to venture to Obtain this Decree tho' with the Peril of her Life but that when they had once obtained it they were then and not before enabled to defend themselves and destroy their Enemies In answer to which I must needs tell you that you do not fairly represent the latter part of this story for it no where appears in the Text tho' you are pleased to add it that Mordecai did not think it Lawful for the Iews to resist till this Decree was obtained for it is only there said That he sent Esther to the King and as soon as she came into his presence she fell down at his feet and besought him with Tears to put away the Mischief of Haman the Agagite Pray read the words And she said If it pleases the King and if I have found favour in his fight and the thing seems right before the King and I be pleasing in his Eyes let it be written to reverse the Letters devised by Haman the Son of Hammedatha the Agagite which he wrote to destroy the Jews which are in all the Kings Provinces By which you may see that Esthers Request was not for a Liberty to defend themselves as you suppose but only to try if she could get the King to reverse the first decree obtained by Haman to destroy them but because the Kings Decree when once Issued out was not to be reversed therefore He Issued this second Decree to give the Iews a Legal or Civil Power to gather themselves together and stand upon their defence against all that should assault them which was so far obeyed that the Rulers of the Provinces and other Officers of the King instead of destroying helped the Iews because says the Text the fear of Mordecai fell upon them So that tho' I own this Decree gave them a Legal Power to stand upon their defence and did likewise
hinder the Kings Officers from Heading the People and putting the first Decree for their Destruction in Execution as otherwise they would have done had it not been for this last and for that great Power which they perceived Mordecai had at Court yet doth it not therefore follow that it was before that absolutely unlawful for the whole Iewish Nation to have defended their Lives against those Officers or others who would have gone about to destroy them and have totally extirpated their Nation So that I take this Decree not to confer any new Right in the People of the Iews to defend themselves but only to be a Confirmation of that Natural Right of self-defence which all Nations and every particular Member of Mankind have to preserve themselves And tho' I grant that Particular Persons are often obliged to give up this Right for the Publick Peace and safety of the Common-Wealth yet doth not thâ— Law extend to whole Nations or such Bodies of People without which the Common Wealth cannot well subsist And therefore I leave it to any unprejudiced person to judge whether it had not been better that the Iews should have thus resisted and saved their Lives tho' without this second Decree which only discouraged the Kings Officers and others from falling upon them than that all Gods Peculiar People should have lain at the Mercy of their Enemies to be destroyed according to the first Cruel Decree But farther to convince you that the Iews after the Captivity did not think it unlawful to make use of defensive Arms against cruel and persecuting Tyrants who went about to destroy their Religion and Nation it is apparent from the Famous Example of the Priest Mattathias with Iudas Maccabeus and the rest of his Sons who successively Headed the People of the Iews in that obstinate and Noble Resistance which they made against Antiochus Epiphanes tho' then their Soveraign who when he had Prophaned the Temple and would have forced the Iews to renounce their Circumcision and to have Sacrificed to Idols under Pain of Death they joyned together and resolved to defend themselves and to stand up for their Religion and Nation then ready to be destroyed And you find by the History as it is related in the Books of the Maccabees and Iosephus that God did Bless those Arms with Success which they had taken up in their own defence against a Prince infinitely more Powerful than themselves who with his Predecessors had been their Soveraigns for above 130 years And tho' Antiochus died long before the End of the War yet did they still prosecute it against his Successors Nor did they ever make Peace with them till Ionathan Brother of Iudas who had before recovered and purified the Temple was acknowledged High-Priest by Alexander the pretended Son of Epiphanes and that they had cast off that Yoak of Subjection which they were under to the Kings of Syria and had setled the Government of their Nation upon the Princes of the Asmonaean Race in gratitude of that deliverance they so justly owed to their Piety and Courage and which continued in this Family till the Conquest of Iudea by Pompey after 106 years free enjoyment of it So that it is plain the Iews before the Coming of Christ both Priests and People did not think it unlawful to defend their Lives and Religion in Case of great Extremity and that our Saviour Christ hath any where by his Gospel Retrenched whole Nations of that liberty lies upon you to prove But to conclude as for the Text you have cited out of the Proverbs that will do you as little service For tho' I grant it is true that no Man can say to an Absolute King or Monarch What dost thou i. e. Call him to Account as his Superiour Yet doth it not therefore follow that a whole People or Nation have no Power to defend themselves in any case whatsoever against his unjust Violence or Tyranny This not being the Act of a Superiour but an equal as I have already said nor any Political but a Natural Power M. I confess this is the Notablest Example of Resistance that you have brought yet but I think it may be easily answered if we suppose with Iosepbus and other Authors that tho' Alexander the great was certainly possest of Palestine by right of Conquest and the Submission of the High-Priest Iaddus unto him Yet his Chief Captains conspiring together made such a Scambling Division of the Empire among themselves as they could every one almost seeking how he might suppress the rest and attain the whole alone for himself so as thereupon the Iews were as free from the Macedonians as any other of their Bordering Neighbours none of the said Captains having any Lawful Interest or Title to Iudah But that which turned to the benefit of some others brought a great detriment for want of Ability unto them For one of the said Captains viz. Antiochus having gotten to himself a very great Kingdom in Syria and another viz. Ptolomy in Egypt the Iews dwelling betwixt them both were miserably on every side vexed by them sometimes the Egyptians by Oppression and force brought them under their Subjection and imposed great Tributes upon them and sometimes the Syrians growing mightier than the Egyptians did likewise very greatly afflict them especially in the Reign of Antiochus Epiphanes whose Invasion and Government was most Unjust and Tyrannical He shed Innocent Blood on every side of the Sanctuary spoiled the Temple erecting in it the Abomination of the Gentiles and caused it to be named the Temple of Jupiter Olympius Not to mention the Prophanation of the Law and unspeakable Cruelties exercised upon those who refused to offer Sacrifice unto Idols until Mattathias moved with the Monstrous Cruelty and Tyranny of the said Antiochus made open Resistance the Government of that Tyram being not then either generally received by Submission or setled by Continuance So that after the time of Alexander the Great the Iewish Nation was Governed by their own High-Priests and Sanhedrim and lived according to their own Laws in all matters both Civil and Ecclesiastical tho' more often I own with a Subordination to the Soveraignty of the Kings of Egypt till this Invasion of their Religion and liberties by Antiochus So that they had a Legal Right to the Free exercise of their Religion which could not without the Highest Violence and injustice be taken from them F. Notwithstanding what you have now said concerning this Action I doubt not but if you will consider Iosephus better as also the two Books of the Maccabees you will find thâ—t not only Antiochus Epiphanes but also Antiochus the Great and Seleucus Philopater were true and Lawful Monarchs of Coelo-Syria and consequently of Palestine And tho' I grant there had been Wars between Antiochus the Great and Ptolemy Philopater concerning the Dominion of that Country yet it is plain out of Iosephus's Antiquities Lib. 12. That Antiochus had re-conquer'd
being forbidden by the Laws of our Country I shall answer that when you urge those Laws to me M. I hope I shall be able to prove that by and by but in the mean time give me leave to observe that it seems very strange to me that you should own Christ hath obliged his Disciples to submit without any resistance in some Cases to the Supreme Powers when they persecute them and put them to death for Religion and that they might not take up Arms in their own defence and that of their Religion which is the greatest concern that men ought to have in this World and yet that they might do it for much less considerable Matters viz. their Lives Liberties or Estates which sure ought to be of much less importance than the Glory of God which is chiefly maintained by his true Worship but I see you have found a Salvo for this and will not allow Princes the irresistible Power of Persecution when the Religion is once setled by Law that is when the Christians were strong enough to resist which certainly would be no thanks at all for their Submission since Men who are weak and unable to resist must needs obey and suffer which were matter of force and not of Duty whereas we find by Tertullian and all the Ecclesiastical Historians that though the Christians were strong and numerous enough in the Roman Empire yet they chose rather to dye than to resist as I shall shew you more particularly anon when I come to those Quotations but I will if you please now proceed to the two last Texts I have to cite to you out of St. Paul and St. Peter F. That we may not confound things one with another I pray give me leave now to answer what you have objected against what I said last before you proceed to any fresh places of Scripture for though in the first place I doubt whether the Non-Resistance which Tertullian and other Primitive Fathers so strictly preached up was sounded upon any express Command of our Saviour or his Apostles yet granting at present that Christ and his Apostles enjoyn'd it both by their Example and Precept yet this does not reach the case now before us for there may be very good Reasons why our Saviour might enjoyn an absolute Submission to the 〈◊〉 Powers without any Resistance though they persecute us nay put us to 〈◊〉 for Matters of Religion and yet he may allow us greater Liberty for the defence of our Lives Liberties and Estates when assaulted by the unjust violence of the supreme Powers For First our Saviour ordaineth his Religion to be suitable to his Person viz. a meek humble Suffering Messiah to be an Example of a meek and suffering Religion Secondly Religion is a thing that no Power in the World can take from us Persecution indeed may encrease it and render it more fervent but can never diminish it if it be real And God hath expresly promis'd so great a Reward in another Life for our sufferings for it in this that it will infinitely outweigh all that ever we can suffer on that Account and Lastly our Saviour Christ was pleased to ordain his Doctrine to be propagated by Miracles and Sufferings to distinguish it from all the false Religions that had been in the World before his or that should be set up in opposition to it afterwards since neither the Pagan nor Mahometan Superstitions nor yet the Iewish Religion can shew the like to subsist nay encrease for above three hundred years under such great and cruel Persecutions nor yet is the Glory of God at all diminish'd but rather encreas'd under Persecution since none are then firm to it but such as are really perswaded of its Truth and that they ought to suffer the worst that can befall them rather than forsake it And certainly nothing can tend more to the Glory of God than to see it subsist and encrease under a cruel and bloody Persecution nor is it the same reason that we should suffer Persecution after Religion is become the setled Constitution of a Nation because then every man hath the same Right to it as he hath to his Property or Freedom And though a man may part with either the one or the other yet is he not obliged to give them up by force and whether he will or no so likewise neither that Right which he hath to enjoy his Religion according to the Laws of his Country And therefore I do not resolve the Obligation to Non-Resistance in matters of Religion into the being the major party in a Kingdom as you suppose for if the Government of England were Popish that is the Legislative part of it and the Major part of the Common People were Protestants perhaps in that Case they were under all the Obligations of enduring Persecution without resistance as they were under the Heathen Emperours but indeed the Primitive Christians were obliged to Non-resistance because they lived under a Government in which Christianity was forbid and Paganism established by Law And though it is true Constantine made several Laws enjoyning the free Exercise of the Christian Religion and forbidding the Heathen Sacrifices and that the Pagan Temples should be shut up yet was not the Christian Religion for all that the sole Religion of the State the Senators of Rome and the Major part of the Common People continuing Pagans still So that it seems the Christian Religion was all this while rather established together with Heathenism than that this was wholly forbid since all Civil Offices and Preferments were equally conferred upon Pagans as well as Christians if they deserved them and therefore it was no hard matter for Iulian the Apostate to revoke so many of those Edicts his Uncle had made in Favour of Christianity and to abrogate those which had been publish't against the publick Sacrifices to the Heathen Gods and shutting up their Temples so that no wonder if they were now again under the same Obligations to suffer as they were before Constantine's Time since the Christian Religion was never the only One establish't by Law so as to exclude the open Profession of any other till the Time of Theodosius after which as also before according as the Christian Religion encreas'd and as they got greater Priviledges from the Emperours so were they more stout and bold in standing up for and defending the just Rights of their Religion when ever they thought them invaded by the Arian or other Heretical Emperours as I shall shew you by several Instances out of Church-History when we come to it but you may now if you please proceed to the rest of those places of Scripture which you have to produce against this Doctrine of Resistance in those Cases I have put M. I have many things still to object against your last Discourse but since it grows late I shall now continue my self to the Doctrine of the Apostles concerning Non-resistance not as if the Authority and Example of
