open to him was too timorous then to have put in any Magistrates into Corporations but such as were for the Protestant Religion as it stands by Law establisht and such however angry they might be with those they call'd Whigs in respect of their opposing the Dukes succession to the Crown yet I believe most of them would never have given up the freedom of Elections of Parliament men or have done any thing to bring in Popery among us so that as long as things remained in this State there were some hopes still lest of a redress of our grievances whenever a Parliament had met and that the Nation was grown more cool and had come to it self again after those heats which had risen in the late Parliaments about the succession and other things whereas now the case was far otherwise in this Kings Reign wherein we found not only our Religion but the fundamental Rights and Priviledges of the Nation struck at by the Kings dispensing power and the Arbitrary proceedings of the Judges and not only the freedom of Elections of Knights of Shires but of Cittizens and Burgesses endeavour'd to be taken from us either by threatning the Electors or else by open force as I shall prove by and by when I shall have occasion to speak farther upon that head so that unless a great part of the Nation had declared for the Prince of Orange he had been repuls'd with shame and ruine and our Chains tyed faster upon us than ever they were before M. I shall forbear replying further to what you have now said till I come to conclude but in the mean time I cannot omit another material grievance set down in the Princes Declaration viz. the turning out and disarming the English Protestant Magistrates Officers and Souldiers in Ireland and putting of Irish Papists in their Rooms as also the late Declaration of Indulgence in Scotland but as I will not defend the Justice or Prudence of those Councils so I think none of them could give any sufficient cause for the people of this Kingdom to rise in Arms for sure it is enough if not too much for them to concern themselves with the grievances and miscarriages of their own Country without taking upon them to take up Arms to reform those of their Neighbours since they are not only ignorant of the Laws and Constitutions of those Kingdoms but may also mistake the true reasons and grounds on which those alterations were made F. I see you can as little defend what has been illegally acted in Scotland as in Ireland only you would sain put me off by telling me that the people of this Nation have nothing to do to take notice of what is done in other Kingdoms and you may as well tell me that a man ought not to take any warning as to defend himself against Thieves though he see 's another man robb'd by them before his Eyes or that the Protestants of England should not take warning by the sad example of those in France from ever suffering a Popish King from having the same power here as the French King has in France for fear of the like fatal effects since I never found Papists give Protestants the least forbearance or shew them any mercy longer than whilst it was not in their Power to hurt them But to come to the matter in hand we cannot but concern our selves with what has been so lately done in Scotland and Ireland for the introducing of Popery and Arbitrary Government in those Kingdoms since the latter is notoriously known to be govern'd by the same Laws as England and it is as much against the Laws of that Kingdom as it is of ours for the Irish Papists to be put in Arms and the Protestant Militia disarmed and for Popish Judges and Justices of Peace to be put in Commission as hath been practised under the Government of the Lord Tyrconnel and if English Protestants in Ireland cannot enjoy their Estates and Liberties without being turned out of them by the Papists how could we in England expect better treatment whenever they shall think themselves strong enough and as for Scotland tho' it be not wholy governed by the same Laws as England yet the fundamental constitution of the Government is the same in both Kingdoms and the King can no more make abrogate or dispense with Laws in Scotland without the Parliament than he can here and therefore for the King not only to issue out such a Declaration of Indulgence and suspension of all the Penal Laws in Scotland against Papists but also therein to declare that he expected an obedience to all his commands without reserve whether legal or not was so bold a stroke that we could not but expect the like in England tho' his Majesty thought it not fit at present to discover his Mind so plainly to us M. I shall not any longer dispute these points with you but own that the abuses you mention were indeed of great concern both to the Protestant Religion and our Civil Liberties yet however besides the Laws of the Land which I still suppose do expresly forbid all resistance of the King upon any account whatsoever I think there ought to have been no such thing done by any Subject of this Nation even upon your own principles which seem not to allow of such resistance but in case of an actual and violent assault upon mens Religion Lives and Properties and that by open force of Armes now I desire you to shew me whom it is that the King has ever yet Dragoon'd or persecuted till they would become of his Religion or whose Life his Majesty hath taken away even of the most notorious Traytors but by due Trial and course of Law nay he has pardon'd divers several after they were condemn'd meerly because he was inform'd they were not really guilty of the Crimes whereof they stood Condemn'd and as for mens civil properties I defie you to shew me any persons Estate that has been taken from him without due course of Law or any Taxes that have been Assessed upon the Nation but what have been granted by Parliament or else raised by the opinion of the Judges by whom if his Majesty hath been misinform'd they only ought to answer for it in the next Parliament who are the only proper Judges of their Miscarriages without having any course to Force which the Laws of this Kingdom so much abhor and therefore make the worst of it you can all these Greivances already mentioned were no more than some breaches upon the outward Splendour of our Church Religion or some of our civil liberties whilst the main Essential parts of both continu'd untouch'd since God be thanked we have hitherto enjoy'd the Free publick profession of our Religion together with our lives Liberties and Estates in perfect peace and undisturb'd by any outward Force or Violence from the King or any Commission'd by him and as for those Grievances you mention viz. The turning
as a wilful Forfeiture or Abdication of the Government and it is from this first going away that I suppose that the Convention dates his Abdication since though it is true after his return to London he took upon him to make an Order in Council to stop the further pulling down and plundering Popish Chappels and Papists Houses yet was it sign'd by very few of the Council and almost only by those who had been in some Office or Place of Trust so that though he was then own'd by them yet since that Order did only serve to shew his Zeal for the Popish Party and was never obey'd or taken notice of by those to whom it was directed and that neither the Prince nor the City of London owned him afterwards since it had already delivered it self up to the Prince and had as well as the Peers invited him to repair to that City I cannot see that so slight an act as this Order of Council should be counted a return to or a re-establishment in the Throne since the King had not only lost the Crown by his wilful departure without calling a Parliament or giving the P. any satisfaction in the great business of the pretended Prince of Wales or the Nation by repairing up those desperate breaches he had made upon our Fundamental Laws but had also lost his Title to the Crown by being Conquer'd by the Prince in open War as I shall prove more at large another time so that if you please better to consider this Vote of the Convention you will find that these words had Abdicated the Government do not only refer to the last clause of his having withdrawn himself out of the Kingdom but to everyone of the foregoing Clauses viz. His having endeavour'd to subvert the Constitution of this Kingdom his breaking the Original Contract and his having violated the Fundamental Laws so that it is plain their notion of Abdication was not fixt only in the Kings Desertion or bare withdrawing himself out of the Kingdom but from his renouncing the Legal Title by which he held the Crown and setting himself up as a Despotick Soveraign and ruling by a mercenary Army and therefore all that you have said about the Kings quitting the Government with a design to return to it again as soon as with safety he might is altogether vain for as he went away because he would not Govern any longer as a King by Law so hath he yet given us no satisfaction that he would not return again to Govern otherwise or rather worse than he did before had he an opportunity so to do that is as the Letter I cited but now phrases iâ— to return and have his ends of us so that this being indeed the case I think I can very well justifie the last clause in this Vote that the Throne was thereby vacant M. Sir you have spoke a considerable time and I doubt more than I can distinctly remember to answer as I should therefore before you proceed to this last Clause of the Vacancy of the Throne the dispute about which I foresee may hold longer than upon any of the former pray give me leave to reply to what you have already said in Justification of all the other parts of this Vote in the first place I will not deny but that if the King had once got the power of making what Mayors Aldermen and other Officers in Corporations at his pleasure it would have gone a great way towards the making the Majority of the Parliament-men nay I likewise grant that by his dispensing Power he might have made what Papists or other person he pleased Sheriffs in any County who would have made such return of Knights of Shires as he should have thought fit yet I suppose this would not have been to the subversion of the Constitution of the Kingdom which I think I have proved to consist originally in the K. alone before any great Councils or Parliaments were instituted And as for those violations of the Fundamental Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom the Declaration instances in I think several of them may very well be justified by antient Presidents and ad judged cases in Law and therefore were so far from being violations that they are no more than the Kings exercising of his due Prerogative and though at our ninth meeting I had not time so well to consider these matters as also because I was not then prepared to defend the Kings Proceedings I shall therefore make bold to examine the most considerable of those Articles which the Late Declaration supposes did so highly tend to subvert the Protestant Religion and the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom I shall begin with the first viz. His assuming and exercising a power of Dispensing with and Suspending of Laws and the Execution of Laws without consent of Parliament which Power let me tell you by the way was not asserted to Dispence with all Laws or Statutes whatsoever but only such as the Subject has no particular cause of action in and where the damage that may arise by it doth not concerns the publick safety of which the K. is sole Judge and not any particular mans interest I suppose you cannot but have read that learned and short account of the Authorities in Law upon which Judgment was given in Sir Edw. Hales his Case written by Sir Edward Herbert Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas in vindication of himself wherein I think he proves beyond any possibility of a just answer that the dispensation granted to Sir Edward Hales to receive a commission and act as a Collonel of Foot was good notwithstanding his not having received the Sacrament and taken the Oaths and Test appointed by the Act of the Statute of the 25 of Charles II. where he first proves from my L. Cock's Authority that it belongs to the Kings Prerogative to Dispence with all Positive or Penal Laws the penalty thereof is only popular and given to the King and to shew you that my Lord Cook who was never counted any great friend to the Kings Prerogative was not single in this opinion he gives you also the authority of the year Book of Henry the VII where it was own'd by all the Judges That the King can Dispence with all things which are only Mala Prohibita and not Mala â—n se though expresly forbid by Act of Parliament for though says the Year Book before the Statute Coining of Money was Lawful but now it is not so yet the King can Dispence with it so that say I if he can dispence with that which is now made Treason by EÃ the III. he may certainly dispence with all other Penal Statutes of a less nature But because I grant there is some difference between Common Penal Laws which barely prohibit the doing of some things under a penalty and this Act in which there is also an express Clause of Non-obstante that all Licences or Dispensations contrary to this
endure and pass by the personal Faults or Failings of Princes in consiâ—eration of that Protection and Security in their Lives and Fortunes which they do enjoy under them since it hath been found by experience with how great a Slaughter of People and how great a confusion and danger of the whole Common-Wealth Evil Princes have been resisted or turn'd out of their Thrones And therefore I grant the Private Injuries of Princes are to be past over in consideration of that great Charge they undergo and for those greater Benefits we receive from their Government but chiefly for the publick Peace of the Common Wealth or Civil Society And therefore I own it is very well said by that Master in Politicks Tacitus That the ill Humours or Dispositions of Kings are to be born withal and that often Mutations of Governments are of dangerous Consequence And he wisely introduces Ceriales speaking to this purpose to the Rebellious Treveri That they ought to bear with the Luxury and Avarice of Rulers as they do with immoderate showers and other unnatural Evils since there will be Vices whilst there are Men yet neither are these continual but are often recompensed by the Intervention of better But I will now particularize those Cases wherein I do absolutely disallow and disclaim all Resistance in Subjects against the Supream Powers 1. I deny all Resistance to Subjects against their Princes or Supream Magistrates in all such Actions or Prerogatives which are absolutely necessary to the Exercise of their Supream Power viz. of Protecting and Defending their People as also against those who are Commission'd by them for the Execution of such Powers 2. I Condemn all Rebellion against Princes or States meerly on the Score of Religion or because they are not of the Religion of their People or Subjects if there be no positive Law Extant Disabling or Forbidding Princes or other Magistrates of different Religions than that of their People from being admitted to the Throne or Government 3. I look upon it as Rebellion in the People Tumultuously to rise up in Arms to alter or reform the Religion of the Nation or Kingdom already established by Law without the Consent of the Legislators 4. I Disclaim all Resistance or Self-defence in Subjects upon the account that the free or publick Exercise of that Religion they profess is not allowed them by the Legislative Power of the Kingdom or Nation provided that such Supream Powers do not forbid or hinder the People professing such a different Religion to Sell or Transport their Estates and Persons into any other Country where they please 5. I Deny Resistance to Subjects against their Princes or Governours upon Pretence of any Personal Vices as because they are wicked Atheistiâ—al Cruel Lustful or Debauched provided they generally Protect their Subjects in their Lives Liberties and Properties 6. I Deny this Right of Resistance to any particular person less than the whâ—le Body or Major part of the People or at least such a considerable Portion of a Nation as are able when Assaulted or Oppressed in their Lives Liberties or Estates to constitute a distinct and entire Kingdom or Common-Wealth of themselves 7. I look upon it as Wicked and Rebellious for any private Subjects to Assassinate Murder or Imprison their Monarch or other Supream Governour since no private Person whatever ought to lay Violent Hands upon his Prince whose person ought to be Sacred and in no wise to be Violated unless he put off the Character of a Prince and Actually make War upon his People But if in this Case he happen to be Resisted and Perish in the Attempt he falls not as a Prince but as a Common Enemy by breaking the Original Compact with his People and entring into a State of War against them As a Father who unjustly makes War upon his Children may be as I have already proved at our first conference Resisted by them in the State of Nature But as for all other Grievances or Oppressions if they are of that Nature as may Ruine the whole Common-Wealth yet not suddenly but after some time and often Repeated I cannot allow such Grievances or Oppressions as a Sufficient Cause of Resistance For as on the one hand there is no Inconvenience so small but in process of time it may turn to the Ruine of the Common-Wealth if it be often Repeated and excessively Multiplieâ— so on the other side length of time produces so great Changes that the Nature of these Encroachments or Injuries are not sufficient to justifie Resistance and the Breach of that Peace and Unity in a Common Wealth which must necessarily follow by entering into a State of War To conclude I do not in any Case whatever allow of Resistance but only in these three necessary ones When the Lives Liberties or Estates of the whole People of the greatest part of them are either actually Invaded or else taken away and when they are Reduced into so bad a Condition that a State of War is to be preferred before such a Peace aâ—d when the End of Civil Government being no longer to be obtained by it the Common-Wealth may be look't upon as Dissolved M. Tho' you have been pretty long in treating of this Matter yet I did not think it Tedious since I confess you have given me honestly enough and so far I agree with you all those Cases wherein you say it is Uâ—lawful for Subjects to take up Arms or Resist the Supream Powers But I wonder you have not added one Case more which Diverse Authors that are high enough against Non-Resistance in other things do yet allow to be a sufficieâ—s Cause of taking up Arms and Resisting their Prince And that is when he Actually hath or goeth about to Alieâ—ate or make over his Dominion and Subjects to some Forreign Prince or State F. I am not ignorant of what you say but I thought it not worth speaking ot because in absolute Monarchies which we are now treating of if such Kingdoms are Patrimonial and that the Monarch hath such an absolute Dominion over his Subjects as neither to let them enjoy any Liberty in their Persons nor Properties in their Estates but at his Pleasure I cannot see any reason why such a Prince may not alienate his Dominion over such a Kingdom and People as well as any private-Man may his Property in his Estate Nor have the People any Cause to be concerned at it since they can then likewise be but Slaves and enjoy nothing but at their Princes Pleasure as they did before so that whether He or a Stranger govern them it is all one as to their Circumstances But yet under such Governments as are absolute where the People enjoy their personal Lib rites and Properties in their Estates the Case may be much otherwise since they may not be sure that the Foreign Prince to whom their own Monarch or other Supream Powers hath assigned them will maintain their Liberties and Properties as the former did And