our Saviour were not sufficient of it self to make a Law but stood in need of the Confirmation and Additional Authority of his own Apostles but we might justly suspect our selves mistaken in the meaning of our Saviours Words or in the Intention and design of his Sufferings had none of his Apostles who were immediately instructed by himself and acquainted with the most sacred Mysteries of his Kingdom ever Preacht any such Doctrine as this of Subjection to Princes And therefore to give you the more abundant Assurance of this I shall plainly shew you that the Apostles taught the same Doctrine and imitated the Example of their great Master I shall begin with St. Paul who hath as fully declared himself in this matter as it is possible any Man can do by Words Let every Soul be subject unto the Higher Powers for there is no Power but of God the Powers that be are ordained of God Whosoever therefore resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves Damnation This is a very express Testimony against Resistance and therefore I shall consider it at large for there have been various Arts used to pervert every Word of it and to make this Text speak quite contrary to the Design and Intention of the Apostle in it And therefore I shall divide the Words into three general parts 1. The Doctrine the Apostle instructs them in Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers 2. The Reason whereby he proves and inforces this Doctrine For there is no Power but of God the Powers that he are ordained of God Whoever therefore resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God The Punishment of such Resistance and they that resist shall receive to themselves Damnation I shall begin with the Doctrine That every Soul must be Subject to the Higher Powers and here are three things to be explained 1. Who are contained under this general Expression of every Soul 2. Who are meant by the Higher Powers 3. What is meant by being Subject 1. Who are contained under this general Expression of every Soul which by an ordinary Hebraism signifies every Man For Man is a Compounded Creature of Body and Soul and either part of him is very often in Scripture put for the whole sometimes Flesh and sometimes Soul signifies the Man and when every Soul is oppos'd to the Higher Powers it must signifie all Men of what Rank or Condition soever they be who are not invested with this Higher Power And again says he The design of the Apostle as you shall hear more particularly by and by was to forbid all Resistance of Soveraign Princes and had he known of any Man or Number of Men who might Lawfully resist he ought not to have express't it in such general Terms as to forbid all without Exception And therefore I shall now a little more closely examine your main Argument or indeed Foundation of all that you have Urged for Resistance viz. That tho' it is unlawful for private or particular Men to resist the Supream Powers yet that it doth not extend unto the whole or Major part of a â—eople or Nation whenever they are outragiously oppress 't or assaulted by the Higher Powers beyond what they suppose they are able to bear whereas the Apostle here commands every Soul to be subject and therefore if the whole body of the People be subject to God they must also be subject to the Prince too because he acts by God's â—uthority and Commission were a Sovereign Prince the Peoples Creature that might be a good Maxim Rex majâ—r singulis sed minor universis That the King is greater than any particular Subject but less than All together but if he be God's Minister he is upon that account as much greater than all as God is And that the whole body of the People altogether as well as one by one are equally concerned in this Command of being subject to the higher Powers is evident from this Consideration that nothing less than this will secure the Peace and Tranquillity of humane Societies The resistance of single Persons is more dangerous to themselves than to the Prince but a powerful Combination of Rebâ—ls is formidable to the most puissant Monarchs The greater Number of Subjects rebell against their Prince the more do they distress his Government and threaten his Crown and Dignity and if his Person and Authority be sacred the greater the violence is which is offered to him the greater is the Crime Had the Apostle exhorted the Romans after this manner Let no private and single man be so foolish as to rebel against his Prince who will be too strong for him but â—f you can raise sufficient forces to oppose against him if you can all consent to depose and murder him this is a very innocent and justifiable nay an heroical Atchievement which becomes a Free-born People How would this have secured the Peace and quiet of the World How would this have agreed with what follows that Princes are advanced by God and that to resist our Prince is to resist the Ordinance of God and that such Men shall be severely punish't for it in this World or the next for can the Apostle be thought absolutely to condemn Resistance if he makes it only unlawful to resist when we want Power to conquer which yet is all that can be made of it if by every Soul the Apostle means only particular men not the united Force and Power of Subjects Nor can there be any reason assigned why the Apostle should lay so strict a Command on particular Christians to be subject to the higher Powers which doth not equally concern whole Nations For if it can ever be lawful for a whole Nation to resist a Prince it may in the same Circumstances be equally lawful for a particular man to do it if a Nation may conspire against a Prince who invades their Rights their Liberties or their Religion why may not any man by the same reason resist a Prince when his single Rights and Liberties are invaded It is not so safe and prudent indeed for a private man to resist as for great and powerful Numbers but this makes resistance only a matter of Discretion not of Conscience if it be lawful for the whole body of a Nation to resist in such Cases it must be equally lawful for a particular man to do it but he doth it at his own Peril when he hath only his own single force to oppose against his Prince So that our Apostle must forbid resistance in all men or none For single Persons do not use to resist or rebel or there is no great danger to the Publick if they do but the Authority of Princes and the Security of publick Government is only endangered by a Combination of Rebels when the whole Nation or any considerable part for Numbers Power and Interest take Arms against their Prince If
lawfully have taken up Arms against the Government because they were deprived of their Lives and â—â—rtâ—inâ—s against all Equity and Humanity For to persecute men so remarkably Regular and Peaceable both in their Principles and Practises is as manifest a Violation of the Law of Nature as is possible And if it was Lawful for them to Resist then they seem bound in Conscience to do it whenever they had a Probability of prevailing For without doubt it 's a great fault for a Man to throw away his Life impoverish his Family and encourage Tyranny when he hath a fair remedy at hand F. If you had a little better remembred what I have already said on this Subject you might have spared these Objections for as to the first of them it is rather a Logical Fallacy than a true Answer For in the first place I have all along Asserted that no Man ought to give up his Right of self defence but in order to a greater good viz. the publick Peace and Preservation of the Common-wealth And therefore Dr. Fern and others of your Opinion do acknowledge that David might have made use of defensive Arms to defend himself against those Cut-throats that Saul send to take away his Life tho' he might not have Resisted Saul's own person and you your self have already granted that no Man can want Authority to defend his Life against him that hath no Authority to take it away So that if this Law of Self-defence is sometimes suspended it is onely in Submission to a Higher Law of preserving the publick Peace of the Common wealth or Civil Society which being once brâ—ken and gone by a general Violence upon all mens Lives Liberties and Properties of that Nation or Kingdom that Obligation of maintaining the publick Peace being taken away every Man 's natural Right of not only defending himself but his innocent Neighbour again takes place And therefore your Logical Maxim that nothing can be affirmed of Individuals which may not be affirmed of the whole Species signifyeth nothing in this Matter for every Individual had before potentially a Right of Self-defence tho they were under an Obligation not to reduce it into Act till the Bonds of that Civil Society were dissolved and then it is true they do not then Resist to maintain that Civil Government which is already gone but to get out of a State of Nature and set up a New one as soon as they can But as to your second Objection which I confess hath more weight in it than the former I shall make this Answer that you your self have given a sufficient Reason why a whole Nation or Church that professes the Christian Religion cannot be destroyed by all the Malice and Persecution that can fall upon it by Persecuting Monarchs for you tell us that it is the special Priviledge of the Christian Church above the rest of Mankind that they are God's peculiar Care and Charge and that he doth not permit any suffering or Persecutions to befal them but what he himself orders and appoints And that it is a great Happiness to have our Condition immediately alloted by God So that it seems it cannot be in the Power of the Cruellest Tyrant utterly to destroy Christianity in any Country where it is truly taught by all the Persecution that he can use This was the State of Christian Religion whilst it was in its Infancy and in which we may observe more particular Declarations of God's Providence by Miracles and the Divine Inspirations of his Holy Spirit than after it was grown up and that all the World became Christians In its Infancy 't is plain that Princes could not destroy it because it was supported by Miracles and supernatural Means but in the other State when Christianity was once grown up settled and able to shift for it self by being made the Religion of the Empire and the greatest part of Mankind embracing it in those and other Countries Princes then could not destroy it if they would because their Subjects had then a Right to it and a Property in it as much as they had to any thing else they enjoyed and consequently might be preserved by the same Human Means Thus during the State of the Iewish Church in the Wilderness and for some time in the Land of Canaan we find the Children of Israel fed and delivered from their Enemies by Miracles But after they had been long settled in it and had Renounced the Immediate Government of God they were then left to preserve themselves by the same natural means with other Nations And tho' I grant that such Persecutions when ever they fall out are very Prâ—judicial to the Peace and Happiness of those Nations that labour under them Yet this is no sufficient Reason against Paâ—ient-suffering for Religion without Resistance For since our Saviour is the Author of our Salvation and hath ordained that it-shall be propagated not by Force or Resistance but by Sufferings and that he hath promised us an Eternal Weight of Glory for our submitting our Wills and Natural Affections to his Divine Commands it is not for us to dispute the Reason of it since that he who pleased to bestow upon us so great a Benefit without our Desert might propose it to us upon what Conditions he pleased tho' never so hard to be performed Yet is this to be so understood as that this Suffering for the Testimony of Christ may serve for that great End for which he ordained it viz. the Propagation of his own true Religion by our beaâ—ing Testimony to it in our couragious and patient Suffering which in a Kingdom or Nation where Christianity or any true Prosession of it is become the general and Naâ—â—onal Religion cannot now be supposed to be necessaâ—y And this may serve also for an Answer to your last Reply For tho' I own that the Municipal Laws of Common wealths cannot abrogate any of our Natural Rights but only in order to some greater good or Benefit tending thereunto yet certainly the Revealed Law of God may and doth in some Case abridge us of divers of those Rights which Men by the Law of Nature might have made use of But as for your Quotation out of Tertullian tho I have good Reason to question the very matter of Fact since I can hardly believe that how numerous soever the Christians might be or whatever mischief they might have done privately by setting the City on fire in the Night time which he also mentions a little before as one of the ways by which they might have revenged themselves Yet do I not think that they were then either for Strength or Number sufficient to have made any Considerable Resistance if they would against the Pretorian Bands and other standing Legions which were then if not all yet for the greatest part Heathens The most part of the Christians of those times consisting of the meaner and mechanical Sort of People altogether undisciplined and unarmed and so perhaps
sâ—aunch in this matter as you would make them In opposition therefore to your Thebaean Legion I may set those Legions that composed the Army in Gaul and which saluted Iulian afterwards the Apostate Emperour contrary to their Allegiance to the Emperour Constantius renouncing which they took an Oath of Allegiance to the former whilst the latter was yet alive and had certainly fought against him and resisted him with a Witness had he not chanced to have 〈◊〉 by the way before they could meet to decide the Quarrel M. Pray give me leave Sir to interrupt you a little tho' I cannot deny the matter â—f Fâ—ct to be as you say and likewise that this Army was for the most 〈…〉 yet they were I suppose drawn in partly â—ut of hatred to Constantius beâ—ause he was an Arian and pâ—rtly out of Compassion to Iulian who was at that time upon very ill Terms with Câ—nstâ—â—tius â—is Kinsman the whole Army Suffering many 〈◊〉 for his sake for whom they had a great Love and Esteem But certainly their Loyalty to Iulian is very commendable for tho' immediately after the Death of Constantius he openly declared himself to be a Heathen yet notwithstanding that and his Persecution of the Christians during his whole Reign We cannot find that either the Sâ—ldiers or any other Christian ever resisted or rebelled against him but that they look't upon it as unlawful to resist him may appear by several Authorities out of the Fathers of that time F. Since you cannot deny the matter of Fact you strive to extenuate it by their hatred to Constantius for his Apostacy from the Catholick Faith and the severe and rigid Treatment of Constantius But if their hatred to Him because he was an Arian could make them joyn with Iulian to rebel against him pray tell me why they might not have rebelled also against Iulian after he had declared himself an Apostate from the Christian Faith could they have had such another Leader as Iulian himself But he reigned too small a time and was too constantly himself at the Head of his Army to give them any opportunity to serve him as he had served his Predecessor And indeed this Army of Iulians was but too obedient to him since we find that tho' they had been Christians before yet at the time of Iulian's Death they were then in Profession Heathens for you will find in all the Historians that when after the Death of Iulian they chose Iovian Emperour he at first refused it saying that he being a Christian would not command Heathens whereupon they confâ—ssed themselves to be all Christians but certainly this had been a very impertinent Objection had they been publickly known so at that time And tho' I grant Iulian countenanced the doing of a great many violent things towards the Christians Yet it is certain that he never made any Sanguinary Laws against them but rather forbid them to be put to Death or to suffer any hardship on the account of their Religion tho' I confess the Heathens because they thought it would be acceptable to him put many Christians to death by Force and Violence So that however he might be pleased with it and connive at it Yet did he never enact it by any publick Law or Edict or if he had do I allow the Christians a Liberty to have taken Arms and resisted him upon the account of Religion For tho' I own the Christian Religion had been establish'd by Law by Constantine the Great yet was it not so throughly settled as to forbid the free and open Profession of the Pagan Superstition the Heathens being admitted to all Offices and Commands as well as the Christians and might freely perform all the Rites of their Superstition publick Sacrifices to their false Gods only excepted so that if Constantine by his Edict could without any Rebellion shut up the Heathen Temples and give the Christians the publick Liberty of Proâ—â—ssing â—â—eir Religion why should not Iulian have the like Prerogatiâ—◠〈◊〉 â—is Power was alike Suprâ—am and absolute to recall those Eâ—icts and to make quite contrary ones if he had so pleased And tho' I also own that the Christians did not actually rise in Arms against Iulian yet that there were many of them wouâ—d have done so is very likeâ—â— since they openly pray'd for his Dâ—struction and gave him very undictâ—◠〈…〉 â—ay reproachâ—ul â—angitage upon the account of his Apostacy wheneâ—er 〈◊〉 came 〈◊〉 their way And thus some of those who are called Fathers were 〈◊〉 opinion that an Apostate tho' an Empeâ—our might be put to Death pray Pread what I have lately transcribed out of the Writings of Lucifer â—aâ—aritâ—nus whom St. Ierom calls a Man 〈◊〉 a wonderful Constancy and of a Mind prepared for Martyrdom who writing to the Emperour Constantius says thus to him Pray shew but one of the Worshippers of God that ever spared the Adversaries of his Religion And then he reads him his own Doom out of Deut. 13.1 If there rise among you a Prophet or a Dreamer of Dreams saying let us go after other Gods for the Orthodox always charged the Arians with Idolatry that Prophet or Dreamer of Dreams shall be put to Death You see what you are commanded to suffer And again Hear what God hath ordained by Moses is to be done with you for perswading me to revolt from God Deut. 13.6 If thy Brother the Son of thy Mother or thy Son c. Intice thee secretly saying Let us go and serve other Gods thou shalt surely kill him c. Here it is commanded that my Brother shall be put to Death for inviting me to forsake God And in pursuance of this Doctrine he tells him little farther to this purpose That if he had been in the hands of Mattathias or Phineas and should have gone to live after the manner of the Heathens without doubt they would have killed him with the Sword which he repeats twice for fear he should forget it And this Treatise being sent for by the great Athâ—â—asius and being by him perused he was so far from condemning any thing in it that as you may see in his Letter to this Lucifer which is in the same Volume from whence I transcribed this he highly praiseth him for Writing it and calls his Book the Doctrine of the true Faith besides many other Commendations too long here to be repeated And as for Iulian himself Sozomen the Ecclesiastical Historian writing of the manner of his Death says that it was believed by many that he was killed by some Christian Soldier of his Army whom he applauds for so doing M. I cannot deny but the carriage of some Christians of those times even of those who are called antient Writers or Fathers might be too undutiful and may be attributed to the Morose Monastick temper of the Father you have quoted tho' a great deal of this sort of carriage may be attributed to that Christian Zeal which the Iews called the
Spirits of Fortitude and the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render Boldness of Confidence and which did often transport them to say those things to persecuting Kings or their Governours which had been insufferable to any man else on another occasion and this was not only in words but Actions too Thus when the Emperours Numerianus or Deâ—â—us for my Author doth not know which it was would have entred into the Cathedral Church of Antioch in time of Divine Service Babylus the Bishop standing in the Church-Porch shut the Door against him telling him that He would not suffer him who was a Wolf to enter into the Sheep fold of Christ. And we also read that Valentinian who was afterwards Emperour being then an Officer under Iulian and wanting upon him to the Door of a Heathen Temple gave the Priest a Box on the Ear because he offered to sprinkle him being a Christian with his Prophane Holy Water Yet I confess Theodoret commends the Action and says they after chose that Valentinian Emperour him who had before struck the Priest And therefore I wonder to what purpose you quote such Passages â—ut of Antient Writers and the Actions of Primitive Christians which if you are a Man of that Loyalty or good Breeding as I hope you are you will not your self approve of F. I do not tell you I quote them for our Imitation but only to let you see that the Actions of those you call Primitive Christians and Fathers are not by your own Confession to be the only Pattern for us to follow so that indeed their Practices can signifie nothing to us unless the Principle they acted by were suitable to the Laws of God and right Reason unless you will have no Precedents to be good but what shall suite with your Humour and those Principles you have already imbibed and if Babylus the Martyr might without any sin shut the Emperour out of the Church by Force and that Valentinian was commended for striking the Emperours Priest on the Face I think here are by your own Confession two sufficient Primitive Examples of Resistance both of the Emperour's Person as also of those commissioned by him as certainly this Priest was or else he could have had no Right to have exercised his Idolatrous Worship after the Temples had been shut up under Constantine and Constantius But I now desire your Patience to let you see that not long after these times the Christians as well Souldiers as others were not so through paced in these Doctrines of Passive Obedience and Non-resistance as you would make them for it was by the Rebellion of the Christian Legions in Britain that Maximus took the boldness to Rebel against the Emperour Gratian and making himself Emperour marched into Gaul against him where the poor Prince being also deserted by his Christian Army and forced to fly away with a few followers was not long after murdered by Andragathius after which this Maximus had so good Success that he possessed himself not only of Britain but Spain Gaul and part of Germany and was also acknowledged for Emperour by all the Subjects in those Provinces as well Clergy as Laity tho' the Emperour Valentinian the Son of Gratian was then alive All the Bishops making their Applications to him and desiring him to call a Council in Gaul to suppress the Heresie of Priscillian which he did in Complyance with their Desires wherein they condemned him and his Followers of Heresie who afterwards at the Instance of Ithacius and some other Bishops by this Usurping Emperour were condemned with diveâ—s other of his Followers to suffer Death being the first that ever suffered that Punishment for Heresie This Maximus after five years Reign was overcome and killed in Battle By the Emperour Theodosius who restored that part of the Empire to Valentinian the II. And farther to let you see that the common People of these Primitive Times tho' they were not able to make Emperours so well as the Army yet they were not so streight-laced as not to Resist the Emperours Orders whenever they thought they entrenched upon their Religion or that they went about to persecute them for it I can give you a great many Examples out of Ecclesiastical History of which I will only here set down some few The first is out of Socrates Eccl Hist. Book 2 d. when the Emperour Constantius at the Instigation of Macedonius the Arian Bishop had perswaded him to send some Bands of Soldiers into Paphlagonis to terrifie the People â—punc and make them turn Arrians The Inhabitants of Mantinium enflamed with a Zeal for the Orthodox Religion marched against the Soldiers with a good Courage and having provided themselves with the best Arms they could they gave them Battle in which few or none of the Emperour's Soldiers escaped And tho' I confess the Historians say these People were most of them Novatians yet this Action ought not to be condemned only for that Cause since they were rather lookt upon as Schismaticks than Hereticks and were in all things else except that one point about reconciling the lapsed very Orthodox but in all other things were more strict and scrupulous than the Catholicks themselves So likewise when the Orthodox at Constantinople had chosen Paul for their Bishop but the Emperour resolving to make Macedonius Bishop in spite of their Teeth and had sent Philip the President to fix Macedonius in that See as he was about to give him Possession of the Church tho' they were guarded all along with Soldiers Yet when they came near the Door the People made that Resistance that they could not get in till several thousands of them were killed And some years after when the Emperour Theodosius the II. had banished St. Chrysostome about the Year 404. The People flocked together about the Palace so that the Emperour to pacifie them was forced to recall him from his Banishmen And when St. Ambrosâ— was banished by Valentinian at the Instigation of his Mother Iustina the People did Resist such as came to carry him away and such was their Zâ—al for the Truth and Love to their Injured Bishop that they chose rather to lose their Lives than suffer their Pastor to be taken away by the Soldiers that were sent to drag him out of the Church I could give you more Instances of this kind from the e Primitive Times but these may be sufficiâ—nt to shew you of how little account the Doctrine of Non-Resistance was in those times aftâ—â— Christianity was once settled and that the People supposed they 〈◊〉 the Law on their side Neither do I produce them as fit to be imitated 〈◊〉 like Cases but only to let you see that the Example of those times you call Primitive are no Sufficient Argument of what was lawful or unlawful to be done M. Since you your self do allow All or however most of these Actions to be unlawful I think you might very well have spared
are the Bishops the Nobility and Civitatum delegati the Deputies or Commissioners of Towns and Cities For Sweden it comes near the Government and forms of Danemark and hath the same Estates and degrees of People as amongst the Danes that is to say Proceres Nobiles the greater and the less Nobility Episcopi Ecclesiastici the Bishops and inferiour Clergy Civitates Vniversitates the Cities and Towns Corporate for so I think he means by Vniversitates as Tâ—uanus mustereth them To which we may also add tho here omitted by this Author the Delegates of the Rusticks or Husbandmen who make a fourth Estate in the Assembly of Estates of this Kingdom And in this Realm the Bishops and Clergy enjoy the place and priviledges of the third Estate notwithstanding the Alteration of Religion to this very day the Bishops in their own Persons and a certain number of the Clergy out of every Sochen a Division like our Rural Deanries in the name of the rest having a necessary Vote in all their Parliaments And this Swedish great Council is the more remarkable because it comes very near our Constitution in England in which I proved the Inferior Clergy and the Commons not excepting the meanest Freeholders anciently had their Representatives So that it had been the strangest thing that could have been observed in all the Political Constitutioâ—s on this side of Europe if that of England tho descended from the same Gothick Original and founded according to the same model should have had no Representatives for the Commons or Plebians in their great Councils or Parliaments The Dr. here concludes with Scotland and England the former of which since you agree to have had from all times Citizens and Burgesses in their great Councils or Parliaments I need not repeat what is there since it is no more than what you your self have granted and as for England he owns as appears by the Passages I have already cited out of this Chapter that the Clergy Nobility and People were called to a Parliament held under Henry the ad at Clerkâ—nwell M I will not deny but there were Representatives of the Cities and great Towns in the great Councils or Assembly of Estates of all those Kingdoms you have now mention'd out of Dr. Heylins Treatise yet whether they were there from the very first Institution of those Governments is much to be doubted But since I have not now leasure to inquire into the Original of all these Kingdoms nor at what time each State began to come to these great Councils give me leave in the mean time to remark that all these Kingdoms except Sweden came nearer to that Constitution which we suppose to have been anciently in England and Scotland and also other Kingdoms where feudatory Tenures were observed and consequently none but the Chief Lords or Barons by Knights Service and that held of the King so that all those Foreign Councils or Dyeâ—s c. at first were all the same as consisting of Emperours or Kings with their Earls and Barons Bishops and great Officers as is evident from all the old German and French Authors and since Cities sent Deputies in Germany and Italy they were only from Imperial Cities the like I believe would be found in France and those other Kingdoms you have now mentioned but you cannot shew me unless in Sweden any Representatives elected by the Common People or Rusticks distinct from the Nobility and Gentry like our Knights of Shires in England So that I still doubt whether all the Representatives of the great Lords and other Nobility that appeared in the Councils of these Kingdoms were not all Tenants in Capite and no other F. That this is a meer surmise of yours I think I can easily prove for in the first place as for the Bishops Abbots and Clergy who still made the first Estates in all these Kingdoms nothing is more certain than that they never any of them held of the King by Knights Service and therefore could not 〈◊〉 in their great Councils by that Tenure that Institution being for ought as I know peculiar to England and introduced by your Conqueror as you your self acknowledge and as for the Temporal Nobility you will find that in France not onely those Noblemen that held of the King by Military Service but those who held in libero Alodio without any such Service at all had places either by themselves or their Deputies in the Assembly of the Estates so likewise for the Cities and Towns that sent Deputies to it I believe you will not find that any of them held of the King in Capite and to come to Germany you are likewise as much mistaken in fancying that all the Imperial Cities were Subject immediately to the Emperor before they became so for Hamburgh and Lubec were Subject to their own Princes the former to the Duke of Holstein and Sleswic and the latter to Earls of its own till at last they either purchased their Liberties they enioy from their Princes or else cast them off and were after received into the Body of the Diet by the Bulls or Charters of several Emperors and so likewise Brunswick was always a fâ—â—e City till it was united to the Empire by its own Consent I could shew you the like of several other Cities now called Imperial who held anciently not of the Emperour but either of their own Earls or Bishops tho I grant it was the Charters of the Emperor with the Consent of the Dyet that gave them a place in those Assemblies and tho it is true that in all the rest of these Kingdoms the meer Rusticks or Paisants have no Representatives in their great Councils yet this makes no Alteration in the Case if you please to consider it for the Nobility and Gentry are the only true and proper owners of the Lands of those Kingdoms all the Rusticks or Paisants being meer Vassals and in France almost Slaves to their Nobility and Gentry who as I have already said had all alike Votes in their Assembly of Estates as well those who held of the King in Chief by Knights Service as those that did not whereas it was always far otherwise in England where the meanest Freeholder was always as free as to his Person and Estate as the greatest Lord of whom he held and hence it is that we have had from all Times those of the degree of Yeomen so peculiar to England as Fortiscut in his Treatise de Laudibus Legum Angliae takes notice who if they lived on their own Lands had no more dependance on the Noblemen and Gentlemen than they have now and therefore it was but Reason that these should have their Representatives in Parliament as well as the Inhabitants of the Cities and Burroughs who had most of them a far less share in the Riches and real Estates of the Kingdom Secondly Pray take notice that in the rest of the Kingdoms of Europe except
should be perswaded by some very ill men about him to play this or the like trick whenever he had a mind to favour one party more than another and so should hinder the execution of the Law whenever he pleased can you think the Nation would long endure this without any resistance Or suppose to make the Case more general the King should undertake to lay a Tax upon the whole Nation without consent of Parliament and fearing it should not be Levyed should resolve to do it by his Officers and Soldiers of his Standing Army and lest they should be resisted should march with them in person from one County throughout to another to see the Money raised Do you think the whole Nation out of pure deference to the King's Person were bound to permit him to do whatever he pleased and let the Soldiers take this Tax which they were certainly not obliged to Pay had he not been personally there M. Yes I am of that opinion that they ought for it were better to Pay it then that a Civil War should happen about it in which the King's Person as well as the Government may be destroyed F. I see you are of this opinion because you fancy that the whole Government consists in the King's Person alone which it does not but in the Legislative Power which is not in the King alone but in the King together with the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament Therefore you are mistaken in supposing that this Resistance must needs alter the Frame of the Government since it is undertaken to maintain the fundamental Constitution of it for if the King may take what Money he pleases from the People and make what Laws he will without the Parliament and without supposing it lawful to resist him if he does the Fundamental Constitution of this Kingdom will be but a Jest considering how light some Princes make of their most Solemn Declarations to their People nay their very Coronation Oaths now adays And it is a strange Paradox that one man may defend his Life and Property against the King's single Person in case he go about to Rob or Murder him and yet that a whole Nation should not have the like Right and that a Prince may not Rob or Murder men by himself yet may do it without any resistance in case he can raise an Army to back him M. Let what will happen I am for understanding this Oath and Declaration in the strict literal sense which you by your false glosses go about to destroy therefore to tell you plainly my mind I think neither one single Person nor yet the whole Nation can justifie resistance of the King's Person no tho' he should go about to Rob or Murder me it were better I were killed or lost all I had than that the Sacred Blood of my Prince should be shed by my hands Since the whole Parliament have on behalf of the People actually renounced all defensive Arms against the King by which I suppose they mean all defensive Arms against his Person nor have you as yet answered my two last Objections concerning that Renunciation of the Two Houses and the want of a competent Authority to raise the Arms of the whole Nation in case of that which you call a General Invasion of Mens Religion Liberties and Properties if ever any such thing should happen as it is not likely it ever will F. Your Principles and Mine are so diametrically opposite that it 's no wonder we may draw quite contrary Conclusions for whereas you suppose that Nations were made for Princes to Govern and dispose of at their Pleasure without any resistance on the Peoples side let them do what they will I suppose that Princes are made for the common good of their People and where their Happiness and Preservation do not interfere ought inviolably to be preserved but when through the Folly Negligence or Tyranny of Princes that which was ordained for their Protection proves their Ruin and Destruction I think the Preservation of the Princes Person ought to give place to the Publick Good and better that he than the whole Nation should perish which though it was the opinion of Calaphas in relation to our Saviour yet it is so well approved of that it is said by the Evangelist St. Iohn that he spake not that of himself but being High Priest that year he Prophecyed For there may be a Common Civil Government without a King but there can be no King without a People Of this Opinion our English Ancestors always were who though they often resisted and sometimes deposed their Kings yet they still maintained Kingly Government though with the change of the person And if it fail'd in the last Civil War it was because it was at last managed by a faction of men of quite different Principles both in Religion and Politicks and not by the Nobility and Gentry of the Nation whose interest it was and ever will be to maintain the ancient Government of a limited Monarchy without falling into a Common-wealth or giving up their just Rights and Liberties to an Arbitrary Power But to answer the rest of your objections which if what I have already layd down be Law and reason too may be easily done As to the first Objection The two Houses might very well renounce the power of making any War offensive or defensive against the King and yet leave the right of resistance for self defence and preservation to the whole nation in general since the former was necessary unless they would have asserted a right in themselves of sitting whether the King would or not and waging a War against him whenever they pleased after he had actually dissolved them which would be to set up two equal absolute powers at once in the Kingdom But that they did not renounce it for the whole Kingdom is plain for though by the Statute of the 12th of Charles the II. they disclaim all coercive power over the Kings person for themselves and the People either collectively or representatively yet do they neither there nor in any of these Acts for the Militia renounce all defensive Arms for the defence of their Religion Liberties and Properties There being a great deal of difference between such a defence and a coercive power over the King as I have already sufficiently proved nor indeed was it in the power of the Parliament to have done it if they would since they are but Trustees for the People to preserve their just right and had no power so really to give up their Religion Lives Liberties and Properties to the Kings mercy So that this renunciation of all defensive Arms on the behalf of the whole People had been absolutely void in it self And since it would have rendered the legal constitution of the Government of this Kingdom wholy precarious if notwithstanding the illegality of the Kings Commissions and their being void if granted to illegal purposes the King's presence shall render it