absolute or Tyrannical soever the Power be under which they live that they are safe in God's hands and all the Powers of Men and Devils cannot touch them till God by a positive Decree appoints and orders their sufferings There could not be greater nor more absolute Tyrants than the Roman Emperours were at this time and yet they had no Power over the meanest Christian but by an express Commission from Heaven This is the special Priviledge of the Christian Church above the rest of Mankind that they are God's peculiar Care and Charge that he doth not permit any Sufferings or Persecutions to befall them but what he himself orders and appoints It is a great security to the World that there is no evil happens to men but what God permits and that he permits nothing but what he can over-rule to wise and good Ends but it is a greater happiness to have our Condition immediately allotted by God God may permit a great many evils to befall us in Anger and Displeasure but when he takes us into his immediate Protection and under his own Government whatever evils he appoints for us whoever are the Instruments of them they are certainly for our good And therefore there is no such danger in the Doctrine of Non-Resistance as some Men imagine how absolute soever this may be thought to render Princes sincere Christians can suffer nothing by it for they shall suffer nothing more nor less than what God appoints for them to suffer but as for the absurdity you think you have brought me to by granting that no man wants Authority to defend his own Life against him who hath no Authority to take it away that does not extend to Supreme Powers since though I grant they have no Authority to take away mens Lives contrary to Law yet does it not follow that we may resist and oppose them if they do this I absolutely deny because God hath expresly commanded us not to resist them and I see no inconsistency between these two Propositions that a Prince hath no Legal Authority to take away mens Lives against Law and yet that he must not be resisted when he does so for both the Laws of God and of our Countrey suppose these two to be very consistent F. To answer this long speech of yours the best way may be to shew you first how far I agree with you and wherein I must differ from you and I will also tell you what reasons I have for it In the first place I grant that though our Saviour was indeed the Messias and true King of the Iews yet was he not such a Messias as they expected nor was he to have a Temporal but Spiritual Dominion and therefore would not be such a king though the Iews would have made him so I likewise yield that Christ submitted to the most unjust Sentence and to the most ignominious and painful Death rather than he would resist the Higher Powers though he could easily have called for Legions of Angels to his rescue As also that he rebuked Peter when he drew his Sword in his defence and tells Pilate the reason why he was so easily apprehended and without any Resistance oâ— Opposition My Kingdom said he is not of this World if my Kingdom were of this World then would my Servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Jews but now is my Kingdom not from hence All which plainly shews that our Saviour's Subjection was no matter of force or constraint because he wanted Power to resist but it was matter of choice that which was most suitable to the Nature of his Kingdom which was not to be propagated by Carnal Weapons but by sufferings yet though it may not be propagated sure it may be defended by force In some Cases as if we were invaded by a Foreign Power who made War upon the Account of Religion and also in those Kingdoms or Common-wealths where Christianity or the true Profession of the Gospel is established by Law and makes a part not only of the Ecclesiastical but Civil Constitution of a Nation In these Cases if thoâ—e who pretend to the sole Legislative Power but have it not should go about to alter the National Religion by force and put Men to death contrary to the former Laws and Constitutions of that Kingdom I think such Illegal Powers may lawfully be resisted by the People they having as much right to the free Exercise and Enjoyment of their establish'd Religion as they have to their Liberties Properties or any other Civil Rights since by this Legal Establishment Religion becomes a part of the Civil Constitution of the Kingdom and so may be maintained by the same means as other Rights 2 dly I grant that in all other Cases our Saviour hath so far proposed his sufferings to us for our Imitation as we are engaged by our Baptismal Vow to suffer in the same Cause for which he himself suffered that is for the bearing witness That Iesus is the Christ or true Messias and Son of God And this the Apostle calls speaking of Christ himself the witnessing before Pontius Pilate a good Confession The like I also hold of all such Truths as are the necessary consequences of this great Doctrine 3 dly I farther grant that when our God calls any Person to suffer for the Testimony of his Truth by the Cruelty of those who are the Supreme Powers as the Apostles and Primitive Christians were by a particular Providence that then those Powers are not to be resisted but patiently submitted to by Christians at this day whenever it proves necessary for the same great ends for which Christ at first enjoyned it viz. for bearing witness to the Truth of the Gospel and for the further Propagation thereof by our constant Sufferings and Example according to that saying of the Primitive Fathers Sanguis Martyrum semen Ecclesiae yet is not this absolute Submission to the Supreme Powers in matters of Religion due by the Law of Nature or that delivered to Moses but if at all purely from the express Example of Christ so that all the difficulty lyes in discovering when we are thus called by our Saviour to suffer and bear witness to the Truth though with the loss of our Lives and all that is dear to us And therefore if I should grant that when ever we lye under the same Circumstances of giving this Testimony as the Primitive Christians then did and that it may serve as much for the same ends design'd by God thereby we are also under the same Obligations otherwise I think we are lawfully discharged from it As for Example suppose the King should instead of a Papist have turned Mahometan and to propagate or set up his own abominable Superstition here should have sent for from Turkey or Morocco a great Army of Turks or Moors and by them would force all the Christians in England to turn Mahometans by the same Methods of Dragooning Men and
Supream Power and his Ministers or Officers as Powers subordinate to him and acting by his Commission are to be submitted to and obeyed as much as himself And it had been in vain for St. Peter to have concluded this Exhortation with Fear God and Honour the King if he had allowed it Lawful in any Case to resist him since certainly no Man can Honour him whom he Resists and that this is a Doctrine everlastingly true appears by the time in which St. Peter and St. Paul wrote these Epistles which was either under the Reigns of Claudius or Nero and I suppose you will hardly meet with two worse Men or more cruel Tyrants in all the Catalogue of Emperours Since the former committed many wicked and Cruel things by his Freed-men and Officers and also banished the Iews and Christians together with them from Rome And the latter is so notorious for his Cruelty and Persecution of the Christians that his Name passes into a Proverb And yet these were the Higher Powers to whom the Apostles commanded them to be Subject From whence you may see your Errour in interpreting the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie just and Lawful Authority whereas it plainly signifieth in this place the Men vested with this Authority howsoever Tyrannically they abuse it F. You have made a pretty long reply and I have heard it patiently because I confess that on this depends the whole Controversie between us and therefore I shall beg that you would hear me with the like Patience because what you have now said I grant to be of that weight as to require a large as well as a considerable Reply And therefore I shall make bold to consider the last part of your speech in the first place because I can soonest dispatch it As for your Argument that we ought to be Subject to the most Tyrannical Governours without any Resistance because Claudius or Nero whom you suppose to be cruel Tyrants then governed the Empire and persecuted the Christians In Answer to this I must tell you that if you please better to consider of it you will find it very doubtful whether St. Paul wrote this Epistle to the Romans during the Reigns of Claudius or Nero. The Learned Monsieur Capel in his Discourse which he hath written on purpose concerning the time of the writing of this Epistle proves this Epistle to the Romans to have been written during the latter End of the Reign of Claudius But those Learned Men who will have it written during the Reign of Nero do all agree that it was in the beginning of it within the first five years when the Administration of Affairs was under the Ministry of Seneca and Burrhus and when the Government of the Empire was most just and moderate and divers years before ever Nero burnt the City or persecuted the Christians and did so many extravagant Cruel and Tyrannical Actions as forced the Senate to declare him the Enemy of Mankind But as for Claudius he never persecuted the Christians at all as I know of M. I pray Sir give me leave to interrupt you a little Did not Claudius persecute the Christians when under the Notion of Iews he banished them from Rome as appears by Acts the eighteenth when Aquila and Priscilla were forced to quit Italy and come into Greece because of that Edict And yet it was this very Claudius to whom St. Peter if not St. Paul doth require all Men to be Subject without any Resistance F. I think this difficulty will easily be answered for in the first place tho' I grant that Claudius towards the latter End of his Reign banished the Iews from Rome yet did he not banish the Christians from thence as we know of any otherwise than as they were Iews by Nation and upon this account it was that Aquila being a Iew by Birth was forced to quit Rome with the rest but neither Suetonius nor any other Author tell us that he likewise banished the Christians tho' I know indeed there are some learned Men that would interpret this Passage in the former Author in his life of Claudius Iudaeos tumultuantes impulsante Cresto Româ expulit to be meant of the Christians being expelled Rome as instigated by Christ their Prophet to Sedition But tho' I own that our Saviour was sometimes called Chrestus by the Pagans by way of contempt yet that by this Chrestus here mentioned cannot be understood our Saviour Christ is very evident for it had been very improbable for Suetonius to have made Christ who was dead above thirty years before to have excited the Iews to Sedition And therefore the Lord Primate Usher in the second Volume of his Annals with much better Reason supposes that not our Saviour but some Seditious Iew called Crestus who headed this Sedition was the Cause of the Banishment of the Iews from Rome So that this was no more a Persecution for Religion than it would have been for the Parliament in King Charles the seconds Reign during the heat of the Popish Plot to have banished all the Papists out of England upon the Account of their former Rebellions and constant Machinations to overturn the Government and Religion establisht by Law but supposing this Edict to have banished the Christians as well as Iews it had signified nothing for it was no Persecution for Religion and besides being made in the last year of Claudius it was but a temporary Edict and we find the Iews to have lived quietly at Rome in the Reign of Nero as appears by the last Chapter of the Acts. But as for Claudius's Government it was so far from being an insupportable Tyranny that there was no Prince that did take more care to do impartial Iustice according to that small Capacity he was Master of than himself And tho' I yield that by his Proconsuls Presidents and Freemen there were many Oppressions and Cruelties committed in the Provinces yet it was only against some Private Men and did not extend to the destroying and enslaving the whole Body of the People who during his Reign generally enjoyed their Liberties and Properties with as great Freedom as under any of his Predecessors And as for Nero all Ecclesiastical Historians agree that if this Epistle of St. Paul was written in his Reign it was within the first five years of it which was in his Non-age under the Administration of Seneca and Burrhus during which time all the Historians agree that the Empire was never better governed and as for the wickedness and Violence that Nero committed afterwards when he persecuted the Christians murdered his Mother his Wife and most of his best and most intimate Friends and set the City on Fire St. Paul was so far from knowing any thing of them that sure he would not have urged it to the Romans as a Reason of their Subjection to him that Rulers are not a terrour to good Works but to the Evil or that he was a Minister to them that is to
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