any Legal Power all which could never have happened had not that War been not only begun but continued to the very last by a Standing Army which could give what Laws they pleased even to those that pretended to command them So that why the Abuse of this Right once in a Thousand years should be made any just Argument against the ever using it at all I can see no reason in the World for it As to the rest of your Discourse against making any War about Religion that is also as fallacious for tho' I grant that true Religion is not to be propagated yet I think it may lawfully be defended by the Sword especially where it is the received Establish'd Religion of a Nation or else the defence of Religion against Infidels would be no Argument at all to fight against a Turkish or Popish Prince that unjustly invaded us For tho' it is true that Religion cannot be taken away from any Man without his consent yet a Man may be taken from his Religion and when the Professors are destroyed either by Martyrdom or violent Persecution as bad or worse than death what will become of the Church and Religion Establisht by Law when all the Persons that constitute that Church are driven away destroyed or made to renounce it And for this we need go no farther than over the Water to our next Neighbour It is likewise as fallacious what 〈◊〉 urge of the great Corruption of Manners by Civil Wars which if it be any Argument at all is so against all Standing Armies whatever whether raised by lawful or unlawful Powers And I think there was much more debauchery in the King 's late Camp at Hounslow-heath as also in all places where they quartered than was lately at York or Nottingham among those that took up Arms in defence of their Religion or Civil Liberties unjustly invaded by the King and his Ministers nor does it always happen that Armies raised for defence of Religion and Civil Liberty must prove debaucht since we may remember that the Parliament Army to its praise be it spoken was infinitely more sober and outwardly religious than the King 's but if you will say that this proceeded from their Principles as well as good Discipline I know no reason why Men who fight in defence of their Religion and Civil Liberties may not upon Church of England Principles as to Church-Government and Common-Prayer and also by a strict Discipline be as little debaucht as any Standing Armies the most lawful Monarch can maintain who if they lye idle as ours have done all this King's Reign till now of late are more likely to fall into all the wickedness that attend a loose Discipline and want of Imployment and consequently may also corrupt the Places where they Quarter by their ill example M. I shall not longer argue this point since I see it is to no purpose But you have not yet told me what these fundamental Rights and Liberties are that you suppose the People may take up Arms to defend nor yet what number of the Nation may thus judge for themselves and take up Arms when they please for it may so happen that the whole Nation may be divided as to their opinions concerning these things And the South part of England for example may think their Religion and Liberties in great danger and that it is very necessary to take up Arms for it when the North parts are not under those apprehensions but lye still as was lately seen in the riseings for the Prince of Orange F. As to the first of these queries I think I can easily give you satisfaction and such as you can have nothing material to reply to And as for the other though I do not say I can give you such an answer as will bear no exception or reply yet I doubt not but it will be that which may very well be defended and may serve to satisfie any indifferent and unprejudiced person And which if not allowed will draw much worse consequences along with it And therefore as for the just Rights and Liberties we contend for they are only such as are contained in Magna Charta and the Petition of Right and are no more than the immemorial Rights and Liberties of this Kingdom and that first In respect of the safety of mens lives and the liberties of their persons aly The security of their Estates and Civil Properties And 3ly The enjoyment of their Religion as it is established by the common consent of the whole Nation All which I will reduce to these plain Propositions 1. That no Freeman of England ought to be imprisoned or arrested contrary to Law without specifying the cause of his commitment in the warrant or mittimus whereby he is sent to prison And he ought not to be sent out of the body of the Country or Jurisdiction where the crime was supposed to be committed unless he be removed by due course of Law neither ought he by the Law of England to be detained in Prison without Trial only for a punishment but ought to be Tried the next Assizes or Goal-delivery or within some reasonable time to be allowed of by the Court. And this was Common-Law many Ages before the Act of Habeas Corpus made in the 31st of King Charles the Second which does but ascertain that Law concerning bailing men for all manner of Crimes in case no Prosecution come in against them much less can the King or any Court below the whole Parliament banish any man the Kingdom in any case unless by some known Law already made whereby he is bound to abjure it upon a lawful Trial by his Peers and conviction by his own Confession 2. Nor can the King nor any Courts of Justice condemn a man to loss of Life or Members without due Trial by his Peers and Legal Judgment given thereupon And for proof of this I need go no farther than Magna Charta and the Petition of Right which are both but declaratory of the Common-Law of England◠see therefore Magna Charta cap. 29. Whereby it is declared and enacted that no freeman may be taken and imprisoned or be disseised of his freehold or Liberties or his free customs or be Outlawed or exiled or in any manner destroyed but by the lawful Judgment of his Peers or by the Law of the land which is also farther confirmed and explained by these Statutes viz. the 37 38 42. of Edward III. and 17. of Richard the II. all which are summed up and more particularly declared against contrary to the fundamental Laws of the land in the Petition of Right exhibited to King Charles the I. in Parliament in the thirtieth of his Reign wherein the late imprisonment of the Kings Subjects without any cause shewed and the denial of Habeas Corpus are expresly resented as also putting Souldiers and Mariners to death by Martial Law in time of peace And the King's answer to this Petition is remarkable
Court took upon it to Judge of Matrimonial Causes about Alimony and concerning â—lmoniacal contracts and all other misdemeanours both of Clergy and Layety against Religion and good Manners which were the same things the late high Commission Court took upon them to determine and if they did not meddle with Popish or Non-conformist Meetings it was because their hands were so tied up by the Late Declaration of Indulgence that they had no power to meddle either with Papists or Dissenters M. I shall make no farther reply appresent to what you now say till I come to answer once for all therefore I shall go on to the next things excepted against in the Princes Declaration viz. the erecting of publick Chappels for Mass the protecting of Priests and the making a Jesuit a Privy Councellor all which tho' I confess they are against the express Letter of divers Statutes yet since all these things depend upon the Kings dispensing power set forth in His Majesties late Declaration which as I will not assert so I will not positively deny since the said Declaration of Indulgence and all proceedings thereupon have issued out and executed under colour of Law viz. of the Kings Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction without any force or violence upon the Conscience Religion or Properties of the Kings Protestant Subjects whom the King in his said Declaration solemnly promises to protect in the free possession and enjoyment of their Religion establisht by Law and I cannot see how a liberty granted to Popish Priests to say Mass or the putting in a Jesuite into the Privy Council or making Popish Judges or putting a Papist into the Ecclesiastical Commission can be lookt upon as any Invasion of the Protestant Religion the free and publick profession of which we have God be thanked as quietly injoyed as we did in the Reign of this King or in that of his Brother F. Since you cannot directly justifie the Kings setting up publick Mass Houses in London and in most other parts of the Kingdom and his so publick protecting and countenancing Papists and Jesuits even to the making a Jesuit a Privy-Councellor tho' they are all in judgment of Law alike publick Enemies and Traytors to the King and Kingdom and that all these as you cannot deny are contrary to the express words and intent of all Statutes against Priests and Popish Assemblies so you endeavour to palliate it under the Kings dispensing power which you suppose to have had a colour of Law at least to support it but tho' the giving Liberty to Popish Assemblies and the Conventicles of the Dissenters was no direct hindrance of the free exeâ—ercise of the Protestant Religion establisht by Law yet I must utterly deny that the King has any such prerogative as to dispense with those Laws and by his sole Authority to declare those that the Law calls Enemies and Traytors to be good Subjects and you may as well tell me that the King has not only a prerogative power to pardon High-way-men but may also protect them and put them into his Guards with a Commission to rob whom they pleased as to give Papists Power to bear Arms or to protect and imploy declared Traytors as Popish Priests and Jesuites are by Law as the King had done not the like I may say for putting in Popish Judges and Justices of Peace viz. that it was all done by force of the Kings Personal Orders without his Legal Authority which is that alone we can take cognizance of or render any Obedience to and tho' 't is true I do not deny the King a Power of making whom he pleases Judges yet this prerogative is still to be exercised according to Law and therefore if the King should make an illiterate man a Judge who could neither Write nor Read the Writ or Patent would be void in its self the same I may say of a Popish Judge the Law making no difference as I know of between a natural and a legal disability but however the turning out honest and able Judges because they would not give up our Religion and Liberties to the Kings Arbitrary Will is certainly a much greater breach of the Trust committed to him by his Coronation Oath wherein he swore he would maintain the Laws of the Land and mix Equity with Mercy in all his Judgements now where is the Equity or Justice of this that whereas the Judges anciently held their places quam diu se bene gesserint they should now by a notorious encroachment of the prerogative not only be made durante beneplacito but that the King should stretch this prerogative so unreasonably as to examine the Judges before hand whether they would agree to the dispensing power and to turn out those that refused to comply meerly because they would not serve his Arbitrary designs and then to put in the meanest and most mercenary Lawyers at the Bar nay some who never come thither at all into their places for no other merit or good qualities but because they would serve a turn is so notorious a breach of his Oath that it could not fail in a little time to destroy all our Common as well as our Statute Laws since these were all lately lodged in their Breasts and resolved into their Arbitrary determinations which yet as all the World knows were wholy managed by the influence and commands of the Court and this I say again was as notorious an abuse of the Kings prerogative as if he had put in High-way-men into his Guards with Commissions in their Pockets to rob whom they pleased since these Gentlemen in Scarlet have taken the same Liberty under colour of Law to raise Taxes upon the Subjects against the express letter of an act of Parliament as may be seen in their late determination concerning Chimney Money making Cottages built for the use of the poor and houses of persons exempted from payment liable to Chymney Money contrary to the express words of that Statute M. I cannot deny but the things you now mention have been great abuses of Prerogative but whether so great as to require resistance I must still disagree with you therefore I shall now proceed to the next particular complain'd of viz. the examining of the Lords Lieutenants Deputy Lieutenants Sheriffs and Justices of Peace to know whether they would concur with the King in the repeal of the Test and Penal Laws and turning all such out of Commission as refused to comply with the Kings desires in this matter now tho' I will not say it was well or prudently done yet it was no more than what I think the King by his Prerogative might Justifie the doing of since he may by Law give a quietus est to what Judges he pleases and put in or out of Commissions whether Civil or Military what persons he thinks fit and as for the persons so examined they might have chosen whether they would have given any positive answers to the questions put to them by the Lord Chancellor
general that he shall reverence the Church of God that is that Profession of Christianity or Way which he and the great Council of the Nation shall upon the most mature Judgment and Deliberation think to be so so that all that can be deduced from this clause is that the King shall reverence the Church that is maintain the profession of Religion which shall be established by Law and shall make no alteration therein without the general consent of the whole Nation in their great Councils or Synods consisting as well of Ecclesiastical as Secular Members and so likewise he shall defend it from all injurious Persons that would invade the Rights of the Church and its Clergy contrary to Law and shall root out all evil doers that is all debaucht and wicked Professors of Christianity for so malesicos properly signifies and not Hereticks as you would render it who are not Evil doers but false Believers or if it should be interpreted for Hereticks it is not those that then might be looked upon as such but what the present Church shall so determine or else we must own the former Church to have been infallible in all her determinations So that I can see no reason upon the whole matter why this Law should now become void or unprofitable by reason of any alterations in Religion or of those men that were then to exercise the functions of it as long as all the necessary and material parts of both are preserved as they are to this day for otherwise this Law would have tyed up the King and Nation from making any Reformation in Religion tho' never so much for the better or tho' the National Church had never so much required it which I suppose no true Protestant will affirm But as for those passages out of Bracton and Fleta which I have brought to confirm and support our sense of this Law and which you labour to avoid by putting too general and loose an interpretation upon them whereby you would make them only to signifie that the King is to maintain right Judgment and Justice between Man and Man without which his Royal Dignity cannot hold or subsist but that he is not obliged upon any penalty to observe the same things in respect of himself or his own Officers or Ministers this is all one as if a Shepherd who had a Flock of Sheep committed to his charge by the owner having first fleeced and then killed and destroyed them and converted the Wooll and Carkasses to his own private use should then tell the owner that he was indeed to defend the Flock from Thieves Wolves and Foxes but that it was no part of his bargain to keep them safe untoucht from himself or his Servants or so much as his own Dogs but that the sense of Bracton and Flâ—ta is quite otherwise sufficiently appears by these places I have now cited and if those will not do pray consider these that I shall nere add for Bracton also in the same chapter tells us ad hoc creatus est Rex electus ut Iustitiam faciat universis and he also there recites the ancient Coronation Oath in these words Debit enim Rex in Coronatione sua nomine Iesu Christi haec tria promittere Populo sibi subdito Imprimis se esse praecipturum pro virious opem impensurum ut omni Populo Christiano vera pax omni suo tempore observetur 2. Vt rapacitates omnes iniquitates interdicat 3. Vt in omnibus Iudiciis equitatem praecipiat misericordiam ut indulgeat ei suam misericordiam Clemens Deus Now how can a King observe this Oath that spoils the people of their Goods and raises Taxes contrary to Law or how can he continue King who violates all the ends of his Creation from all which it appears that by this Justice and Judgment must be meant not only the Kings own observing Justice towards his People not only by not commanding but also hindering his inferiour Ministers and Officers from spoiling and oppressing them and that no prerogative can justifie him in the doing otherwise is as evident from another place in Bracton where he tells us that Regia potestas Iuris est nâ—n Injuriae nihil aliud potest Rex nisi quod jure potest But Fleta is somewhat larger on this head tho' to the same effect when speaking of the Kings Power or Prerogative he says thus licet omnes potentia praecellat cor tamen ipsius in manu Dei esse debet ne potentia sua manâ—aâ— infranata fraenum imponat temperantiae lora moderantiae ne trahetur ad injuriam quia nihil aliud hoc estâ—in terra nisi quod de Iure potest nec obstat quod dicitur quod Principi placet Legis habet potestatim quia sequitur cum lege Regia quae de ejus Imperio lata est non quiâ—quid de voluntate Regis tanto pere praesumptum est sed quod Magnatum suorum consilio Rege authoritatem praestante habita super hoc deliberatione tractatu recte fuerit deâ—initum which not only shews that our ancient English Lawyers in this agreed with the Civil Law and gave the same account of the original of the Royal Power as that Law does viz. that it was conferred by the People of Rome on the Roman Emperour by the Lex Regia mentioned in the old Civilians I have formerly cited and also shews that our ancient Lawyers supposed that by a like Law among us the Royal Authority was originally derived from the consent of the People of England without whose advice and assent included in that of their Representatives here called consitium Magnatum consilium being taken for consent in this place as I have proved it often signify'd no Law can ever be made now if the King will not be ruled by this bridle of moderation this Author as well as Bracton tell us that the King then hath his Superiours the Law and his Court of Barons who were as Masters to put this Bridle upon him But admit he will run away with this Bridle between his Teeth all this had signified nothing if there be no other remedy left us besides bare supplication or remonstrances to the King of his duty and he might have dissolved the Parliament before ever it could have any time to do either the one or the other To conclude if the King was at first elected and created for this end that he may do Justice to all men and that this Justice does not only concern his maintaining Justice between his Subjects one towards another but also in respect of himself his Children and Subordinate Officers and Ministers that act by his Commission appears by what follows in Bracton after the Kings Coronation Oath Potestas scil Regis itaque Iuris est non injuriae cum ipse sit Author Iuris non debet inde injuriarum nasci occasio etiam qui ex officio
the Prince had demanded This would have been not to have been parralel'd any where but in a Romance But as for those Officers and Souldiers who you say Deserted the King and went over to the Prince from Salisbury though I grant they make a great noise yet were they not a Thousand Men Soldiers Officers and all as I am Credibly inform'd which was but a small number in comparison with the Kings whole Army and yet these may very well be defended upon the same principles with the former for if the Violations of our Liberties were so great and dangerous as I have now set forth those Gentlemen were certainly oblig'd to prefer the common Good and Preservation of their Religion and Liberties before any private interests or Obligations whatsoever though it were to the King himself therefore it was more his than their fault if they Diserted him and as for their going away whilst they were his Souldiers and with their Commissions in their pockets I suppose you cannot expect that the King should have ever given them leave to have quitted his Service or have accepted of their Commissions if they would have surrender'd them unless at the same time he had clapt them up in prison for offering of it and if then they were perswaded that it was theiâ— Duty so to do it is but a Punctilio of Honour whether they went away with their Commissions in their pockets or had left them behind them since their going off was a Surrender of their Commissions and a sufficient Declaration â—â—at they could not with a safe Conscience serve the King any longer in this quarrel and you see that the going off of these few had such a fatal effect that it cast such a panick Terrour upon the King and the whole Popish Faction about him as to make him run away to London without striking a stroke But that the Prince of D. with the Dukes of Grafton and Ormond Lord Churchill were convinced of the danger this Kingdom was in both in respect of their Religion and Liberties appears by their leaving the King and going over to the Prince where they could never expect to be put into higher places of Honour or Trust than what they enjoyed already under the King and therefore that expression of the Lord Churchill's in his Letter to the King is very remarkable That he could no longer joyn with self-interested men who had framed designs against His Majesties true Interest and the Protestant Religion to give a pretence to Conquest to bring them to Effect And one would be very much inclin'd to believe so considering the great number of Irish Papists which have been brought over and listed here though with the turning out and disbanding of a great many English Officers and Souldiers out of several Companies But to come to the business of the Prince of Wales which you say was a meer calumny and an unjust suspition on the Princess side though I will not affirm any thing positively in so nice a matter since the Convention has not thought fit to meddle with it I shall only say this much that if there have been any jealousies and suspitions raised about it the King may thank those of his own Religion who were intrusted with the management of the Queens Lying-Inn For in the first place it looked very suspicious to us Protestants who do not put much faith in the Miracles of the Romish Church that immediately after the presenting of the Golden Angel to the Lady of Loretto and the Kings Pilgrimage to St. Winifreds Well the Queen after several years intermission should again be with Child and when she was so should have two different Reckonings Which though it may be forgiven Young Women of their first Children yet those who have born so many Children as Her Majesty are commonly more experienced in these matters M. What is all this to the purpose Was it not proved by many credible Witnesses and those of the Protestant Religion before the Privy-Council that they were not only present in the Room when the Queen was Delivered but that they had seen Milk upon Her Linnen before Her Delivery and that they had also felt Her Belly immediately before it and found that Her Majesty was Big with Child and ready to be Delivered And the Midwife Swears that she actually Delivered Her So that since every person is to be presum'd to be the true Son of those Parents that own him for theirs So nothing but a direct proof to the contray and that by undenyable Evividence ought to make any Man believe otherwise much more in the concern of the Heir apparent to the Crown and therefore I know not what you would have to been done which has not been observed in this nice matter F. And Sir let me tell you because it was so nice a matter and concerned no less than the Succession of Three Kingdoms therefore the whole Nation as well as the Prince and Princess of Orange were to be fully satisfied of the reality of the Princes Birth since they were all suffiâ—iently sensible that there wanted nothing but a Male Heir to entail Popery on us and our Posterity And therefore there ought to have been present such Persons as had no dependance upon the Court and who ought to have been deligated by the Prince and Princess of Orange since the Princess of Denmark could not be there in Person but instead of this the only two Ladies who as I am informed were trusted by the Princess to be present at the Queens Labour were never sent for till she was brought to Bed and the Child Drest And as for the rest of the Witnesses they were either Lords or other Persons who only Swear they stood in the Room at a distance and heard the Queen cry out and immmediately after the Child cry sometime before they saw it And as for the Ladies the greatest part of them Swore no further than the Lords So that notwithstanding all that they have Sworn in this matter there might have been a trick put upon them and they never the wiser Since you may Read in Siderfin's Reports of a Woman who pretended to have been delivered of a Child by a Mid-wife within the Bed and yet many years after this was proved to be a suposititious Birth by the Deposition of the Mid-wife and the poor Woman who was the real Mother of the Child and others that had been of the Conspiracy And what has been done once may be done again 'T is true the King himself with one or two Ladies Deposed something further as to Milk and the feeling of the Child immediately before the Birth but his Majesty if it be an Imposture is too deeply concerned in it to be admitted as a competent Witness And as for the rest of the Ladies they are likewise being as the Queens Servants and having an immediate dependance upon her to be excepted against and under too much awe to speak the whole Truth
Monarch I believe he would have been too much afraid of the King of France ever to have made use of his Forces to have setled Popery and Arbitrary Government and without his assistance I suppose you will grant it never could have been done since he plainly found that a Protestant Army would never have joined with him to act in such pernitious designs but however let the worst have happened that could be I think it had been much better for the Nation to have endured it with Patience than to have done that which was Evil though for the procuring of the greatest seeming Good tho' for the advantage of our Religion and civil Liberties and therefore it had been better for us in this extremity to have trusted God than Men since he always promises to protect those that relye upon him and strictly perform his Will and admit the worst that could have happened God would either have removed those afflictions from us in due time or have given us Patience to have born them since I suppose you will not deny that God oftentimes brings Persecutions and Afflictions upon a Sinful Church and Nation either for a punishment for their Sins or else to give an occasion for those that are truly Pious and Sincere to shew their Courage and Constancy in Suffering for the Truth and by withstanding not by force but Passive Obedience all the Kings Illegal and Arbitrary Commands if he should after his re-establishment in the Throne have again renewed his former courses these are the only remedies which we of the Church of England as obedient Subjects to the King and his Laws must think could have been Lawfully taken in this case F. I do not deny but what you say is in the main very pious and honest were the case as you have put it but the greatest part of your discourse depends wholly upon those old principles and prejudices of the unlawfulness of all resistance of the Supream Powers and that the King is the only Supream Power in this Kingdom both which propositions I have sufficiently confuted at our third fourth and fifth meetings and also at our last save one in which I gave you a true account of the Legal sense of those Oaths and Statutes of King Charles II. concerning Resistance as was also given by the best Lawyers and most considering Men of the then House of Lords and Commons so that if the means we have used are lawful both by the Laws of God and Man I think we are not bound to bring Afflictions upon our selves but to avoid them all we can especially when they come evidently attended with the utter loss and ruine of what ought to be most dear to us our Religion Civil Liberties and Properties and that not only for our selves but our Posterity who perhaps would never have regained them when they were once lost of which the French Nation is an evident example before our Eyes who by not opposing the Arbitrary Power of their Kings in due time have fallen into a Government almost as Despotick as that of Turky for when once the common good of the Subjects ceases to be the main end of the Governours the Government then ceasing to be Gods Ordinance degenerates into Tyranny which I think may be always Lawfully opposed by a free-born People who at first agreed to be Governed not as Slaves but Subjects But as for the first part of your Speech it needs not any long answer it first supposes the King might have been again restored upon terms now since it is plain these Terms must have been imposed upon him against his Will and as necessary Conditions of his Restoration I would be glad to know who it was should undertake to impose them upon him and to see them kept when they had been made whether the Prince of Orange or the Parliament if the former I grant indeed he might have made such Conditions with the King that the Church of England as well as the whole Nation should for the future enjoy their Just Rights and Liberties but then the Prince must either have trusted wholy to the Kings Honour or else he must have had some strong places put into his Hands for a Security that the King would not again make the same Violations upon our Laws Religion and Liberties as he had done before if the former I suppose you will not deny but that the King might if he had pleased have broken them all again as soon as ever the Princes back had been turned and that he had been once engaged in a War with France which could not have been long avoided considering the necessity there is at this juncture of time for the States of Holland and Consequently the Prince as their General to engage with the Emperor and King of Spain to drive the French out of the Empire and to hinder him from making himself Universal Monarch of Europe which it is plain is the thing he now drives at But if the Prince should have kept any strong places here as cautionary Towns for the Kings performance of the Terms agreed upon this must have been done either by English or Forreign Forces if by the former this would have been looked upon as inconsistent with their Duty and Allegiance to the King if he should have commanded them to be delivered up into his Hands since you tell us the King has the sole Command of the Militia and consequently of all Garrisons man'd by his Subjects within his Dominions But if the Forces that should have held these places had been Dutch-men or other Forreigners it would never have been endured either by the King or the Nation that Forreigners should possess the strong Holds and Keys of the Kingdom and the King might soon have wrought by some jealousies and suspitions which he would not have failed to have raised that the Nation it self should have joyned with him to drive them out and then the King might have done what he pleased without Controul but if you will place this power into the whole People or Nation or else their Representatives the Parliament of holding the King to these Terms agreed upon this could not have been done without their constant Siting and a power of Resisting him in case he infring'd them and then either they must have given up all their Liberties to the Kings Will or else farewell to the Darling Doctrines of Passive Obedience and Non-resistance so that take it which way you will all imposing of Terms upon the King either by the Prince of Orange or the Nation would in a short time have become either Unpracticable or Insignificant Nor is your other Supposition any whit truer that the King would never have made use of the Forces of France to subdue and keep under the people of England for fear he should not be able to get the French out again Ti 's true this would be a very good Argument to a Prince who were no Bigot and was not resolved