Mr. Lambard I Ina by or with Gods Gift King of the West-Saxons with the Advice or Council of Cenred my Father and Heddes my Bishop and Ercenwold my Bishop and with my Aldermen and Eldest Wites or Wisemen of my Kingdom do command c. Then in the first Chapter the King speaks in the first person plural We Bid or Command that all our People shall after hold fast or observe these Laws and Dooms From this Preface you may observe I. That Kings are the Gift of God and that Gods Gift signified the same with Dei Gratia they are not the Creature of the People 2. That Princes or the better Government of their People in the Setling of Laws in Church and State did then Consult Deliberate and Advise with their Bishops Noblemen and eminently Wise Men of their Kingdoms whom for their Wisdom they Honour'd with publick Imployments in their Dominions 3. That after such Consultation Deliberation and Advice to the Soveraign Establisheth and makes the Laws The next Instance I shall make use of is out of the same Author in the Laws of King Alfred where in the Conclusion of his Laws about Religion and Prefatory to the Secular Laws He saith I Alfred King have gathered these Sanctions together and caused them to be written and then Recites that those that he liked not with the Council of his Wits he had Rejected and those he liked he had or commanded to be holden And we may observe that the King here speaks in the Single Person that He himself Collected or Chose aad also Rejected what Laws he pleased The next material illustration where the Legislative Power then Resided may be found in the Laws of King Edward the Elder where after the Charge given to the Judges the first Law begins I will and so in others in the fourth it is thus expressed Edward the King with his Wits that were at Exeter strictly enquiâ—ing by what means it might be better provided for Peace and Tranquility c. In the 2d and 3d. Chap. it is We also Declare Pronounce or Sentence And in the 7th and I will In which Laws we have none mentioned with the King but his Wits and his Commanding Willing or Pronouncing in the Imperative Mood is observable The next Laws I find are those of King Athelstan which begin thus I Athelstan King with the Advice of Walfelm my High Bishop and other my Bishops Commanded or bid all my Rieves i. e. Praefects of what degrees soever to pay Tythes c. And this He commanded his Bishops his Aldermen and Praepositi who were the Judges in the Country Courts to do the same In these Laws We cwaedon is used which I suppose is something more than Somner understands by his â—uide a Saying Speech or Sentence and properly is we will But the absoluteness of the King appears most in the 26th Chap. wherein it is expressed Tâ—at if any of the Graeves i. e. Iudges do not perform these Commands or be more Remiss in the Execution of those he hath enjoyned He shall be punished for his Excess of Contumacy according to the Fines there set down King Edmund is the next of our Kings whose Laws are Transferr'd to us and the Proem tells us that King Edmund Assembled a Great Synod or Council to London on the Holy Easter-Tide and the Persons Summoned are Stiled Godskind and Worldskind i. e. Clergy and Laicks After the first six Chapters of Laws in the Proem to the 2d part of them the King Signifies to all Men Old and Young That he had asks Advice in the Assembly of his Wites both Ecclesiasticks and Laicks and in the Laws it is often said Thonne cwaedon These we pronounce or appoint and sometimes the single person is used and in other places us betweonan Heolâ—an it is holden betwixt us Here we find the Great Council Summoned by the King and the Constituent Parts of it to be the Clergy and Laiâ—y yet still we find the Legislative Power in the King alone So likewise in the Title to King Edgars Ecclesiastical Laws it is thus The Laws which King Edgar in a frequent Assembly or Council of the Servants of God hath ordained whereby you may see that the Enacting Part Relates wholy to himself The same King Edgar in his Charter to Glastonbury Abby concludes it thus â—aâ—e privilegij paginam Rex Edgarus XII Regni sui sacro scripto apud Londoâ—iam communi Concilio optimatum suorum confirmavit So that though it appears this was in the Presence of a Great Council Yet the Granting and Enacting part proceeded wholy from himself The Preface to the Laws of King Canutus by Sir Henry Spelman runs thus These are the Worldly Constitutions that I will with my Wites advice that Men hold all over England In most of the Chapters it is said We Teach We Bid or Command We forbid and in the Conclusion it is in the single Person of the King Now I command all and bid every Man in God's Name And the Preface to the Latin Version of them saith Haec sunt Instituta Cnude Regis Anglorum Dacorum Norwegarum vene rando Saplentum Concilio ejus ad Laudem Gloriam Dei suam Regalitatem c. Of this Canutus William of Malmsbury saith that He commanded to be observed for ever all the Laws of Ancient Kings especially those made by King Ethelred his Predecessor under the Penalty of the Kings Fine to the observing of which He saith in his time it was Sworn under the Name of King Edwards Laws not that He had appointed them but had observed them So that I think upon the whole matter nothing is more plain than that our English Saxons and Danish Kings did not only call Councils and preside in them but that the Legislative Power was lodged solely in themselves F. I perceive the Authority of our Ancient Lawyers is a little too hard for you to answer with your usual Distinctions and therefore you seemingly deny their Authority though in effect you grant it as I shall shew you by and by But as for your Quotation out of the Year-Book which you think sufficient to Counterballance all the Authorities I have brought I think I may much better question the Judgment of those that gave that Opinion since I can shew you that you your self cannot allow it in all points for Law For in the first place it is not there said that it was so judged by all the Lords and Judges who were appointed to hear the Cause there mentioned but only Fuit dit que le Roy c. By which it seems to have bin the private opinion only of some one or more of the Lords and Judges there present For it is not said fuit adjuge And if you will have it to have bin the Opinion of them all pray read what follows after Fuit dit quen temps le Roy Henry devant le Roy fuit implede comme Seroit
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
13th of Charles the Second for the Militia never intended thereby to enable or leave it in the power of that King or his Successors to make this Kingdom an absolute Despotick Monarchy instead of a limited one as they must have done had they declared that the King and those Commissioned by him might do what they pleased with the Religion Lives Liberties and Estates of the People of this Nation and that it was Treason to resist in any case whatsoever sure they could not but remember that Commission of Sir Phelim Oneals in the year 41. whereby he pretended to be impowered to drive the English Protestants out of Ireland and to set up the Popish Religion in that Kingdom and restore the Irish to their Estates and sure divers of them could not be unmindful that this was to give away all right of Self-defence in case any future King should by his own innate Tyrannical Temper or the evil Counsel of wicked men be perswaded to use Force upon the persons of the Lords and Commons either whilst they were actually sitting or in their passage to the New Houses since by this Act or Oath if understood in your sense they must have barred themselves and the whole Nation of all right of Self-defence in any case whatsoever tho' of the greatest extremity and therefore I doubt not but the intent of this Parliament was to leave things as they found them and as it was absolutely unlawful for the People of this Nation to take up Arms against the King so it is also as unlawful in him or those Commissioned by him to make War upon the People or to disseize them by force of their Religion just Rights Liberties or Estates and if the King hath a right to defend himself and his Crown and Dignity against Rebellion so must the People of this Nation have a right likewise to defend themselves against Arbitrary Power in case of an Invasion of any of the Fundamental Rights above-mentioned or else all bounds between a Limited and Despotick Power will be quite taken away and the King may make himself as absolute as the King of France or great Turk whenever he pleases M. I will not dispute with you about bare matter of fact or that a prevailing Faction might not in turbulent times and during the Reigns of weak and ill advised Princes take upon them by force of Arms to remove Evil Counsellors and to put the Government of the Kingdom in what hands they pleased and then procure Acts of Parliament to indemnifie themselves for so doing yet I cannot allow that even such Acts could make it lawful to take up Arms against the King or those Commissioned by him upon any pretence whatsoever So that tho' I grant that the intent of this Parliament of King Charles the Second was not to make any new Law against Resistance or taking up Arms against the King yet was it their design so to explain the Ancient Statute of the 25th of Edward the Third that none should for the future doubt in the least that all taking up Arms or Resistance of the King or those Commissioned by him upon any pretence whatsoever was unlawful and treasonable and for this we need go no farther than the very words of these Declarations which the Parliaments of the 12th and 13th of Charles the Second have made concerning this matter as first in the Statute of the 12th of Car. 2. Cap. 30. for attainting the Regicides that two Houses of Parliament expresly declared That by the Fundamental Laws of this Kingdom neither the Peers of this Realm nor the Commons nor both together in Parliament nor the People collectively or representatively nor any other persons whatsoever ever had hath or ought to have any Coercive Power over the persons of the Kings of this Realm Whereby not only all the Traiterous Examples of the Depositions and Imprisonments of King Edward and Richard the Second are expresly condemned but also all taking Arms to force the King to redress our grievances whether he will or not And farther that all Arms whether offensive or defensive are expresly forbid Pray mind that Clause in the Preamble to these Acts of the Militia I now mentioned wherein that Parliament expresly renounces all taking up Arms as well defensive as offensive against the King and the words of the Oath it self are yet more strict that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the King Now can any thing be plainer than that all defensive Arms tho' for our Religion Lives and Liberties or whatsoever else you please are expresly declared to be against the Fundamental Laws of this Kingdom But as for the dreadful consequences of this Law if never so strictly taken they are not so bad as you are pleased to fancy for as to your instance of Sir Phelim Oneal's pretended Commission from King Charles the First you may be very well satisfied that it was a notorious piece of forgery since besides that good King 's constant denial of any such Commission granted by him Sir Phelim when he came to suffer in Ireland for raising that horrid Rebellion did voluntarily at the Gallows acknowledge that he had forged it himself by putting the Seal of an old Patent which he had by him to that pretended Commission you now mention Nor indeed can it ever enter into my head that any King should grant a Commission to destroy or make War upon his People as long as they continue in their duty to him tho' of a different Religion from himself tho' perhaps he may think fit for some reasons to disarm them or deny them the publick Exercise of their Religion or render them uncapable of bearing any Offices of publick Trust in the Kingdom but if these should be lawful Causes of Resistance why the Papists should not be allowed it as well as the Protestants I can see no reason to the contrary As for your other Instance that the Parliament by renouncing all defensive Arms must be supposed likewise to give up all right of Self-defence in case the King or any Commissioned by him should use any violence to the persons of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament or in going thither this is so unlikely and remote a case that it hardly comes under the consideration of a bare possibility But however let the worst that can be happen I am very well satisfied that the Parliament was then so thoroughly convinced of the Mischiefs had befallen this Nation by this Republican Doctrine of Resistance having been the cause of the destruction of the best Constituted Church and Government in the World as also of the murder of one of the best Princes that ever Reigned that they were resolved rather to trust to the Coronation Oaths and innate goodness of our present and future Kings than to suppose any War could be lawfully made against them upon any account whatsoever which would have been expresly contrary not only to
necessary consequence of your sense of this Oath So that upon the whole matter and considering the late Scene of Affairs I darst leave it to the Judgment of any indifferent Foreiner tho' a Papist which was most likely before the unexpected coming of the Prince of Orange into this Kingdom that the People should rise up in Arms and expel the King from his Throne or that he should by vertue of the pretended sense of this Oath backt by your Doctrine of Passive Obedience have enslaved this Nation and set up what Government and Religion he pleased M. I must confess you have given a very cunning and specious gloss upon the words of this Oath and Declaration of the Parliament of King Charles the Second but whether it is legal or not I very much doubt since I never heard of it before and I could have wisht that if they designed not to lay a snare upon Mens Consciences in this great point that they would have been more clear in expressing all those Cases wherein it might be lawful for us to resist the King or those Commissioned by him as also who should judge when the King's Commissions are so illegal and violent as to require Resistance for if every private Subject may judge of the legality or illegality of the King 's Military Commissions and can raise a Party strong enough to make opposition against those that are Commissioned by them in the Execution of the King's Orders a discontented Party of this Nation may soon find a pretence to raise another Rebellion and Civil War as dreadful as the former and notwithstanding your great care and concern for the King's person which you grant to be sacred and inviolable could it long continue so for if the King himself appeared at the Head of his Men to command and encourage them in their duty it would be much worse as long as the matter they took up Arms for should be by them accounted a violation of the Laws Thus we may remember that tho' the Parliament of 41. did pretend to take up Arms for defence of the King's person and only to take away Evil Councellors yet did they for all that order their Generals and Officers to fight aâ— much when the King was personally present as at any other place or time so that His Majesties person had not God thought fit to order it otherwise might have been as well destroyed in the Battles of Edg-hill or Naseby as his great Grand-father King Iames the Third of Scotland was in that Battle against his Rebellious Subjects headed by his own Son So that according to your interpretation instead of mending the matter this Parliament of King Charles the Second had only left it far worse than they found it For whereas the Long Parliament made themselves the sole Judges and Redressers of the King's Violations of the Peoples Rights Now according to your interpretation of this Oath and Declaration of the Parliament of King Charleâ—'s the Second every private Man may not only judge of the King's Violation of the Law by his Military Commissions but also make Resistance against them when-ever they think themselves able so to do and then notwithstanding that Parliament utter renouncing all Arms whether offensive or defensive to be raised by themselves against the King they would have still left a power in any part of the People strong enough to make this Resistance which they had renounced for themselves who are their Lawful Representatives Thus for example supposing the last Civil War had begun upon the account of raising of Ship Money which whether it was lawful I will not now dispute it was sufficient that all the Judges except two gave their Opinions for it and if any County in England strong enough to make an Insurrection had rose in Arms upon the Levying of this Tax as it has several times happened even about Taxes granted in Parliament this Tax tho' small yet being lookt upon against Law must have engaged the whole Nations in a Civil War and also endangered His Majesties person in case he had appeared in the Field with those Men he had raised to subdue that Rebellion so that I am still satisfied that it is far better to suffer a mischief than an inconvenience that is it is better to trust to the King's Conscience and Discretion what Commissions to grant tho' sometimes perhaps they may chance to be illegal than to leave it in the power of the people to rise in Rebellion when-ever they think such Commissions to violate their supposed or pretended Liberties and Properties F. I see you will not argue against the Resistance of the King's person in case he should go about to Ravish Rob or Murder his people But now you raise another difficulty who shall judge and consequently make this Resistance against the King's Commissions when executed by illegal persons to illegal and violent ends for if the people may judge for themselves of the illegality of such Commissions a Rebellion may be raised and His Majesties person endangered notwithstanding all the provision the Parliament have made against it But before I answer this Argument of yours pray give me leave to ask you one or two Questions Do you think the King 's Late Declaration for the Dispensing Power and the Commissions granted thereupon to be according to Law or not M. I must confess I think they are unlawful yet it does not follow that they may be therefore resisted F. I do not ask you that now but only tell me whether you think the Bishops are obliged in Conscience to disperse that Declaration or the Clergy to read it in their Churches and whether those have done well who have refused to read it M. I must tell you I am so good a Protestant and so true an Englishman that I cannot allow the King that power and therefore I must grant that the Bishops did nobly and like true Christian Bishops to refuse to disperse it and where it was dispersed the Inferiour Clergy have done very well not to read it F. Well then notwithstanding all the dreadful Mischiefs proceeding from private Subjects juding of the legality or illegality of the King's Declarations and Commissions or Commands yet they may it seems not only judge whether they are lawful or not but a disobedience to them may not only be lawfully exercised but is very commendable Now what is this disobedience to these Commands but a Moral or Civil Resistance of the King's Power in this matter and why may not such a Judgment he made by the People in as plain a case and also Resistance follow thereupon against such violent illegal Commissions suppose to raise Money without Act of Parliament or to Dragoon Men to go to Mass since the violence is more evident and apparent in this case upon Mens persons than in the other upon the bare Consciences of the Bishops and Clergy for the force being more immediate and pressing upon their Persons and Estates
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