to introduce his Religion by all the ways and means he could but how near the French Forces were to be brought over into this Kingdom the last Summer is very well known to those who were then in France and saw them upon the Sea Coast ready to Imbark nor was their coming over put off by any other motives than that two of the Cabinet-Council represented to the King that it would be the only means to make the whole Nation rise up against him and joyn with the Prince of Orange as soon as he Landed which I suppose was the only reason that hindred it for that the French King offered to send them is very certain Yet it does not follow for all that but the King might take an opportunity of doing it another time and bringing them over in their own Ships if ours would not do the business And though I will not affirm that there is any private League with France for the Extirpation of the Protestant Religion yet this much I think may be sufficiently made out that long ago the King was wholly in the power and interest of France as appears by Coleman's Letters whilst he was his Secretary when Duke of York The first passage is to Sir William Throgmorton Feb. 1. 1673 4. You well know that when the Duke comes to be Master of our Affairs the King of France will have reason to promise himself all things that he can desire The next is to Father La Chaise the French Kings Confessor in these words That his Royal Highness was Convinced that his interest and the King of France's were the same and whether the Duke by his Accession to the Crown has shewed any alteration in his Inclinations to France either in respect of Religion or Interest I appeal to the World Nor is your next Supposition less out of the way that the King could have made use of no Forces but French to settle Popery and Arbitrary Government here as if He had not Scotch and Irish Papists enough in his Dominions for this occasion and as for Arbitrary Government we have found to our grief that there are too many Mercenary Souldiers in the Kings Army who fought only for pay and would have Assisted the King to have Raised Money without the Parliament nay to pull the very Parliament out of Doors if he had bid them and if some of them were Discontented when the Prince came over I do not so much impute it to their Honest Principles as fear lest they themselves should be Cashierd and Scotch and Irish to be listed in their rooms so that upon the whole matter considering the temper the King was in ever since his last coming to Town and that as soon as he Arrived the Priests and Jesuits flocked about him as thick as ever that they and the French Envoy were his chief if not his only Cabinet Councellors I cannot see unless he had taken new measures how we could have been secure or could have relied on any thing he could have farther promised nay swore to perform since no Oath could be more Sacred than that at his Coronation when he Swore to maintain the Church that is the Doctrine of the Church of England and the Laws of the Kingdom if that be a true account of the form of it which we have in print M. At this rate of Arguing I know not what to say to you since this Argument amounts to no more than this that the King could upon no account be trusted and therefore was not any more to be Treated with if this were so to what purpose did the Prince of Orange declare that he came not to Conquer the Kingdom but only to procure a Free and Legal Parliament which could not be called without the Kings Consent and owning his Authority neither could they have done the least Act for the Amendment of our Grievances without his Majesties Consent or to what purpose did the Prince enter into a Treaty with the Kings Commissioners at Hungerford if his Royal Word and Promises were not to be believed But if his Majesty could ever be trusted I see no reason why he could not have been so as well since his last coming to Town as before since he came voluntarily and as I have great reason to believe with Real Intentions to grant and perform what ever the Nation could reasonably expect for the Redress of their Grievances and would have given any reasonable Security of his performance for the future without Devesting himself of his Royal Power of making Laws and Protecting his Subjects But as for the former part of your Speech whereby you would prove it lawful to Resist the King because you say it conduced to the Common good and Interest of the Nation both as to the Protestant Religion and Civil Liberties this is no more than the Old Common-wealths Maxim in other words which I grant is so far true as when the safety and preservation of the King or other Supream Powers of a Common-Wealth who according to your own principles are the Representatives of the people and consequently part of it are likewise comprehended and maintained as they ought to be in their due power and authority for Bishop Sanderson in his Learned Lectures hath very well proved that those cannot be separated from each other without destroying the Civil Government which is all the Security we have for our Civil Properties and Liberties and we see in those few days in which his Majesties Person was withdrawn when that there was no Civil Government exercised that there was greater infringment of them both by plundering and destroying of Houses and spoiling of Parks and Forests in three or four days time by the violence and fury of the Mob than have been committed by the most Arbitrary Kings from the Conquest to this day F. You very much mistake me if you think I maintain that there was never any time after the Princes Landing that the King might not have been Treated withal and likewise trusted with the Administration of the Government but then it must have been upon such Terms as should have secured us for the future from his Acting the like or worse things over again as in the first place he should have renounced his Dispensing Power and that of Levying Chimny mony upon small Cottages and Ovens directly contrary to Law Next he should have Disbanded his standing Army and kept up no Forces in time of Peace besides the necessary Guardâ— of his Person the Number of which should have been agreed upon by Parliament which should also have Sâ—te once every year or two years at least and lastly that in respect of the Church as long as he or his Successors continued of the Roman Catholick Religion the Nomination of all Bishops Arch-Bishops Deans with other Ecclesiastical preferments which are not in the immediate Disposal of the Lord Chancellor should have been in the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of each Province they choosing two out of
which his Majesty should have chosen one for to supply each Bishoprick c. as they became vacant And therefore for my own part I was so far from believing all agreements with the King to be unpracticable that there was no body rejoyced more than I when upon his Majesty's first return to London he so far Complied with the Desires of the whole Nation as to issue out his Proclamation for a Free Parliament and that he sent down his Commissioners to Treat with the Prince and I had then great hopes of an Accommodation but when instead of this the King had burnt the Writs for the Election of Parliament Men and had sent away the Queen and Prince together with the Great Seal that no more Writs might be issued and that before ever the Commissioners could return to London or before any Answer to the Princes Proposals was given by the King he had withdrawn himself and done all he could to get away into a Foreign Kingdom it was then and not till then that I saw all hopes of Agreement absolutely desperate and though you put a great stress upon the Kings last return to Town which you suppose was with a Design to agree with the Prince in every thing that could be in Reason demanded I can see no cause for your drawing such a Consequence from it for if he did not look upon himself as safe here before his Army was Disbanded he could not think himself more so when it was either wholly Dissolved or else was gone over to the Prince and therefore I have much greater reason to believe that his return again to Town was only to comply with the present necessity and to wait for a fitter opportunity to get away there being never a Vessel then ready to Transport him especially if that be true which I have heard that the King declared to a Person of Credit That the Queen had obtained from him a Solemn Oath on the Sacrament on the Sunday that if she went for France on Monday he would not fail to follow her on Tuesday and if this were so though he was disappointed in his intended passage yet still was he under the same obligation to the Queen nor do I see any Transaction of his with the Prince of Orange or with these of the Church of England that can perswade me to believe otherwise sinâ—e his long Consultation with the French Envoy and the Priests and Jesuits could only tend to the taking new measures for his Departure or else how he might Imbroil us further while he stayed by some faint hopes of new Treaties and Agreements But as for the other part of your Answer whereby you would confute my Notion of the lawfulness of Resistance for the defence and preservation of our Religion Established by Law as also of our Liberties and Properties I hope I shall let you see that it is not I but your self who are mistaken in this matter For 1st All Writers on this Subject and even Dr. Sanderson himself in his Lectures of the Obligation of Conscience do acknowledge that all Civil Government is principally ordained for the good and preservation of the People and that the good of the Governours is only to be considered secondarily and in order to that which if so I pray tell me whether the good and preservation of the people ought not to be considered in the first place since the end for which a thing is ordain'd is always more worthy than the means by which it is procured and therefore I shall freely grant that as long as the safety and interest of the Supream Power and that of the People are all one and can any ways consist together and that they make the happiness and preservation of the People to be the main end of their Government I so far agree with you that the good or preservation of the Prince or Supream Powers cannot nay ought not to be separated from that of the People but when they once set up a separate interest quite different from that of the People as all Princes do who turning Tyrants go about to inslave them they then cease to be the true heads of that Political Body the Common Wealth and thereupon the Community or People become free and at liberty either to oppose or remove these Artificial heads and to set up new ones in their rooms so that since similies are not Arguments your comparison between a Natural and Political Body hath only served to impose upon your Judgment in this matter and therefore I affirm that a Natural and Political Body do wholly differ in this matter for in a Natural Body the real good of the head cannot be separated from that of the Body nor the good of the Body from that of the Head nor yet can the Body alone Judge of the proper means of it's own preservation nor when it is hurt or assaulted but by the head which is the principle of sense and motion but in a Political Body it is quite otherwise for first the Supream Powers of a Common-wealth which you suppose to be Head of this Political Body do often pursue and set up an interest quite different from nay contrary to that of the Body or People and that not only to their prejudice but also sometimes to their destruction and that when they do this the Politcal Body or the People will in evident and apparent cases Judge for themselves let this Political Head say or declare what it will against it and will when they are thus destroyed opprest and inslav'd by those that they have submitted to as their Political Heads and in such cases of extremity endeavour to free themselves from the severity of their Yoke M. Notwithstanding what you have now said I am not yet convinced that the King had no real design to redress our grievances and to make a final agreement with the Prince for though I do not deny but his Majesty did converse with some Priests and others of his own persuasion as also with the French Envoy after his coming to Town yet might this be for no ill intent and he did also converse with divers reverend Bishops and Lords of our own Religion to whom he still expressed a great desire of making an end of all differences between himself the Prince and the whole Nation and this I suppose is the true reason why the Arch-bishop of Canterbury though it is true he signed the first and second Addresses to the Prince upon his Majesty's first wth-drawing himself yet has been ever since so sensible of that mistake he then committed that he has never appeared or acted in any meeting of the Peers nor yet in the Convention and that his Majesty even at Rochester did not lay aside all thoughts of Agreement and making up all breaches between himself and his People I could give you another demonstration which is not commonly known and which I had from a particular Friend viz. that the King
of this Vote will prove so likewise F. Well you have made a pretty long discourse in Defence of King Iames's Actions as well as his late Desertion and I have heard you patiently because I grant you have collected together a great deal of matter in few words and I think all that can be justly urged in your Kings defence I shall therefore begin with the first false step that you say the Convention made in not inquiring after the Causes of the Kings departure whither he was gone and their not voting of an Address to the Prince to desire his return as for the first of these they were not at all obliged to do it since a great many of the Peers and Bishops who were then in Town very well knew the Causes of the Kings Departure and that he either went a way voluntarily or at least without any other necessity than what he had brought upon himself by his own evil Government or the ill Council of others which may be easily proved by several Circumstances for it is very well known that above a formight before the King went away the Lord D and Mr. Brent did not stick to declare that it was necessary that the King should withdraw himself so that it is plain the Popish Faction knew of it long before it was done and that it proceeded wholly from their advice appears further by a Letter to the King when he was at Salisbury which can be yet produced he was there told that it was the unanimous advice of all the Catholicks at London that he should come back from thence and withdraw himself out of the Kingdom and leave us in confusion assuring him that within two years or less we should be in such confusions that he might return and have his ends of us Now if the King was pleased to take such a desperate Counsellors Advice and thereupon to do all he could to quit the Kingdom the cause of his going is too evident as well as his design of returning to have his ends of us as they phrase it that is in plain English to have both our Religion Liberties and Properties wholly at his disposal nor in the next place needed they inquire where he was for every one knew he was gone into France to the greatest Enemy of our Religion and Nation as well as the Princes and therefore it had been altogether unsafe and indiscreet for them to have joined in any Address to the Prince for his return for whilst he was in such hands what hopes could we have of his returning to us with better but rather worse affections towards the Church of England and this Nation than what he carried with him But you say they refus'd to receive his Letters for my part I do not know that he ever sent any at least to the House of Commons I heard indeed that one of the Kings Ordinary Servants was at the Door of the House with such a Letter but that he was so inconsiderable that no body would receive the Letter or make any mention of it in the House and it was very strange that the King should have never a Friend there who had so much courage and kindness for him as would take the Letter and move for the reading of it though he had run the risque of being committed for his pains so that the House of Commons is not to be blamed for not receiving a Letter which was never offer'd them but as for the House of Lordâ— I have been told it was moved to be read there but it was carried in the Negative because it was not brought by a person of sufficient quality and credit and therefore it was the Kings fault if he would imploy such mean persons in a matter of that great moment and indeed if we may give credit to those Copies of these Letters which I have seen they retain'd rather a Justification of his past actions than an acknowledgement of those violations he had committed upon our Laws for as to his promising to Govern by Law there is nothing in that for he never yet own'd that he Govern'd otherwise 't is true there is in one of those Letters an expression of his amending past Errours but those are general words and may mean such Errours as he had committed in the ill management of his Designs which he would have mended when ever he was to do the like things again this may very well be the true Sence of a Letter it iâ— very likely written with the Equivocation of the Jesuits and French advice of a Cabal But you would have him sent for to return upon certain Terms I wonder you should be so undutiful as to urge it since if he is an absolute King without any Conditions what ever he ought certainly to be restored as King Charles the Second was without any Terms or Conditions at all and rather so than with them since he cannot give us greater assurances for his keeping them than he has already broke unless you can suppose he would give us the Guarranty of the Pope and the King of France for their performance the former of whom believes that there is no Faith to be kept with Hereticks and for the latter supposing the King and him to pass his word for the performance of these Conditions pray consider whether the bond of two Bankrupts can ever pass for a good Security and so much for the Letters and Address I come now in the next place to consider your exceptions against that Fundamental Vote of the House of Commons concerning King Iames's Abdication of the Government and thereupon declaring the Throne Vacant To begin with your first exception I think it is a very small one that because this Vote declares the King to have endeavour'd to Subvert the Constitution of this Kingdom that it was very unjust to declare him to have Abdicated the Government for a bare endeavour because we are ignorant of the true ends of the Actions of Princes to which I answer that in this Case a bare endeavour ought to be sufficient if it be so evident that there can be no dispute about it for if he had once actually subverted it the two Houses could never have met to have made this Vote and if in the case of Kings the very barâ— design or endeavour to destroy them be sufficient though it be never reduced into act I cannot see why by the same rule the endeavours of Kings to destroy the fundamental constitution of a mixt or limited Kingdom should not have the like construction in respect of them since according to the maxime you but now cited and which I have sufficiently justified that in all such Governments the safety and preservation of the People that is of the Government they have established is to be preferr'd before that of the King alone when acting in a direct opposition thereunto or otherwise it would be in the Kings Power to destroy the constitution whenever he pleas'd
before his Marriage with that Princess and whilest he was and Usurper upon her Right so that certainly it is no argument that since Parliaments have acted illegally therefore your Convention may do so too for it is a known Maxime in our Civil Law a facto ad Ius non valet consequentia therefore whatever they have done toward creating a good Title to King William in respect of the Queen his Wife and his Issue by her yet this doth no way excuse the wrong done to the Princess of Denmark and her Issue in case they survive your King F. 'T is very wonderful to me to see how ingenious some Men are in finding faults with the present settlement of things though never so much for the best if not done exactly according to suit with their Humour or Hypothesis when indeed there can no fault be justly found with it for you agree that if the Queen hath a Right King William hath so also during his Life and whether the Princess of Denmark and her issue may survive the King is yet uncertain but if either she or they should happen to survive his Majesty yet since she hath made no claim or protestation in the Convention against the Kings holding the Crown after the Decease of the Queen I cannot see why this should not pass for a tacit Resignation oâ—â—er Right as well as in the case of the Princess Elizabeth you but now mentioned But admit his present Majesty according to the late received rules of Succession hath not a Title by Descent yet according to those principles I have already laid down he certainly has not only a Right to the Crown from that inherent power which I suppose doth still remain in the Eslates of the Kingdom as Representatives of the whole Nation to bestow the Crown on every Abdication or Forfeiture thereof on such Prince of the Blood Royal as they shall think best to deserve it and upon this account I conceive there is none of the Blood that can stand in competition with his Present Majesty for Prudence Valour Moderation and all other Royal Vertues and therefore it is not at all to be wonder'd at if the Convention hath in this case exercised that Original Power which the People reserved to it self at the first institution of Kingly Government in this Island especially if we consider his present Majesty not only as a Conquerour over King Iames but as our Deliverer from his Oppression and that Arbitrary Government that we were so lately under and which was like to be much worse had his reign continued a little longer Therefore I cannot but here take occasion to vindicate his Present Majesty from those exceptions you have made against his Country and Civil as well as Religious Principles First As to his Country 't is true he is a Foreigner yet that can he no exception against his admission to the Throne since it was none against his great Grand-father King Iames and I doubt not but his Majesty may understand as much of the English Constitution and Government as his said Grand father did when he first came to the Crown But as for his principles in Religion I cannot see any reason to suspect him more inclinable to the Church Government of Holland then that of England since he was bred up under a Mother who was always firm to the Religion and Discipline of our Church and ever since he was Married to the Princess he hath always shew'd a very great respect to its Liturgy and Ceremonies by his so constant frequenting his Princesses Chappel so that besides his Majesties Interest to maintain Episcopacy as most agreeable to the Monarchy and Antient Constitution of this Kingdom it is likewise if he were able not in his power to destroy the Church of England since the main body of the Clergy Nobility and Gentry of this Nation is to zealous for its preservation that if he had any such inclinations it would not be easie for him to effect it and he is too wise a Prince to let others persuade him so visibly against his own interest and having so late an example before his Eyes that it was King Iames's ruine to attempt it As for what you say of Scotland 't is true Presbitery is for the present set up there but it is uncharitable to impute this to the Kings inclinations for it is notorious that of them which call themselves Episcopal in that Kingdom a very great number did either out of prejudice to the Princes Cause or in contempt of his Power refuse to be chosen Members of the Convention or else after they were chosen did so far adhere to King Iames's interest as to desert it as did my Lord Dundee and many others and by that means gave the Presbyterian Party an advantage to carry all things as they pleas'd and this Party finding the King not well settled here and the Irish in Ireland in Arms against him took hold of that opportunity to put the abolishing of Episcopacy into the very instrument of Government and to press it upon him at a time when an unavoidable necessity and the obstinacy of too many of the Episcopal Party forced him to consent to it wherefore this no way shews his Majesties inclinations to set up Presbytery even in Scotland much less doth it prove he would set it up here where the Circumstances are quite different for here the main body of the People hate that Government and will be so far from desiring it that they will never endure it so that as to this your fears of King William are as vain as your hopes of King Iames. I shall conclude with a few words in answer to your reply against those examples wherein I have shewn you that the Crown hath always been under such a disposition as the two Mouses of Parliament should appoint to which you have nothing else to object but that their admission of Henry the IV th to the Crown was condemned as unlawful by two Acts of Parliament which I have already answer'd by showing you that those Acts were obtain'd by Richard Duke of York and Edward the IV th his Son by actual Rebellion and by as great a force upon King Henry the VI th as ever was used against King Richard the II d by Henry the IV th and as for the Statute of the first of Henry the VII th you have found out a very easie way of answering it by affirming that it was done whilst he was an Usurper and before his Marriage or that he had any right to be King But by this way of arguing no Act he ever passed would be good since It is certain he did never take upon him to Govern in right of his Queen as all those that have writ his Life do acknowledge and therefore if the Parliament would then settle the Crown upon him and his right Heirs without any respect to his Queen or her Issue or Sisters in case she should die
very letter of this Law but also because I have now said all private Persons ought to submit their Judgements in this matter to that of their Representatives who if they have judged falsely are 〈◊〉 bear the blame but yet their Judgement for all that is to be held for good 'till it be reversed in the same way in which it was given since if after such a recognition every private person should still be free to pay his Allegiance to him whom he suppos'd King de jure it would certainly follow that the Civil Society or Common-wealth must of necessity fall into Civil Wars which is against the nature of Civil Societies and inconsistent with the duty of self-preservation which obligeth men not to expose their Lives and Fortunes but to obtain a greater good than both those which can only be the publick good of the Community and not the single interest of any one person or Family and though I grant it is a great sin in those who are instrumental in raising Rebellion and who are thereby guilty of a very enormous Crime yet that which made it so was not barely the injury they committed against the Prince to whom if alone consider'd the breach of an Oath in withdrawing their Allegiance could be no greater a Sin than the breach of an Oath to another person but indeed the fatal mischief and irreparable dammage they did the Common-wealth is that which aggravates the Sin and if a new commotion to restore the King de jure would in all probability prove yet more destructive and a Nation by being so much weakned by a former Civil War be less able to bear a new Civil War which may happen so far to the weakning of it as to expose it to the Invasion and Conquest of a foreign Nation who may be Enemies both to our Religion and Civil Constitution in such a case I cannot think it our duty to restore a Prince by force though never so unjustly driven from his Throne And therefore if I had been then a man tho' I should have been as much for bringing home King Charles as any body ought to be yet I should have been only for it in the way in which it was brought about and should never have desir'd it if it could not have been done but by an Army of French or Irish Papists and the like I say now as to King Iames as long as he is joyn'd with the Interest of France and is already gone into Ireland on purpose to renew the War by the Arms and Assistance of those whose Fathers as well as several of themselves did all they could to destroy not only the Royal Power but also the English Religion and Government in that Nation And therefore I must freely tell you that if even Rebels have put it out of their power to make reparation for all the wrongs they may have done by Rebelling against their Lawful Prince because he in possession is too powerful to be driven out again without a violent Civil War and a general concussion of the whole Common-Wealth This reparation to the injur'd Prince being not to be made without a greater evil than that they endeavour'd avoid it ought to be omitted till it may be done with more safety to the Nation or else not at all I say if there be no other way to make reparation to their injur'd King but by engaging the Nation in fresh Civil Wars they ought not to attempt it by such unlawful and destructive means M. I confess the Discourse you have now made carries the greatest appearance of truth of any thing you have yet said since it is drawn from the publick Good of the Nation which I grant to be comprehended under the common good of Mankind and you have done well to own it to be Rebelion to deprive a lawful Prince and his Heirs of the Crown yet that it is unlawful to restore them again to it if we think it cannot be brought about without a general Subversion of our Religion and Civil Liberties may be a question I grant indeed if we could be absolutely certain of this there would be some colour for this Argument but since future things are not capable of Demonstration if the restoring our lawfull Prince be a Duty incumbent upon every good Subject we ought to endeavour it though with some Danger and Hazard of what ever is dear to us for God will either protect us both in our Religion and Civil Liberties for thus honestly performing our Duties according as we are bound by our Allegiance or if he has call'd us to suffer for the Truth he will either find us Patience to bear it or else provide us a way to escape this I speak in Relation to the French and Irish whose Conquest and Malice you are so much afraid of in case the King should happen to be restor'd by their assistance but indeed I think this a needless fear since I suppose the King will be too wise to bring over so many of either Nation as shall be able to make an entire Conquest of this Kingdom least thereby both he and his Crown may lie wholly at their Mercy when the Business is done nor do I think it either in the power of the French or Irish to perform these dangerous things not of the former because as I now said I suppose the King will never bring over more of them along with him than what may serve to make a stand against the Prince of Orange's Forces till his Good and Loyal Subjects can come in and join with them to his Assistance and as for the Irish they are also the King's Subjects and though Ignorant they are very inveterate against the Protestant Religion and the English Nation and Interest yet they may be so govern'd and over-rul'd by the King as not to be able to do us any considerable Damage But as to the King of France I do really believe he is far from intending to make an entire Conquest of this Kingdom for himself much less desiring to make the King as Absolute a Monarch here as himself is in France for us to the form◠he has too much consideration of his own Glory and Reputation in the World to seize upon the Kingdom of a near Kinsman and Allie of his own Religion and who had been driven from his Throne chiefly for being too much in his Interest and besides all this he may very well fear that if he went about any such thing as an entire Conquest of this Nation all Parties may join against him as a common Enemy and drive him out again as the English Barons did Prince Lewis in the time of King Henry the III d. nor can it be the French King's Interest to make our King Absolute here for then having the Persons and Purses of his Subjects wholly in his own Power King Lewis might justly fear that either this King or his Successors may prove as dangerous Enemies to the