against the Tyranny of the Duke D'Alva in the beginning of the Belgick Wars and it was soon after seconded by the revolt of divers other Cities and Towns in those Provinces till the Spaniards were quite driven out M. I do not deny but you speak more moderately on this Subject than most of your opinion who think every private man has a right to take up Arms and raise a Rebellion whenever he judges his Person or Estate is invaded or injured by the Government And indeed this remedy of Resistance seems at first sight prety tolerable if it were not that we very well knew that this many-headed Beast the Multitude is very apt to be deluded by the cunning Speeches and sly Insinuations of factious and ambitious Men whose Interest it will always be to fish in troubled Waters and raise Disturbances to make themselves the Heads of a Party Thus in the Year 42. what Lies and Stories were there raised to incense the People against that good King to make them take up Arms against him as an Invader of their Liberties and one that was about to make War upon them And who that is not over-partial to his own Opinions does not see that the Nation has been blown up into a flame by the lying Reports of a French League and a Supposiâ—irious Prince of Wales neither of which I durst pawn my life have the least tittle of truth in them so that this Doctrine can scarce fail almost every time it is put in practice to bring all Government to Anarchy and Confusion F. I have already in part answered this Objection at our Third Meeting but since you will urge it over again I shall in the first place admit the Matter of Fact to be as you say that the People may by some turbulent Demogogues be sometimes so far incensed as to take up Arms when there is no just Occasion but let me tell you I doubt that neither of the Instances you have given will make good your Assertion for in the first place as to King Charles the First it is said by all Writers on the Parliaments side that the King by leaving his Parliament and going to York and there taking a Guard when no Enemy was near and when the Parliament had as yet raised no Forces at all as also by his going to Hull to remove the Magazine of Arms that lay there in order to put them into the hands of an Army to make War upon the Parliament who then demanded the Settlement of the Militia to be in Commissioners of their Nomination that he thereby broke his Coronation Oath whereby he was Sworn to Govern according to Law and not by force But as for what you say as to the present juncture of Affairs I never can desire a more plain proof of the Peoples necessity of â—aking up defensive Arms since admitting that neither of the Reports concerning the French League and the false Birth of this supposed Prince be true yet I think the Nation has had sufficient Provocations to rise as one man and joyn with the Prince of Orange for the obtaining of a free Parliament to set all things right which the King 's violent illegal Administration has so much discomposed But admitting the utmost you can suppose that sometimes the people may Judge amiss as well as the King and through that mis-information may take up Arms against their Prince when there is no real Occasion shall this abuse of a right be a sufficient cause against there ever exercising of it at all I am sure this is no good Argument against the natural Right of Self defence between private persons in the state of Nature that some men do often abuse it nor can I see how upon these Grounds even Soveraign Princes may be allowed to make so much as Defensive Wars as I said but now since they may pretend that themselves are wronged and invaded or at least are like to be so when no such thing was really done or intended and so by their mis-judgment or false pretences many millions of Lives may be lost What then must no Princes ever make War at all till all the World be satisfied of the Justice of their Quarrel If so I doubt the last War of King Charles the Second made against the Dutch and this late War the King of France has now made upon the Empire should never have been by your Principles so much as begun much less carried on with so great an Effusion of Blood and the Destruction of so many Cities and Towns and whether this as well as Tyranny at home is not more often put in practice by Princes than any Resistance this Nation or all the Subjects of the World have made against such Tyranny and Arbitrary Power I leave it to your self or any indifferent Person to judge M. I doubt not but I may very well join issue with you upon this point for I think that upon those very conditions and grounds you have now laid down the Clergymen Lords Gentlemen and Commons of this Kingdom who have either come over with the Prince of Orange or have taken up Arms in defence of his Late Declaration cannot justifie themselves by any of the Instances you have given for joyning themselves with him in Arms for tho' I grant His Majesty by hearkning too much to Popish Counselâ— may have done many things which in strictness of Law cannot be justified yet since they do not strike at that which you call the fundamental constitution of the Government and has been also done without any force on the People of this Nation but hath been either transacted by Judgment of Law or the colour of it at least viz. by the opinion of all or the Major part of Judges all the Parties above mention'd ought according to your own Principles to have waited for the meeting of the next Parliament to whose determination they ought by the Law of the Land to have referred all such grievances and violations of Laws which they had to complain of and if then the King had refused to have remedied them they might have had some colour I do not say right for taking up Arms and doing what they have done whereas I cannot see how you can even upon your Principles defend the late risers from wilful Rebellion against the King And for proof of this I need go no farther than the Prince of Oranges Late Declaration which being drawn by the best advice of the Male-contents then in Holland would not fall to mention all the violations of Law which they thought his Majesties Government had been guilty of ever since his coming to the Crown and therefore not to insist upon the want of right which I conceive the Prince had to concern himself with the affairs of another Kingdom which he had no right to I shall however mention every Article in which his Highness conceives the Religion Laws and civil Liberties of this Nation to be endangered In the first
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
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
out the President and Fellows of Magdalen Colledge by the late Ecclesiastical Commission as also the turning out of the Deputy Lieutenants and Justices of Peace and all other Magistrates out of Cities and Corporations the King has sufficiently redress'd them by restoring the first to their places and by putting all the rest into Commission again and turning out those that came in their rooms and all this before the Prince of Orange came over and I doubt not but his Majesty would have been content to have given the Nation any other reasonable satisfaction they could have desired in the next Parliament Which ought to have been patiently waited for untill his Majesty thought sit to call it without going about to right our selves by Force F. I confess you have made not only the most plausible defence you can of the Kings late actions but have also urg'd the utmost that can be said against those defensive Arms that have been lately taken up by those Lords Gentlemen and others who have associated themselves to stand by the Prince of Orange till our grievances were redrest by a free Parliament but if what you have said be strictly lookt into I doubt it will prove but a mere Subtersuge to hide the nakedness of the Cause you have undertaken In the first place therefore let me tell you that though I confess the King has not yet Dragoon'd us to Mass nor has made an actual War upon the Lives and Properties of the People of this Nation yet that he has not only invaded our Liberties but also endanger'd the Protestant Religion of the Church of England establish'd by Law you your self have not the confidence to deny only you will not suppose it to have been done by any Armed Force and therefore ought not to have been resisted by Force but to have waited for their redress by Parliament which is but an evasion for in the first place it is plain that the things complain'd against in the Prince of Oranges Declaration do most of them strike at the Fundamental Constitution both of the Church and State as I have sufficiently prov'd and shall do it more particularly hereafter when there is occasion all therefore that remaines to be prov'd is this that all these breaches and violations of our Religion and Civil Liberties tho' done under colour of Law yet were acted and maintain'd by Force and Secondly that all other hopes of remedy or redress unless by joyning with the Prince of Orange was wholy taken from us the first of these I prove thus It is notoriously known that for the King to maintain a standing army in time of peace has been always declar'd against in Parliament as contrary to Law and dangerous to the Religion civil rights and Liberties of this Nation now it is also as certain that the King has ever since the Duke of Mâ—nmouths coming over set up and maintain'd a standing Army in this Kingdom in which he has also put in as many Popish Officers and they as many Popish Souldiers contrary to the Laws of the Land as ever they could find besides the many Irish Papists that have been of late sent over for no other purpose than to be listed here whilst Protestant souldiers were turn'd out of several regiments to make room for them not to mention the listing of vast numbers of loose and prâ—â—ligate fellows and some of them pardon'd Highway men who provided they had their pay would not have â—luck to Rob or Murder any body they had been ordered as may be sufficiently prov'd not only by their common taking of free quarter but by their frequent taking it in the houses of Gentlemen and other private Persons in divers places of this Kingdom and that without any amends or redress as I know of tho' frequently complain'd of at Court all which being done by the Kings arbitrary Power without the least colour of Law and in contempt of the Militia the only legal Forces of this Kingdom what was this but plainly to declare that as the King had thought fit to Act so many arbitary things clean contrary to Law so he was likewise resolv'd to maintain 'em by force since it is plain that the King never dur'st undertake to do all these Illegal and arbitrary things we have now mention'd untill such time as his standing Army was raised and tho' it is true mens Lives Liberties or Estates cannot be taken away unless by some Force or other either Legal or Military yet as for those Civil rights and Priviledges which are the main Bulwarks and defences of the former they can only be invaded or taken from us by Illegal Judgments and Declarations which if supported by a visible Force beyond what the Nation in the Circumstances it was in was able to resist this is as much a taking them by Force as if there had been resistance made about them Thus if Souldiers come into my House and say that the King hath given them Orders to quarter there upon free cost I suppose you will not deny but this is a forceable taking of my goods nowithstanding I dare not because I cannot resist them the same I may say for a whole Nation when once opprest in their Civil Liberties and those oppressions are once back'd and defended by a standing Army contrary to Law But that this Army was raised cheifly to this intent I can give you a remarkeable instance from the mouth of the late cheif Justice Wright who sent for Officers and Soldiers to make the Scholars keep silence because they Hum'd at what the President and Fellows of Magdalen's had just before done against the authority of this pretended court so that to conclude from that very time that the King beagn to keep up an Army and to list Popish Officers and Souldiers tho' utterly disabled by Law to take Commissions or to bear Arms by vertue of his Dispensing Power and all this in Order to back and support his Arbitrary proceedings I look upon this Nation under such a force as that they might Lawfully remove it by Force when ever they could And that either by joyning with some Foreign Prince or else by their own Domestick Arms. But to come to the second point to be prov'd viz. That there was no other means but Force lest us to redress these mischiefs and to retrieve us out of that sad condition in which we lately were as also to hinder us from falling into worse I shall only suppose that which I think you will readily grant that there could be no other means to cure these evils but either by some sudden change in the Kings inclinations or else by a Free Parliament the former you must acknowledge was not possible as long as he continued of the Religion he is of and suffer'd himself to be manag'd by the Counsels of the Jesuits and French King and as for a Free Parliament what hopes could there be of that as long as the King had done all he could
Kings to obtain these publick liberties could ever entertain such a thought concerning them but to let you see that the Law concerning the Oaths and Tests are not only for the publick good of the Common Wealth and that the King is not the sole Judge when they may be dispenced with appears plainly by this that the Law for taking of the Oaths and Test has given every particular person a right to prosecute any one that hath acted contrary to it and the penalty of 500 l. is given wholly to the Prosecutor which shews plainly that the intent of the Law was to make it every mans particular care as well as benefit to see it observed M. Since it grows late I shall not further dispute this point with you of the Kings dispensing power though I had a great deal more to urge in defence of it for notwithstanding all you have said against it it is now counted so inherent a Prerogative and in many cases so necessary for the benefit of the Subject that the Convention it self after a great deal of dispute about it though they had condemn'd the King for assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of Laws without consent of Parliament yet in this very Declaration when they assert their Antient Rights and Liberties they only declare That the pretended power of dispensing with Laws or the execution of Laws by Regal authority as it hath been assumed and exercised of late is Illegal which shews that they do not go so high as you who seem to be absolutely against any such thing F. You very much mistake me if you say so for though I maintain that antiently till about the middle of the Reign of King Henry the III. there were no dispensations at all either because they were not thought necessary or else that Penal Laws were not then multiplied to that degree they have been since yet since they have been now so long in use and do I grant often tend not only for the benefit of the King but also of the Subject I do no way 's condemn them provided they are restrain'd within those due limits prescribed by the lite Chief Justice Vaughan in the case above mentioned and when they do not tend to the common mischief and ruine of the Protestant Religion establishâ— by Law and the Rights and Liberties of the Subject nay I grant in times of necessity as in the coming over of the Duke of Monmouth for example the King might Justifie the granting Commissions to Popish Officers and therefore the Parliament did very well to offer the King to prepare an Act to indemnifie them from the penalties they had incurr'd by acting without taking the Test so that when the King utterly refused this reasonable proposition and chose to dissolve the Parliament rather than he would permit them in the least to question on this usurpt power what could be farther expected than that He was resolved to execute it whether the Parliament would or not as we afterwards sound he did But admitting he really had been indued with this Prerogative yet was it still under a trust not to abuse it so notoriously as he did by granting it to every Apostate Person Officer or Judge that required it and I doubt not but if he had govern'd a little longer but we might have found it granted to Bishops likewise as soon as he had thought fit to make them of his own Religion for tho' the King for example has an undoubted prerogative of pardoning Robbers and Highway-men yet if he should so far abuse his Prerogative as to pardon every Robber that was taken I leave it to you to consider whether such a Government could long subsist I shall not apply this case to these dispensations because they say comparisons are odious These things being apparent I think it would be very easie to vindicate that clause in the Declaration concerning the Bishops for if the Kings Declaration was unlawful as certainly it was not only by reason of the Dispensing Power we have been now disputing about but also for one main clause in it which I have yet but lightly touched which is this We do likewise declare it is our Royal Will and Pleasure that from henceforth the execution of all and all manner of Penal Laws in matters Ecclesiastical for not coming to Church or not Receiving the Sacrament or for any other Non-conformity to the Religion establisht or for or by reason of the Exercise of Religion in any manner whatsoever be immediately suspended and the farther execution of the said Penal Laws and every of them is hereby suspended So that by this Clause in the Declaration not only the Laws of our Reformation but all the Laws for the preservation of the Christian Religion in general were suspended and become of no force since every man might not only chuse whether he would come to Church or not but also all Priests and Ministers were hereby indemnified from either Praying or Preaching in the Churches as well as their Parishioners freed from Hearing them so that not only all the Laws of our Reformation were at once suspended but those of Christianity it self by these words or for or by reason of the exercise of Religion in any manner whatsoever nor is it confined to the Christian Religion but all other Religions even Mahometanism it self were thereby permitted But perhaps it may be urged that the execution of the Law is only hereby suspended and not the Law it self which is a meer evasion for what is the external obligation of any Law but it's execution in order to obedience which if it be once taken off there can only then remain the naked internal obligation in foro conscientiae and with how sew this is of any weight you understand so well I need not tell you So that by this Declaration â—he King took upon him to suspend above forty Statutes at once concerning our Religion and if he could do so I desire to know whether he might not the next week have suspended forty more even concerning our Civil Properties likewise and so might have proceeded till he had suspended all the Laws in the Statute Book nor are those Laws suspended for any limited time but during the Kihgs Pleasure and this not only a bare suspension for a time but in effect a down right abrogation of them for what is an abrogation of a Law but the taking away the force of these Statutes without any time limited And if this be not to usurp the Sole Legislative Power I know not what is and if this were once commonly put in practise Parliaments would signifie nothing and the Legislature would be wholly in the King this was so evident that it was granted by one of the Judges at the trial of these Bishops If therefore this were the truth of the case I cannot see wherein the Bishops that presented this Petition to His Majesty acted at all undutifully towards him as you