Crown of France as ever they have been in former Times if ever our Kings should go about to revive their ancient pretentions to France or Normandy or make War upon some other Quarrel and thefore I think it will be more far the Interest of France to leave us our Laws Liberties and Priviledges as we now enjoy them nay to make an express Capitulation for them and when he has done to foment those Jealousies and Disputes that are still like to arise between the King and Us about them thereby to hinder us from joining against him then by rendring the King Absolute to take them quite away and put the sole power of the Purse as well as of the Sword wholly into his Hands To Conclude you do also very much misrepresent the matter in supposing that though the King cannot now be restor'd without falling into a new Civil War yet that does it not therefore follow that such a War is not to be desir'd for the Publick Good of the Nation since we shall thereby not only restore the Crown to its right Owner and the Succession of it to the lawfull Heir but also shall restore Episcopacy in Scotland and prevent the Church of England from falling into a dangerous Schism by depriving the Arch Bishop of Canterbury and as many other of the Bishops who are so Honest as not to take the new Oath for standing out against it by the Temporal Power of a pretended Parliament without the Judgment of a Lawfull Convocation who are the only proper and legal Judges You likewise as much mistake in supposing that this War can no ways be finisht but by so great a Concussion as shall so much weaken the Kingdom as to render it expos'd to the Invasionâ— of Foreign Enemies in which you may be very much deceived for who can tell but the hearts of this Nation may come to be so inclin'd to receive their lawful King and his right Heir and may be so weary of the present Usurpation as upon his first appearance in England with an Army sufficient to defend those who shall come into him so many of his Subjects will take this advantage as will be more than enough to restore him with as little Blood-shed as when he was driven out and then I think no indifferent Man but will acknowledge that such a War would prove for the best since it will not only setle the Government upon in ancient Foundation of a lineal Succession but will also extinguish those fatal causes of War not only from among our selves but also from Foreign Princes as long as the King and the Prince of Wales and his lawful Heirs shall continue in being which I hope will be much longer then those upon whom your Convention has setled the Crown either in Present or Reversion F. I doubt not but to show you that all you have now said is either built upon false Principles or else deduced by very uncertain Consequences for in the first place though you doubt my Principle that the People of this Nation are not bound to restore King Iames to the Throne if it cannot be done without the evident Destruction both of our Religion and Civil Liberties which certainly is true granting it to be never so much our duty to restore him when with safety we may for if the obligation of all Moral Duties whatsoever is only to be judged of according as they more or less conduce to the Happiness or Destruction of the common good of Mankind whereof this particular Nation makes a part it will necessarily follow that this Duty of restoring King Iames is not to be practised if it cannot be brought about without the Destruction of our Religion and Civil Liberties since it is only for the maintenance of those that even Kings themselves were first ordain'd in this Nation and it is evident that this Kingdom may be sufficiently Happy and subsist in the State it is now in though neither King Iames nor your Prince of Wales be ever restor'd to Reign over us So that then all the Difficulty that remains is That since his Restoration being not otherwise to be brought about without the assistance of great numbers of French or Irish Forces whether it be not only so small a hazard as you make it but twenty to one that his coming in upon these Terms will produce those dreadfull Effects which I say will certainly happen from it and though I grant that future things especially in the Revolutions of Government are not capable of Demonstration as Mathematical Propositions yet if all the circumstances of Time and the Temper and Disposition of the King himself and those who are to join with Him in bringing Him in again be considered it shall appear that Morally speaking nothing less then the evident Destruction of our Religion and Civil Liberties will follow I think I may still positively affirm that we are not oblig'd to restore Him till this Temper of Mind be alter'd and that he can be restor'd without these Fatal Consequences I now mention and if these cautions are not observ'd I deny that God hath any way promis'd to protect either our Religion or Civil Liberties or that he is bound to provide us a way to escape as you suppose if to perform this suppos'd Duty of Allegience thus unseasonably we slight the onely means God has ordained for our Preservation But as for the patience under those Sufferings that may then happen that is a very sorry reason to embrace them since God may give us that Grace if he pleases as the only Comfort we can have left us when by our own Folly and mistaken Notions of Duty we have brought all those Evils upon our selves I shall therefore now proceed to show you that these Evils I speak of must necessarily happen to us in Case King Iames be restor'd by the French or Irish Papists In the first place therefore it is very falsly suppos'd that this Alteration can be brought about without an entire Subduing or Conquest not only of their present Majesty's but the whole Nation is apparent since none but the Papists and some few of the Clergy Nobility and Gentry desire his Restoration and who if they were put altogether will not I believe amount to the hundredth Man who would be either willing or capable to come in to his Assistance with Men or Money and therefore it is a vain Supposition to believe as you do that this new Revolution can be brought about without any more Dificulty or Blood-shed then the last as long as the present King and Queen continue to Govern us according to the Declaration they subscrib'd upon their acceptance of the Crown and the Coronation Oath they have since taken which I hope they will always do since nothing but following King Iames's Example as well as to Religion as Civil Liberties can ever make this Nation willing to receive Him or your Prince of Wales with so little difficulty as you are
Powers under other Titles such as the Rump Parliament under the Title of a Common-wealth or Oliver Cromwell under that of a Protector who though they took upon them to Protect the People after a sort in their Lives and Estates yet since it was not according to the true Rights and Priviledges of the Subjects of this Nation which they highly violated and in some points quite destroyed and that they also took upon them this protection without the free consent of the lawful Representatives of the Nation Assembled in a full and lawful Parliament I can by no means allow them to have given the People such a true and legal Protection as the Law requires to constitute a true and perfect Allegiance or can make them to be the Supream Power of the Nation and within the Statute of the 25th of Edward the Third so that this Statute and that of the 11th Henry the Seventh must be our Rules in this Case But I cannot but smile at the expedient you have found out to hinder the People of this Nation from being ruin'd if they do not take the Oath of Allegiance to their Majesties which is by a general and absolute refusal of it and this you suppose if unanimously agreed on would hinder them from suffering any thing by this their refusal and you think they are also strong enough to oppose it because the King has only a small Army of Foreigners which he still maintains here and this you think may lawfully be done because their Majesties do not claim by Conquest but by the Election of the Convention and therefore that this Case does not come up to that of the Subjects of Flanders and Holstein in which Argument I doubt not but to shew that every one of your suppositions are false for though the Nation is not Conquer'd yet it is certain that all privaâ—â— Subjects are under as great a restraint by this legal change of the Government as if they were in the power of a Conquerour for to resist would be equally fatal to them in both cases and there is no visible Power nor Authority that can defend them against the present Power in case they should go about to refuse this Oath when it is offer'd to them and therefore though I grant the King 's standing Army of Foreigners is but small in Comparison of the whole Nation since he does not intend to keep us in Subjection by force but only to hinder any sudden Insurrection of those of your Party yet besides all this God be thanked their Majesties have the main body of the Common People of the Nation on their side who are sufficiently able to destroy all those that shall go about to make those vigorous efforts you so much desire so that you have nothing else to plead but that which I hope never to see that we are not under a force because we still entirely enjoy our Religion Liberties and Properties and though the King out of his great goodness and modesty did not think fit to insist upon his Title by Conquest over King Iames and his Adherents yet I think I have already prov'd at our last Meeting that he may as justly claim by Conquest as his Name-sake William the First since he came not over to Conquer the Nation but to vindicate his former right and after his Conquest of King Harold could have no just Title to the Crown till he had been solemnly elected and recogniz'd for King according to the Laws and Customs us'd at that time and why the Nation might not do the same thing now for their Deliverer from King Iame's Arbitrary Power I should be glad if you could shew me a sufficient reason but if the whole Nation should have been as pevish and discontented as those of your Principles and should not look upon the King as their Lawful Sovereign because he does not claim by Conquest it would be altogether as grateful and reasonable as if a Woman having by the assistance of an honest Gentleman been rescu'd from being ravish'd and he afterwards falling in love with her himself should Court her to Marry her she should refuse him because he had not ravish'd her when he might or at least have forced her to Marry him whither she would or no apply this Comparison to the Case in dispute and see if it does not hold and therefore I must still maintain that the parallel Cases of the Subjects of Flanders and Holstein are still good as to those of your Opinion who have no notion how Allegiance can be transfer'd unless by perfect force and Conquest since if you please to desire it I 'll undertake the Government shall seize upon your Estates and Imprison your Persons till you do take the Oaths as the Kings of France and Denmark did those that refus'd to swear Allegiance to them M. I have heard you a great while upon this Subject and I wish I could say I were fully satisfied with your Reasons however since it grows late I will not dispute this Point any farther but will take time to consider what you have now urg'd but only I must needs tell you thus much I could wish that Princes could find some other way of securing themselves of their Subjects Fidelity besides this test of an Oath of Allegiance which serves as a snare to many pious and conscientious Men whereas those of none or at least of very loose Principles will swallow any Oath that can be imposed upon them and I am sorry to see so many of those who I know are in their hearts of my Principles prevail'd upon to take it not out of Conscience but meer Worldly interest and advantage and whom I am satisfied will never serve this Government the more heartily or sincerely for having taken it and therefore to tell you the truth I begin very much to incline to Grotius's Opinion that promissary Oaths are absolutely unlawful yet considering the several changes and turns of Government which we have seen in England for above forty years last past I am so far for the good and happiness of my Country as to think every true English Man oblig'd so far to obey the Powers in being as may tend to the common good and defence of the Nation by the administration of Justice between Man and Man and in the punishment of Offenders and for defence of the Nation against Foreign Enemies But sure methinks this might very-well be done without the imposing any Oath at all either upon Magistrates or Officers and much less upon ordinary Subjects since if they are perswaded in their Consciences that it is Lawful to act under this present Government let them do it if they will but a for the Common People I confess they are so stupid that they have seldom any other measures of the justice or lawfulness of any Government or Princes Title than the ease or advantage they find by it and therefore upon the whole matter I think it were much better for
Latine Translation of the Old Coronation-Oath D. 8. p. 560. to 563. W Wales W. it s Titular Prince be really Son to King James the Second and Queen Mary D. 11. p. 784 to 789. W. He ought to have been received as the true Son and Heir of the said King D. 12. p. 875. to 877. and that let the consequences be what they will Ib. p. 879. to 881. Wardship Marriage and Relief W. wholly derived from the Normans D. 10. p. 750.751 Its advantages and inconveniencies considered Ib. A Wife W. she can ever be discharged from the Power her Husband hath over her in the state of Nature by any means but by his express consent D. 1. p. 43. King William the First why stiled the Conquerour D. 5. p. 325. W. He claimed to be King of England by Donation of King Edward the Confessor or by Conquest D. 10. p. 715.718 719. W. He was ever Elected and took the same Coronation-Oath as the English Saxon Kings had done before D. 10. p. 716.722 to 737. W. He might justly have seized all the Lands in England to his own use D. 2. p. 171. W. He gave most of the Lands of England to his followers Ibid. p. 721 to 729. and to 747. W. He alter'd any thing in the fundamental constitution of the Government D. 5. p. 320. to 322. W. He altered all the Old Laws of England or confirmed those of King Edward D. 10. p. 737. to 760. His Second Oath upon the Relicks of St. Alban Ib. 761 762. His Laws concerning all Freemens exemption from Taxes upon their finding Arms D. 6. p. 426 427. W. He and his Son William Rufus made Laws and imposed Taxes without the consent of the Great Council D 10. p. 744 755. King William the Third W. he hath any Title by Conquest over King James or else from his Marriage with the Princess and the Act of the Convention D. 12. p. 883. to 899. His Religion and Principles vindicated Ib. 886 887. Wites or Wise-Men in the English Saxon Councils the true signification of that term D. 6. p. 373. to 378. Wittena à Gemots or Great Councils among the English Saxons W. they consisted of more than the higher Nobility Ib. p. 381. Wives how far obliged to be obedient to the Commands of their Husbands D. 1. p. 40. Writ of Summons to the Commmons of the 49th of Henry the Third W it was the first of that kind D. 7. p. 519. to 521. W. Any Writs of Summons of Bishops or Lords to Parliament are to be found before that time Ib. p. 516. Writ of the 19th of Henry the Third to the Sâ—eriffs to levy two Marks Scutage upon Tenants by Knights Service holding of Tenants in Capite Ib. 445 Writ of the 24th of Henry the Third commanding all Men holding a whole Knights Fee of whatsoever Tenure to be Knighted D. 6. p. 432. Writs of Summons to Knights Citizens and Burgesses to Parliament at Shrewsbury in the 11th of Edward the First D. 8. p. 574. Writ of Summons to Knights of Shires cited by Dr. B. in the 18th of Edward the First W. it was to a Parliament D. 7. p. 530. to 536. Writ of the 22d of Edward the First W. a Summons to Parliament D. 7. p. 533 534. Writ of the 30th of Edward the First commanding the Levying of Forty Shillings upon each Knights Fee which had been granted ever since the Eighteenth Ibid. p. 479. W. The Commons Granted that Tax Ibid. Writs of the 28th of Edward the First and 45th of Edward the Third W. of Summons to Parliaments Ib. 537. Writs for Expences to Knights of Shires how ancient D. 8. p. 589. to 591. Y Duke of York Richard his Title declared in Parliament D. 12. p. 863. Edward Duke of York Recognized by Parliament to be lawful King from the Death of his Father Richard Duke of York Ib. p. 865. Duke of York James W. he was not intirely in the French Interest and Designs before he came to the Crown D. 11. p. 802. AN APPENDIX Containing some Authorities sit to be added for farther confirmation of some things laid down in the foregoing Dialogues TO be added to Dialogue the Fourth p. 290. at the end of F s Speech after these words no particular Church can read thus And that divers of the most Eminent Divines of our Church have used the same freedom with several other Doctrines contained in these Homilies may appear from Dr. Hammonds Dr. Heylins and Dr. Taylors with several other Eminent Writers expresly denying that the Church of Rome is guilty of Idolatry or that the Pope is Antichrist tho' both these Doctrines are as plainly laid down in the Homilies as the Doctrine of Non-Resistance And yet none of these Men are ever taxed by those of the Church of England for quitting her Ancient Orthodox Doctrines and I desire you to give me a good Reason if you can why it is more lawful and excusable to part with the former of these Doctrines than the latter The like I may say also for the Doctrine of Predestination which tho expresly asserted in the 36 Articles of the Church of England as interpreted by all the Bishops and Writers in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth and King Iames as also the Bishops and Divines sent as Delegates from our Church to the Synod of Dort who joyned in the interpretation of that Article in the strict Calvinistical sense you find in all the determinations of that Synod against the Doctrines of the Arminians which then began to prevail yet since the time that Arch-Bishop Laud had the nominating of what Persons he thought fit to be made Bishops Deans c. not one in ten of them but have been Arminians in all those Points wherein they wholly differ from the Doctrine of Calvin which is but the same with that of our 36 Articles so interpreted yet none of the Divines of our present Church who hold these Opinions are branded with Apostacy from its Ancient Doctrine but if any well meaning Divine out of love to his Country and to prevent Popery and Slavery from breaking in upon us have but Preach'd or Publish'd any thing in derogation to these Darling Doctrines of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance he is straight branded with Apostacy from the Church in quitting its main distinguishing Character and we have lately seen Degrading nay the most cruel Whipping and Imprisonment thought too little for such a Man but one may say of some Men with truth enough Dat veniam Corvis vexat censura Columbis So Dialogue the Sixth p. 397. at the bottom after these words in those times read this But that the House of Commons were anciently often comprehended under the stile of Grantz which is the same with Magnates in Latine pray consult the Parliament Rolls of Edward the Third where you will find in the 4 th of that King this passage est assentu accorde per nostre Seigneur le Roy tous les Grantz