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
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
one thing more to add in relation to somewhat I promised at the end of the Preface to the last Dialogue concerning the late Revolutions being different from the last Civil War and Murther of King Charles the First which though I have finish'd and thought to have inserted into this Discouese yet since it proves rather too long without it and that the Bookseller urges for its speedy Publication I have thought fit to omit it since also the greatest part of it relates to matter of fact which is variously stated by those who write the History of those times yet I shall make bold to give you the heads of those inquiries I have made and shall leave you to satisfie your self in these Points following first if after King Charles the first had not only passed all Bills for redressing those Grievances the Nation lay under at the beginning of the Parliament in 1640. but had also passed the Bill to make it not to be Prorogued or Dissolved without their own consents I say whether there were then any such violations of our Religion and fundamental Laws which should require the Parliament and Nations puting themselves in a posture of defence against the King's Arbitrary Power Secondly whether the fears and jealousies of Popery and Arbitrary Government which notwithstanding all that the King had done still troubled many Mens minds were a sufficient ground for the two Houses to demand the putâ—ing the whole Militia of the Kingdom out of his own Power into such hands as they should nominate and appoint Thirdly whether upon his refusal of their Adresses for the Militia their going about to take it out of his hands by force and particularly their shutting him out of Hull was not an actual making War upon the King when he was as yet unâ—armed and had given out no Commissions to raise Men or Arms. Fourthly when the War was begun whether the King did not in all his Messages to and Treaties with the Parliament propose and seem to desire Peace upon equal and reasonable terms Fifthly Whether the two Houses did not instead of complying with those reasonable Proposals still insist upon higher Terms as their Victories and Successes over the King increased Sixthly when the King was deliver'd up by the Scots whether the Parliament and Army did not keep him as good as a close Prisoner and vote no more Addresses to be made to him meerly because he refused to pass whatever Bills they brought to him Seventhly When at last he was forced by necessity to grant them at the Isle of Wight almost whatever they demanded whether he was not hurried away from thence by Cromwell's Army and for the major part of the House of Commons who had Voted the King's Concessions satisfactory excluded the House by force till the far less Party had reversed all that the rest had done and then Voted the King should he called to an account for making War upon the Parliament and for Treason against the Kingdom Eighthly Whether in pursuance of this they did not appoint Iudges to Trie the King who upon his refusal to own their Authority Condemned him to death and cut off his head before the Gates of his own Palace Ninthly Whether this fag end of a Parliament did not alter the whole frame of the Government both in Church and State destroying both Monarchy and Episcopacy and Voting the House of Peers useless and dangerous and setting up a Democratical Commonwealth or rather an Oligarcy in their stead consisting of about fifty or sixty Men wholly governed and awed by Cromwell and the Officers of the Army Now let any Man but impartially consider all these Transactions with the late Revolution and read what hath been said in the three last Dialogues and then let him tell meingenuously whether he thinks this Revolution hath been begun upon the like grounds and carried on by the same violent Courses or has ended with the same direful effects as the late Civil War and Murther of King Charles the First I have no more to propose on this Subject but only to wish that these Discourses written with a real design for the publick good and peace of my Countrey may be read with the like affection with which they were written and may really promote that end for which they were designed but if not that they may at least serve as an Impartial History to Posterity of those Principles and Opinions on which this late great Revolution hath been brought about in England and also those on which it hath been so violently opposed by the dissenting Party THE Thirteenth Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. MEANWELL a Civilian AND Mr. FREEMAN a Gentleman F. SIR I hope I do not interrupt you by coming too soon for the truth is since I intend that this shall be the last Dispute I shall ever have with you upon this Subject I was very desirous to have it dispatched as soon as I could that when I have once discharged the duty of an old Friend and Acquaintance my mind may be at rest which side soever you take M. Dear Sir I thank you and though I intended to go abroad this Evening upon an Appointment yet I will not put it off that I may enjoy your better Conversation therefore pray begin where you left off and prove to me that I may lawfully take this new Oath of Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary F. I cannot see any reason why you may not safely do it since our best Common Lawyers are of this Opinion for my Lord Coke in his Third institutes in his Notes upon the Statute of Treason the 25 th of Edward the III d gives it for Law that this Act is to be understood of a King in possession of the Crown and Kingdom for if there be a King Regnant in possession although he be Rex de Facto non de Iure yet is he Seignior Le Roy within the purview of that Statute and the other that hath Right and is out of possession is not within this Act c. And if it be Treason to Levy War against him or to Conspire his Death as long as he continues King it can only be so because the Subjects Allegiance is then due to him for that all Men have either taken the Oath of Allegiance or else are supposed to have done it M. I must beg your pardon if I cannot come over to your Opinion neither in point of Law or Reason for as long as I am perswaded in my Conscience that King Iames is King de Iure so long must the obligation of my former Oath last and I suppose that you will grant that it is as impossible to owe Allegiance to two Kings at once as it is to serve two Masters and therefore you must pardon me if I suppose that my Lord Coke depending too much upon the commonly received sence of the Statute of the Eleventh of Henry the VII th which he quotes in the Margin may be
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
S. P. P. Advertisement TO THE READER THE Author of these Discourses hopes you will be so charitable as to believe that tho' he hath made one of his Disputants argue pretty stifly against the Divine Right of Monarchy and Succession to Crowns yet He is no Common-wealths-man or one who hereby designs or desires Alterations in the Government of this Nation either of Church or State since none can admire their Excellent Constitution more than himself much less does he prefer an Elective before an Hereditary Succession to Crowns since he justly esteems the latter as being a most Excellent if not Only Means to prevent all Disputes and Civil Disturbances about Succession and therefore is never to be departed from unless when some Natural or Moral Disability in the Person or other unavoidable necessity renders it absolutely inconsistent with the Publick Peace and Safety of the Kingdom Therefore as a Man may be said to be truly devout without Superstition which is but the Corruption or Abuse of Religion so the Author likewise thinks that a Subject may be truly Loyal and Obedient to his Prince tho' he hath never heard of or does not believe any Divine Right of Monarchy derived from Adam and Noah or of Succession from God's Promise that Cain should Rule over Abel Nor hath the Author an Aversion to Absolute Monarchy as such could he be assured that Princes would be always as wise and good as they ought to be nay he owns that divers Nations have never been more happy than under the Government of such Monarchs As the Roman Empire For instance never arrived to a greater heighth of Riches and Power if we may believe Historians than under Nerva Trajan and the two Antonines So that indeed the fault is not in Absolute Monarchy as such but in the too general Corruption of Humane Nature which rarely produces Persons of just Abilities both as to Wisdom and Goodness fit for so great a Trust. I confess Subjects may be sufficiently happy and if they please contented under any Form of Government where the Governours are of Equal Capacity and Honesty and have a real hearty Love and Concern for the Common Good of their People But where these are wanting it is not meer Forms or empty Names can make them so and therefore the Author very justly admires the Wisdom of the Antient German and Gothick Nations who preferred a Limited Monarchy to all other Forms of Government as an Excellent Medium between the Mischiefs of Arbitrary Power and those unhappy Inconveniences that attend Republicks where either the Common People or Nobility must govern But the Author farther hopes that tho' he makes one of his Disputants in this Dialogue to shew the absurdity and fatal consequences of Sir R. F's Principles yet the Reader will not from thence infer that he passes an absolute Iudgment against them much less hath He done this out of any prejudice to Sir R's Person which he never was acquainted with since he hath rather an honour for his Memory his Writings speaking him as a Person of Gentile Learning and subtle Ingenuity But whether his Tenets be destructive to the Fundamental Constitutions of this Government the Author submits to the Reader 's considerate Iudgment which he hopes will be made without partiality or any prejudicate Opinion proceeding from this or that Party or Faction and will determine according to the Merits of the Cause and therein observe the Apostles Rule to try all things and hold fast that which is good The Author lastly desires the Reader not to think the worse of this performance tho' all the Latine Quotations are not Englisht for since these Discourses are supposed to be between Gentlemen and Scholars and principally intended for such it would be thought needless to translate them THE Second Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. FREEMAN a Gentleman AND Mr. MEANWELL a Civilian M. YOU are I see Sir a punctual man to your hour Pray do me the favour to sit down by the Fire I will but make an end of what I am writing and wait on you presently F. Your Servant Sir take your own time but pray remember the point you are now to satisfie me in M. Now Sir I have done and if I remember right I am to derive a Title to all the Kings and Monarchs that have ever been or shall be in the World from that Supream Fatherly Power conferred by God on Adam But pray take notice I undertake this Task only for Monarchies not Common-Wealths whom I must own to be of meer Humane Invention And tho' I will not say that they are absolutely unlawful yet I think they are not the Powers ordained by God in Scripture F. Well Sir we will discourse farther of that anon and therefore I do assure you I do not desire any more of you now than that you should prove the Divine Institution of Monarchy and I think that task sufficient if it can be made out in one or two meetings M. It may seem indeed somewhat absurd to maintain that all Kings are now the Fathers of their People since you 'll say experience shews the contrary It is true all Kings are not now the Natural Parents of their Subjects yet they all either are or are to be reputed the next Heirs to those Primogenitors who were at the first the Natural Parents of the whole People and do in their right succeed to the exercise of the Supream Jurisdiction and such Heirs are not only Lords of their own Children but also of their Brethren and all others that were subject to their Fathers and therefore I suppose that God when he conferred this Supream Power on Adam did not intend it should die with him but descend to his Heirs after his Decease F. Well I shall at present grant you all this likewise tho' it might be questioned But pray who were those Heirs many or but one Person M. I suppose you will also grant me at present what we before disputed that the Power of Fathers over their Children being the Fountain of all Regal Authority by the Ordination of God himself it follows that Civil Power not only in General is by Divine Institution but even the assignment of it specifically to the eldest Parents F. Pray whom do you mean by Eldest Parents our Great Grandmother 〈…〉 if you mean by it one that had longest had Children she must come in as next Heir by these words M. No Sir you altogether misapprehend me I mean the Eldest Son of Adam Eve was his Wife and could have nothing to do to inherit in an Hereditary Monarchy as this was F. 〈…〉 your pardon Sir if I misunderstood you but you must thank the loosness or impropriety of your expression for it for I suppose you cannot deny but Eldest Parents commonly signifie either the Eldest men or Women that have Children or those who have longest had Issue and then in either of these senses our Great Grand-Mother Eve stood fairest to be Heir
insupportable that it is past all question I grant that the People ought to have Patience and rather suffer many Oppressions and Hardships than put themselves into a State of War So that I think it is Morally impossible that the People can be mistaken in 〈◊〉 evident a Case Nor I believe can you scarce shew me one Example either out of Antient or Modern History of any whole Nation or People or the Major part of them that did ever rise in Arms to cast off either a Foreign or Domestick Yoke which pressed too hard upon them but when they had the most unavoidable and justest causes so to do And I believe I can shew you Ten Examples out of Histories if the Question were to be decided by them for one you can shew me to the Contrary 'T is true some private Men may sometimes make Disturbances or Rebellions but it is commonly to their own Iust Ruine and Perdition for till the Mischief be grown General and the Violence of the Rulers become Evident and their Attempts to Destroy or make Slaves of them are most sensible to all or the greatest part of the People they are commonly more a great deal disposed to Suffer than to Right themselves by Resistance well knowing the Mischiefs of War and how Destructive it will prove not only to their Lives but to the Welfare of their Families and Posterities as well as Private Concerns So that the Example of some particular Injustice Oppression nay or Absolute Ruine of here and there an Unfortunate person moves them not But if once they find their Lives Liberties and Estates Universally Assaulted and about to be taken away who is to be blamed for it The Magistrate or the People for the former might have avoided it if they had pleased either by not urging them to that Extremity at all or at least Redressing those Grievances and Oppressions before they became so General and Insupportable as not to be any longer endured So that tho' I grant the Ambition or Turbulency of private Men have sometimes caused great Disorders in Common-Wealths and Factions have been fatal to States and Kingdoms Yet whether this Mischief hath oftner begun from the People's Wantonness and desire to cast off the Lawful Authority of their Rulers or from the Rulers Insolence and Endeavours to get and Exercise a Tyrannical Arbitrary Power over their People that is whether Oppression or Disobedience gave the first Rise to the Disorder I leave it as I said to Impartial History to Determine But this I am sure of whoever either Ruler or Subject goes about by force to Invade the Rights of either Prince or People and lays a Foundation for overturning the Original Constitution and Frame of any Civil Government he is Guilty of the greatest Crime I think a Man is capable of being to Answer for all those Mischiefs Bloudshed Rapine and Desolations which the breaking to pieces of Governments does bring on a Country And he who doth it is justly to be esteemed a Common Enemy and is to be treated accordingly But as for the Instances you give of Waâ— Tyler and Massianello I grant indeed it may so happen that a Great part of the Common People or Rabble may sometimes upon sudden or false Apprehensions occasioned by some Real Grievances or Oppressions such as are great Taxes or Gabels imposed by the State take up Arms and Rebell against the Supream Powers Yet these Examples do not reach the Question in Hand these Insurections or Rebellions you mention being of a much less number than the whole People or the Major part of them and in which I still include the Nobility and Gentry and other Land-holders as the most considerable part And so those Insurrections were in no wise Iustifiable especially in such a Government as ours where no Man can be Taxed but by his own Consent included in his Representatives whereas all these Rebellions were chiefly if not altogether made by the meaner sort or Scum of the People of one or a few Countries whom I can never allow to make Disturbances since they having very little to lose ought in all Civil Governments whatsoever to be directed and Governed by those in whom the Ballance of the Government in Lands and other Riches doth reside and on whom they chiefly depend for their Protection and Subsistance and consequently ought to make no Alterations in the State without their consent and Approbation But as for your other Instance of the Wars raised in these Three Kingdoms against King Charles the First upon the Pretence of our Religion Liberties and Properties being Invaded it is not proper to be Treated of in this place Since we are now Discoursing of the Power of Princes and the Right of Subjects under Absolute and not limited Monarchies And I grant that some Resistance may be Rebellion under Absolute Monarchies which would not be so under limited ones Yet I do still suppose that it may be Lawful under such limited Monarchy for the People to take up Arms and make Resistance in defence of those Iust Liberties and Priviledges which they Lawfully enjoy either by the Original Constitution of the Government or by Acts of Grace or Concession of the Prince but this requires a more large and accurate Discourse which at another time I am ready to give you Therefore granting at present that those Wars were down Right Rebellion against the King and also that they were made under Pretence of the Principle I now assert yet doth it not at all overthrow the Iustice of that Cause which I now maintain since as I have already more than once intimated the abuse that may be sometimes made of a Natural Right by some Wicked Factious or Hypocritical Men ought not in the least to prejuâ—ice the Exercise of that Right to all the rest of Mankind who may lye under a Real Necessity of making use of it To conclude if the People may nevâ—r be trusted to Iudge when their Liberties and Properties are actually Invaded because they may happen one time or other to be mistaken and so enter into a State of War without cause to the Destruction of Mankind this Argument would serve as well against all Princes and Common-Wealths who being in the State of Nature with each other should never make War for any Cause or Provocation how great soever because being Iudges and Executioners too in their own Case they may more easily happen to be mistaken I suppose you your self will grant that one or a few Men are more apt to be in an Error than 100000 and I have already proved that where the People have never wholly given up their Liberties and Properties unto the Absolute Will of the Supream Powers they are as to that still in a State of Nature and do reserve to themselves a Right of Iudging when they are Violently and Insupportably invaded and Consequently of vindicating themselves from that Oppression And therefore granting what you have said to be true that
been forc'd to fly into Scotland and 〈◊〉 to have defended himself with 1000 or 1500 of his Tenants and followers tho' without Fighting the Kings Forces that should have been seâ—â— against him but flying into the High-lands and had there maintain'd himself as David did by Free Quarters or Conâ—ribuâ—ion of the Inhabitants till his Father dyed would not this have been cryed out upon in all the Pulpits in England as a most Horrid Rebellion of a Son and a Subject against his King and Father tho' he had never done any Act of Hostility against his Forces but always 〈◊〉 from them And yet he being Heir Apparent to the Crown might have pleaded as well as David that he kept these Soldiers about him only to keep himself from being Murdered by those Officious Persons whom his Father or Uncle might send to apprehend him and to have such a Retinue of Valiant Men about him as might render his advancement to the Throne more easie when ever his Father should dye I shall not urge as a farther proof of the Lawfulness of Davids Resistance of Sauls Forces his Intention to have slay'd in Keilah and to have fortified it against Saul had not he been informed that the Men of that City would have saved themselves by delivering him up to Saul Since I confess it doth not certainly appear by the Text whether David would have stayed any longer there than till Saul had approach'd near to that place whether the Keilites would have delivered him up or not much less shall I urge that other example which some Men make use of of Davids going to the last Battle against Saul with Achish King of the Philistines For tho' it be plain he march'd with them as far as Apbek in the Tribe of Issachar yet I confess it is not certain whether he really intended to have assisted them or not in this War against his Country since he might either have gone over to Saul at the beginning of the Battle or else have stood neuter tho' neither of them would have been very Honourable or Consonant with Davids Character therefore I shall say nothing of this since the Lords of the Philistines for fear he should prove aâ— adversary to them in the Battle made him retire again into the Land of the Philistines tho' he seemed to be very much troubled to be so distrusted that he might not fight against the Enemies of that King who had so good an Opinion of him And therefore I pray will you proceed to those other Exâ—mples you have to produce out of the Old Testament M. Well since you are not fully satisfied with this Instance of David tho' I am glad you allow the Persons even of Tyrannical Princes to be Sacred therefore to proceed in the story Solomon who succeeded David in his Kingdom did all those things which God had expresly forbid the King to do He sent into Egypt for Horses He multiplied Wives and loved many strange Women together with the Daughter of Pharaoh VVomen of the Moabites Ammonites c. He Multiplied Silver and Gold For this God who is the only Iudge of Soveraign Princes was very angry with him and threatens to rend the Kingdom from him which was afterwards accomplish'd in the Days of Rehoboam but yet this did not give Authority to his Subjects to Rebel If to be under the Direction and Obligation of Laws makes a Limited Monarchy it is certain the Kingdom of Israel was so There were some things which the King was expresly forbid to do as you have already heard and the Law of Moses was to be the Rule of his Government the standing Law of his Kingdom And therefore he was Commanded when he came to the Throne to write a Copy of the Law with his own hand and to read in it all his Days that he might learn to fear the Lord his God and to keep all the Words of this Law and these Statutes to do them and yet being a Soveraign Prince if he broke these Laws God was his Iudge and Avenger but he was accountable to no earthly Tribunal nor do we find tho' there were so many wicked and Idolatrous Kings of Iudah who broke all the Laws of God given them by Moses that ever any of the Priests or Prophets stirred up the People to Rebel against them for it F. Neither of these Instances do reach the Case in hand For I grant that neither the Breach or non-observance of these Precepts enjoyned the Kings of Israel by God Nor yet their open Idolatry were a sufficient Cause for their taking up Arms or resisting their Kings in so doing since those were offences only against God and in which the People had nothing to do those being no part of that Tacit or implicit Compact of Protection and Preservation that goeth along with all Kingdoms and Supream Powers whatsoever And I have already excepted out of the Causes of Resistance or taking up Arms the Princes being of a different Religion from that of his Subject And tho' I must own that the Kings of Israel were under the direction or Obligation of the Law of Moses and so were limited Monarchs yet this limitation was not from the People but from God whose business it was to revenge the breach of it as often as they offended and if they broke those Laws God only was their Judge and Avenger as you your self very well observe who never failed severely to punish this breach of his Laws Nor yet were the People of the Iews always so nice and temperate as you make them For besides the example of Rehoboam which I have formerly made use of you will find in the 2d of Chronicles concerning Amaziah who when he turned away from following the Lord They viz. the People made a Conspiracy against him in Jerusalem and he fled to Lachish but they sent to Lachish after him and slew him there and made his Son Vzziah King in his stead nor do we read that any were punish'd for killing him as Amâ—ziab put to Death the Servants of his Father King Ioash for conspiring against him as it is related in the 10th Chap. of the 2d of Kings and you 'l find in the same Book that the City of Libna revolted which sure is the highest degree of Resistance from that wicked King Iehoram who had slain all his Brethren with the Sword and walked in the way of the Kings of Israel as did the house of Ahab and wrought that which was evil in the sight of the Lord c. And therefore it is said expresly in the Text that the City of Libna revolted from his hand because he had forsaken the God of his Fathers I bring not these Instances to Iustifie Rebellion but to let you see that it was sometimes practised amongst the Iews tho' you affirm to the contrary But much more lawful was the Resistance which Azariah and the 80 Priests that were with him
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
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
common Air they breathe in and King Charles the First somewhere says That it was his Maxim that the King's Prerogative is to Defend the Peoples Liberties and that the peoples Liberty strengthens the King's Prerogative For indeed if the Foundations are destroyed the Superstructure cannot stand and if this Rule had been well observed by this King's Sons we had not been reduced to this great Confusion we now lye under For my Lord Bacon calls those Flatterers who put the King upon such Dangerous Courses as great Traitors to him in the Court of Heaven as he that draws his Sword against him And King Iames I. in his Speech in Parliament 1609. Calls all those who perswade Kings not to be confined within the limits of their Laws Vipers and Pests both against them and the Common-wealth M. For my part I shall not go about to defend such ill men whoever they be yet since such Insinuations are done privately and in a Corner it is very hard for Subjects to judge when such Evil Councils are inâ—used into the Ears of Princes and much more unjust for them to make any resistance on pretence to remove them and therefore besides the absurdity of making Subjects both Judges and Parties you have not yet told me what number of men must be at once oppressed in their Fundamental Rights as you call them and who may make this resistance for methinks it is very absurd to give one County for example upon the account of free Quarter a Power of rising in Arms and resisting the King's Officers and Soldiers when perhaps all the rest of the Nation where no Soldiers are feel no such thing F. I am not so unreasonable as to maintain that Subjects ought to take Arms merely because the King gives too much ear to Flatterers and wicked Ministers or is too much led by them let him be so provided the people do not smart for it But if once it comes to that pass that they grow intolerable and set the King upon a General Invasion of the peoples Rights in any of the great Points I have now laid down let them look to themselves if they will not permit a Parliament to sit and redress those Grievances they must expect the Nation will rise at last against them as they did against Gaveston and Spencers and make them undergo that punishment they so well deserve But as for what you say of making the people Judges when their Rights and Liberties are invaded the Consequence is as bad if the King alone shall judge as for example in the Case of Ship-Money the Judges gave their Opinions that the King might raise Money for Ships of War in case of Necessity without any controul but if he be sole Judge of this Necessity he might lay this Tax as often and raise it to what degree he pleased Therefore as I shall not deny that the King may judge it fit to do a great many things against the strict Letter of the Law in cases of urgent necessity but it will be at his peril if he judge amiss as for example Every man's House is his Castle and he may lawfully defend it against all Illegal Commissions Yet I think no man will deny but that in case of a Fire in London the King may by Common Law command his Officers to break open some of the next Houses and blow them up with Gun-powder to stop the Fire but admit he should out of malice or mis-information command some Houses to be blown up that stood a Mile off under pretence of stopping the Fire do you think the Owners were bound to stand still and let them do it But if the People must not judge when their Fundamental Rights and Liberties are invaded because they will be both Judges and Parties then no man whatever by this Argument ought to defend himself against the violence of another for who can be judge but he that feels the blow Nor indeed could Princes make so much as Defensive Wars since whenever they do so they are themselves both Judges and Parties as I told you at our Third Meeting when I answered as I then thought all your Arguments against the peoples ever judging for themselves So that if it be proved that the people in a limited Kingdom remain as to the defence of their Lives Liberties Religion and Properties always in the state of Nature in respect of their Prince as well as all the rest of Mankind they must certainly make use of defensive Arms when necessity requires it or else become Slaves whenever he pleases to make them so may people have no right to judge of his Violence and Oppressions But as for the number that are to make this Judgment and Resistance thereupon I grant in most Cases this is not to be done as long as the Oppression is begun by colour of Law without actual violence Secondly when it concerns only some particular Bodies of Men thus if free Quarter should be taken in one or two Towns or Counties I do not allow it a sufficient cause for all the Neighbouring Towns much less the whole County or the Neighbouring Shires to take an Alarm and rise in Arms upon it since perhaps the King may know nothing of it and if he were once informed of it would redress it but can you affirm the Case would be the same if this Grievance should become general all over the Nation and that the King should be so far from redressing it that he should put out a Declaration setting forth that it was his Prerogative so to do would not the whole Nation then take it for granted that the King's Design was to govern by a standing Army who should live upon the people and devour them as they do in France to the very Bones and might not they make Resistance against these Robberies and Oppressions the same I say for all other breaches made in any other of our Fundamental Rights I do not allow any resistanâ—e to be made till it become a general Oppression upon all or the major part of the Nation and without all hopes of being otherwise remedied and this must be also so evident that there can be no doubt or denial of the Matter of Fact for so long as the Case is disputable or the Grievance is not of a general concern I grant the people ought never to stir but of this they alone must Judge since our Constitution has left us no other Judges of these breaches but the diffusive Body of the whole people in the intervals of Parliament But for your last Question as to the number that may thus rise to make this Resistance I answer thus that when once the Mischief becomes general and without all other remedy any part of the People who think themselves strong enough to defend themselves against such violence may begin to rise if they can till the rest of the Kingdom can come into their assistance as I told you the Town of Brill did
that he will give his People any sufficient Testimony of his amendment and sincerity by giving up such evil Ministers to punishment that put him upon such desperate courses I do then readily grant that the People ought to lay down their Arms and be again reconciled to their King and submit themselves to him as before according to that Clause in King Iohn's Magna Charta I have already cited wherein there is a Power left for the Barons in case of any Breach of it to take Arms and constrain the King by taking of his Castles Lands and Possessions to amend those transgressions and when all was thus amended the Charter says Tunc cum fuerit emendatum then and not before interdent nobis sicut prius fecerunt they shall be subject to us as they were before but what followed upon this the King not only refused to observe this Charter but procured the Pope's Dispensation to be absolved from the Oath he had taken to observe it and also did all he could to bring in Foreigners into this Kingdom to support his Tyranny and raised what Forces he could of his own Subjects to that end whereupon the Barons at last were forced to renounce all Allegiance to him and to declare he had forfeited all Right to the Crown by his Tyranny and Perjury towards his People as Mat. Paris and other Authors shew us at large Now what the Barons did in the case of King Iohn may be also done by the People of this Kingdom in all succeeding Times or otherwise the King will be in a better condition after he has done the worst he can by force of Arms against the People than he was before for if as I have already proved he may be resisted till he give the Kingdom satisfaction that he will surcease from such Tyrannical courses and that such Resistance is really a Suspension of Allegiance for the time it lasts it will likewise follow that if the King will still persist in these wicked courses he must at last forfeit his Crown and discharge his Subjects of all Allegiance to him or else he would be in a better condition by his wilful persisting in his Tyranny than he could by quitting it and reconciling himself to his People For whereas by this Method the best he can expect is to return to the exercise of the same Limited Power â—e before enjoyed If he push things to the utmost extremity he may perhaps get the better of his People and then he may set up for an Absolute King by Conquest or if he fail in that and be beaten or taken Prisoner by them he can still lose nothing since by your Principles he still continues an Absolute Sovereign Prince as he was before and must be immediately put in the same state and ability of destroying the Government and enslaving the Nation but your Civil as well as our Common Law has a very good Maxim Nemo ex proprio Delicto beneficium câ—piat no man may take advantage of his own wrong and therefore such a Prince ought certainly to lose and not to get by his own Illegal and Tyrannical Actions and therefore I grant that the King is not tyed to observe any new things that he was not before he was Crowned bound to do only there is the higher obligation of an Oath added thereunto so if the King be a Limited Prince whose Authority depends upon the right exercise of it and that he can claim no Allegiance of his Subjects but upon that condition if such a Prince wilfully breaks all those conditions and aâ—solutely refuses to amend he must at last forfeit his Crown and lose all Allegiance from his Subjects or else all their Resistance would signifie just nothing and they would after all be in a much worse condition than they were before Now if this be so all your Quotations out of Bracton and Fleta will signifie nothing for as Pufendorf very well observes a Supreme Power may reside in a Limited King in respect of all his particular Subjects yet they may have a right to disobey him in those things to which his Power does not extend for says he it does not follow that because I am not bound to obey him in all things therefore I must be his Equal or Superiour or because I cannot in any wise command him therefore he may enjoyn me what he pleases for Supreme and Absolute are by no means one and the same for the former denotes the absence of a Superiour or an Equal in the same order but the latter a faculty of exercising all the Rights of Government according to his own Judgment and Will and therefore this Author in the next Chapter says very rationally concerning resisting of Tyrants in extreme cases that their scruple is nothing who will not admit any Liberty of resisting the most cruel Tyranny of Rulers because there cannot be supposed any lawful Call of Subjects taking Arms against the Supreme Power since no Jurisdiction can belong to any Subject toward such a Power as if says he that Self-defence were an Effect of Jurisdiction or that there is required any peculiar Call or Precept for Men in case of extream necessity to defend themselves and to repulse any unjust force from taking away their Lives or Estates any more than there is for those who are like to starve to allay their hunger by eating tho' it may be the Meal they eat is not their own but another Man's so far he and if this be lawful even in Absolute Monarchies in case of defence of Life the same I say may be exercised in Limited Kingdoms when the King goes about by force to take away the Religion Lives Estates or Liberties of the People contrary to Law since they both act upon the same Principle that a King by destroying the Fundamental Laws and Conditions by which he is to Govern renounces the Government and indeed so far dissolves it that he ceases to be King And tho' I grant Bracton and Fleta and other old Lawyers have noâ— in express words taught this Doctrine yet they do it in effect since the former tells us Non est Rex ubi dominatur voluntas non Lex that is he is not a King when his own Will and not the Law governs And in another place Rex est dum bene Regit Tyrannus dum Populum sibi creditum violentâ oppriâ—it dominationâ— and in the very same place as you have also observed he tells us exercere debet Rex potestatem Iuris ut Vicarius Minister Dei potestas autem injuriae Diaboli est non Dei cum declinat ad injuriam Rex Diaboli Minister est Now if what Bracton says be true then the King when he does injury is the Devil's Minister and not God's I cannot see how he can then act as God's Lieutenant or why it is not as lawful to resist the Devil's Minister as the Devil himself And as to what you alledge out
of the People rather than in the Parliament or great Council of the Nation for as to your assertion that the whole People are more fallible and consequently more dangerous Judges in such a Case than the great Council I deny it since all the matters of fact must be so evident and notorious to the senses and feeling of the greater part of the People that there can be no doubt or denial of it by any reasonable and indifferent Judges and the greatest part of the People are willing to live in Peace without making any disturbance or alteration in the Government if it may be avoided whereas in any great Assembly or Council there are many and those of the most eloquent and leading Men who commonly carry the rest which way they please who are governed by faction ambition or self-interest and upon all or some of these c. may be desirous to raise Civil Wars or to declare the King to have done things that require resistance or to have forfeited his Crown when indeed he has not and for this the very Long Parliament you mention is an evident example since you cannot but grant that if the differences between the King and that Parliament had been left to the Judgment of the whole People there had never been any Civil War at all nor had the King ever been beheaded since it is notoriously known that before the Parliament stirr'd up the People to War by seizing of the Militia they were not at all inclined to it It being a restless and factious ambitious party of men on both sides who brought on the last Civil War Not but that I defer much to the Judgment of a free and unbyast Parliament who may confirm and declare what the diffusive body of the People have already justly done to be right and lawful which may be as great a satisfaction to private Mens Consciences in Civil Disputes as a general Council is in Spiritual Controversies about matters of Religion wherein tho' such a Council cannot make new Articles of Faith yet we Protestants hold that it may declare what were anciently believed but if the People have a right of Judging during the intervals of Parliament when the King has notoriously broke the Fundamental Constitution and so may make resistance accordingly as I have already proved they have since otherwise the King may absolutely refuse ever to call any Parliament at all or at least may not let them sit till all grievances are redressed so that I cannot see why they may not also Judge when the King has so wholly broke his Original Contract and so obstinately persisted in it as to create a forfeiture of his Crown since the one is not harder to judge of than the other nor is your parallel between our opinion and that of the Jesuites at all true unless you could also prove that I had put the same authority in the People to depose their Kings by a right conferred on them by God as the Jesuites do in the Pope by such a pretended Power as Superiour to that of all the Monarchs in the World but there is nothing like it in my hypothesis Since I do neither allow the People to Judge or Depose the King much less to put him to Death tho' a Tyrant but only to Judge and declare when he has made such notorious breaches on the fundamental Constitution as do necessarily imply a forfeiture or rather an implicite Abdication of his Royal Power and whereby he deposes himself But to come to the second Point to prove that our Kings were never absolute Monarchs or had the sole and absolute authority over the People of this Kingdom and if so that there was somewhat still reserved by the People at the first institution of the Government and which the King by the original contract when he or his Ancestors took the Crown must be still supposed as bound to maintain now that there must have been such a thing as an Original Contract however light you are pleas'd to make of it I thus make out you may remember that at our fifth meeting I proved that at the first institution of Kingly Government in this Nation it was not by right of Inheritance but Election 2. That this Election was made either by the whole body of the People in Person or by their lawful Representatives in the great Councils or Mycel Synods of the English Saxons 3. That this great Council did then reserve to themselves these material parts of Government First A right of Meeting or Assembling at stated times of the year and that without any previous summons from the King 2. A right of proposing or at least oâ— assending to all Laws that should be made in all future times 3. A right of granting general Aids or Taxes for the People and that without their consent no Taxes could be imposed 4. And as subsequent to all these a right of agreeing to all Wars and Treaties of Peace â—o be made with Foreign Nations but the first and last of these tho' I could prove to have been constantly observed during the Saxon Government and long after yet since the People have parted with their right to their Kings in these matters I shall not now insist upon them only that this People have still a right to Parliaments once in three years at least and oftner if necessity require These then being the Original Constitutions of the Kingdom the King must have either entred into a compact with the People for the maintenance and observation of these fundamental rights or else it must have been left to his discretion whether he would suffer the People to enjoy them or not if the latter had been true then I grant they had made him an Absolute Monarch and had left it wholly at his discretion whether they should enjoy these fundamental Rights and Priviledges or not but it appears plainly to the contrary that they did not for I shall prove if need be that the Succession to the Crown was at first Elective and not Hereditary now in all Elective Kingdoms of the Gothick Model it is very well known that their Kings were so far from being absolute that the Assembly of Estates or great Councils of those Kingdoms reserved to themselves a power of Deposing their Kings for Tyranny and Mis government as I have already proved was frequently done not only in England but in all the neighbouring Kingdoms without any imputation of Rebellion and I have also given you a quotation out of the ancient mirrour of Justices which tells us that upon the Election of the first King of this whole Island The Princes that chose him then caused him to swear that he would maintain the Holy Christian Faith with all his power should Rule his People justly without regard to any person and should be obedient to suffer Right or Justice as well as others his Subjects And now that upon a failure to perform these things a forfeiture of the
this War had been made in their own names it had been but a just Return for what had been done to them before by the Late King who made actual War upon them without ever giving them the least notice or demanding satisfaction for any wrongs or damages receiv'd and this was the more justifiable because his present Majesty when Duke of York was looked upon to have a very great hand in those Councils which begun that unhappy War in which he himself serv'd as Admiral But as to the Prince of Orange there is much more to be said in his justification for in the first place tho' in some respects he was a Subject by living under and enjoying divers Lands and Territories and Commands within the Dominions of the United Provinces yet as he is Prince of Orange he is a free independent Prince and as such has a right of making War and Peace and if so all that is to be further enquired into is whether the Prince had any just cause of making War upon the King or â—ot therefore to answer your first Objection against the Prince's making War upon an Uncle and a Father-in-law without first demanding satisfaction and then denouncing War if he could not obtain it I confess this were a good Objection if you could once prove to me that the Prince could have been sure to have had granted him whatever he could in reason demand both in respect of the Church of England the security of the Protestant Religion the Rights and Liberties of the Subjects of England and his own particular concerns in respect of the Prince of Wales but whoever will impartially consider the Terms that the Prince and King were upon just before his coming over will find that he was not obliged to give the King notice of his intentions by first demanding satisfaction and then denouncing War if it had been denyed since the King might then have joyned his own with the French Fleet and sent for French Forces into England and then all that the Prince could have done in behalf of himself and the Nation had been altogether in vain And then though I grant that such satisfaction ought to be demanded in most cases yet will it not hold in this where if the Prince had sooner discovered his designs the King might have easily prevented them And how near this was to have been put in Execution may appear by this That Succours were actually offered by the French King and if they were refused by ours it was partly because it was too late for the French Fleet to be then put out and partly out of a Politick consideration that besides the losing of the Hearts of his English Subjects it might give the French such a footing here that they would not be easily gotten out again But indeed it seems as if the old formal way of making War was quite out of fashion since Charles the Second made War against the Dutch and the King of France so lately against Spain the Elector Palatine and the Emperor without any Observation of those formalities But if we consider the Grounds and Causes of this War as they are set forth in the Princes late Declaration they may be reduced to these three Heads First The Restoration of the Church of England with the Bishops and Colledges to their just Priviledges Secondly The securing of the Rights and Liberties of the Subject from the Dispensing Power and those other Incroachments that had been made upon them by the partial Judgments of Popish Ignorant or Corrupt Judges And Lastly The Enquiry into the Birth of the Prince of Wales In all which the Prince was so reasonable as to refer the decision of these differences to the Judgment of a Free Parliament Now as for the first of these That the Prince as a Neighbour and of the same Religion with us might justly secure the interest of the Protestant Religion here and also redeem the Clergy from the persecution they lay under is very evident Since it has always been held lawful for Princes to take the part and espouse the interest of those of the same Religion with themselves though Subjects to another Prince Thus Eusibius makes it a good cause of War by the Emperor Constantine against Licinius because he persecuted the Christians living under his Dominions So likewise of later Ages Queen Elizabeth assisted the Dutch Protestants of the united Provinces and those of France against the Persecutions and Oppressions they suffered from their own Princes As to the French Protestants King Charles the I. sent a Fleet and an Army to their Assistance in 1627. But as to the next Head the Oppressions we lay under in respect of our Civil Liberties the Prince had as great or rather greater right to vindicate these than the former For Bodin and Barclay though they suppose it unlawful for Subjects to take up Arms against their Prince though never so highly Opprest yet they count it not only lawful but Generous and Heroick for a Neighbouring Prince to rescue injur'd and opprest Subjects from the Tyranny of their Kings So that if the King had by his Dispensing Power his Levying of Taxes without Law and taking away the freedom of Elections for Parliament men almost totally dissolved the Government and brought it to the condition of an absolute Monarchy it was high time for the Prince to put a stop to those Encroachments both in respect of his own particular interest and also of the States whose General and Stadâ—holder he is Of the former since if this Kingdom should once become of the Popish Religion by the means of a standing Army and those other methods that have been taken to make it so granting the Prince of Wales to be truly born of the Queen yet should he happen to die the Popish faction here in England would in all likelihood debar the Prince and Princess of Orange from their lawful Succession to the Crown or at least would never admit them but upon conditions of establishing of Popery and Arbitrary Government in England the former of which is as contrary to their consciences as the latter is to their principles and inclinations So on the other side if the Prince of Wales be not the Queens true Son he had certainly a much greater interest as the presumptive Heir of the Crown to demand satisfaction in that great point which so nearly concerned their right of Succession For then certainly they might justly demand satisfaction especially when they desired no more but to have this business left to the inspection of the Estates of the Kingdom as the only proper Judges of the same For as to the Privy Council who by the Kings command though without any president had taken upon them to hear and determine this matter their Highnesses certainly had no reason to be satisfied with it since besides the incompetency of the Judges the King himself appeared too partial and interested in the affair for them to set down by
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
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
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
of Succession yet even that will not hold in respect of the present settlement thereof by the Convention upon the Prince and Princess of Orange for their two Lives since you cannot but know that no Parliament yet was ever so presumptuous as to take upon them to settle or limit the Succession of the Crown without the consent of the King or Queen then in being Whereas the present Settlement was first made by the Convention upon the making of the Prince and Princess King and Queen tho' I grant it was afterwards confirmed by another pretended Act whereby all Princes that are or shall be Roman Catholicks when the Crown shall descend unto them are debarred from their right of Succession This though I grant to be made after the Prince and Princess of Orange took upon them the Title of King and Queen yet since that Statute was not made in a Parliament call'd by the King's Writs but in a Convention who owe their Meeting wholly to the Prince of Orange's Letters it is not only void in respect of the subject matter but also in the manner of making it and therefore I cannot believe that the Throne was ever vacant And I have as little reason to be satisfied that the Prince and Princess could be lawfully placed therein or that all Roman Catholick Princes can ever be barred from their right of Succession when ever it may fall to them F. If this be all you have farther to object I think I can easily answer it for in the first place I have already told you that the Convention did not take upon them to create or make any new form of Succession to the Crown but only to declare that the Prince and Princess of Orange are Rightful and Lawful King and Queen of England for upon supposition of King Iames's Abdication of the Crown and that the Prince of Wales cannot be taken for the lawful Son of the King 'till he can be brought over and that his Legitimacy be duly proved it must 'till then certainly be their right and no others and as for King William's holding the Crown during his own Life I have already told you it was not done without the tacit consent of the Princess of Denmark her self though I doubt not but it may also very well be justified upon those suppositions of the forfeiture of the Crown by King Iames and the Conquest the Prince of Orange made over him which are sufficient in themselves to barr any legal claim of those that either are or may pretend to be right Heirs But as for the other part of your Objection whereby you would prove that Popish Princes cannot be excluded from the Succession because the Act was made not in a Parliament but a Convention this wholly proceeds from your want of Consideration that at the first institution of the Government and long after whilst the Kingdom continued Elective there was no difference between a Great Council or Convention and a Parliament for pray call to mind the four first Great Councils after your Conquest reckoning that for one wherein King William I. was Elected or declared King whether it was possible for those Councils to be summon'd in the Kings Name before any body had taken upon themselves the Title of King the like I may say in the case of King Iohn and Henry the III d and that this continued after the Succession was setled in the next Heir by Blood appears by that Great Council that was summon'd after the death of Henry the Third which Recognized or Ordain'd his Son Prince Edward to be his Successor So likewise the Parliament that deposed King Edward the Second sate both before and after his deposition and resignation and elected his Son Edward the Third to be King and appointed his Reign to begin from the time of their Election and not of his Fathers resignation of the Crown so also upon the deposition of King Richard the Second the same Parliament that deposed him placed Henry the Fourth in the Throne and though the Writs of Summons were in the name of King Richard and they were never re-summon'd or new Elected in the Reign of Henry the Fourth yet did they still continue to sit and made divers new Acts and repealed several old ones all which hold good to this day And that the Parliament are the only proper Judges of the right of Succession even without the King you your self must grant or else how could they declare in the Thirty Ninth of Henry the VI th that the claim which Richard Duke of York made to the Crown could no way be defeated and certainly if that unfortunate Prince King Henry the Sixth had had sufficient Power or Interest in that Parliament they might and would have adjudged the Duke of York's Claim to have been groundless and contrary to Law and then I believe it would scarce have ever been heard of again But to make it out beyond exception that a Convention may become a Lawful Parliament though never call'd by the King's Writs when the King's Authority and Presence come once to be added to and joined with it appears by the first Parliament of King Charles the Second which though Summon'd in the Name of the Keepers of the Liberties of England yet nevertheless continued to Sit and make several Acts which hold good to this day and I doubt not but they might have made the like limitations of the Crown in respect of Roman-Catholick Princes as the Convention have now done and that it would have held good at this day since it is so much for the security of our Religion Liberties and Properties that it should be so since we have found by a dear bought experience in the Reigns of the four last Kings of the Scotch Line that still as they began to favour the Popish Religion and Interest in this Kingdom so did the Protestant and true English Interest in respect of our Religion Liberties and Properties still decline 'till at last they were like to be totally ruin'd and extirpated for that restless and dangerous Faction very well know that there is no means possible for them to re-establish their Superstition among us by due and legal Methods but only by introducing Arbitrary Power taking away Parliaments or else making them wholly to depend upon the King's Will as we see was labour'd and almost effected in the Reigns of the two last Kings and therefore I cannot but believe that the present Parliament has not only acted wisely but also legally to enact that for the future no Prince who is actually a Roman Catholick shall succeed to the Crown though he be next heir by blood M. I must still tell you I am as little satisfied with your suppositions of the forfeiture of the Crown by King Iames and the Conquest to the Prince of Orange as I am with your instances out of History concerning the power of the Great Councils meeting and chusing a King by their own inherent
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
pleased to imagine Since therefore the Business must be wholly done by force I shall in the next place consider all those Suppositions you have laid down as well in respect of the French as Irish who are the only Hands that I see likely at present to do this Work First as to what you say that the King would be too wise then to bring over along with him so great numbers of the French and Irish Nations 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 you have hereby granted as much as I desire For if their Majesties are never like to be without an Army in England of at least Fifteen or Twenty Thousand Men as long as this War lasts and that the Militia of this Nation which are almost totally against King Iames's Interest and do amount altogether to above a Hundred Thousand Men I think you your self will grant that King Iames cannot attempt coming over hither with an Army of less then 30 or 4000 Veteran Soldiers of the French and Irish Nations though you should reckon the Papists and others who should come into his Assistance at 20000 more who if they should be altogether able to beat not only King William's standing Army but the Militia of the Kingdom to Boot I desire to know what shall hinder them from making as perfect a Conquest of this Nation as ever Cromwell's Army did either of England or Scotland And consequently of seting up what Religion or Government they please in this Kingdom which that it will not be that which is now exercis'd either in Church or State I think any unprejudiced Man will easily grant me But your next Suppositions are altogether as Precarious that it is not either the Design or Interest of the French King to make an entire Conquest of this Kingdom for himself nor yet to make King Iames an absolute Monarch here one of these I must needs believe will happen for though perhaps that King may at present stand so much upon his Glory as not Seize the Kingdom of a Kinsman and an Allie wholly to his own use and benefit yet it is most likely that he will retain French Garrisons in all or most of the strong places of England not only for the security of the Charges he will have been at to place King Iames in the Throne but also as a tye upon us that we shall never endeavour to drive him out again let him use us as he pleases so that tho' I grant he may not make an absolute Conquest of us now yet it may be in his or his Sons power to do it hereafter if ever King Iames his Son shall go about to shake of that Yoke when once the present Obligation is forgot or the near Relation between the two Kings shall be farther remov'd nor is what you say less Precarious that it will not be for King Lewis's Interest to destroy our Liberties and make King Iames an absolute Monarch because the Kingdom will be then weaker and more divided-then it is now by those Jealousies and Disputes we shall then maintain with the King about our Civil Rights which is indeed so far true if he Governs when he returns in the same Arbitrary manner as he did before but if he Govern according to Law which no wise Man can expect there needs be no more Divisions among us then was for a great while after King Charles the Seconds coming in but that the French King should fear if he once made the King of England an absolute Monarch and put the whole power of the Purses as well as Swords of his Subjects in his Hands he might then become so formidable as to be an equal Match to France it self and to be able to demand either the whole Kingdom or any part of it is yet more pleasant since France is now in comparison with England not only in respect of Men but also the Revenues belonging to the King as Ten to One and I think I may very well maintain that if England should once come to be Govern'd as France is it would be so far from growing Richer or more Powerful thereby that from the Intestine Grieviances and Discontents that such a violent course of Government would cause in the minds of the People of all Sorts and Conditions by those excessive Taxes and Oppressions that would follow from such an Arbitrary Government the Kingdom would quickly diminish and decay as well in People as Trade and Riches and so consequently in power too which is but the product of both these notwithstanding whatsoever the fair appearance of an outwardly Magnificent Court and a great standing Army may produce in the minds of those that do not truly consider or understand the true Grandure and Safety of the Prince and Happiness of the People But granting all this to be as you suppose pray tell me what shall become of our Religion and Civil Liberties not only 〈◊〉 respect of the French King but of King Iames himself 〈…〉 believe that either of them will cease to be instigated by the Jesuits their Confessors to destroy the Northern Heresie as they term our Religion as well in England as it has been in France No the poor Vaudois in Savoy have been too recent an Example that the King of France would carry the Persecution to the same degree here as he did there and that King Iames being wholly in his Power will not be able to withstand his Commands besides the constant Solicitation of his Confessors of the 〈◊〉 Order and Principles of those of the French King to which Holy Fathers the Protestant Religion in France and Savoy do chiefly owe its Destruction To Conclude let us suppose that King Iames shall now prevail in this War by the help of the Irish Army now rais'd by the Earle of Tirconnel can we â—â—pect better Quarter if the King prevails by their Arms and Assistance then if they were intirely French For having once Conquer'd this Nation it will not be in the King's Power to Govern them so easily as you expect but being inveâ—â—â—te Enemies to the English they will not only possess what Estates they please of the English Nobility and Gentry in Ireland but in England too which will be declar'd forfeited by their Owners opposing of King Iames and then I will leave it to your self to Judge in what a Condition we shall be in both as to our Religion and Civil Liberties when the King shall come to be manag'd by Men who are declar'd Enemies to both neither will it be in the power of those few moderate men either of the Popish or Protestanâ— Religion who take King Iame's part to hinder it since the other Party will by means of the Priests and Jesuites and the interest of France run down all sober Councils and they will be but looked upon but as Trimmers at best that oppose
Communion cannot depend upon the Canonical or Uncanonical deprivation of any Bishops in England I desire you to consider these things as a Canon-Lawyer and give me your answer if you can against the next time we meet and then tell me whether the causes of this threatned Schism be so just and apparent that it is like to involve so many of the Wisest and most Considerate of the Clergy and Laity into open separation from the Church as you suppose it will not but that I will grant there be many of the Clergy of this Opinion who as well out of Conscience as for their own interest will be contented to set up and encourage such a separation thereby to make themselves heads of separate Congregations when they shall be deprived of their present Benefices and Imployments upon their refusal of this Oath M. I must confess I never heard so much said upon this head before and if you could make out to me all the matters of fact you have now instanced in I know not but that I may come over to your Opinion tho' let me tell you this is the first time that ever you can shew me that any Bishops were deprived in England by the meer Lay Authority of the King and a Great Council or Convention of the Laity whilst they continued of the same Church-Communion with those Bishops for as to your instance of the Popish Bishops deprived by Parliament in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth I doubt you will find it does not come up to the Point in question since the Queen and Parliament having then newly declared themselves Protestants did not own them for true and Orthodox Bishops and consequently thought they might justly depart from their Communion and upon the same account might deprive them and the Queen might then nominate others of their own Religion in their Places F. I cannot but differ from you in the matter of fack as you now relate it for Queen Elizabeth and the Parliament were when they made this Act so far from being separated from the outward Communion of the Church of Rome that Mass was then said and the Romish Priests still continued in all the Parishes and Churches of England and yet they still maintain'd an outward Communion though their Bishops were deprived by the Civil â—ower and others ordain'd in their stead So that it is plain the Papists themselves had then no notion of this new cause of Schism by reason of their Bishops being Uncanonically deprived nor indeed can we well vindicate the Honour or Legality of our Reformation if the Protestant Bishops who succeeded in the places of those who were thus deprived by Act of Parliament could not be Canonical because their Predecessors deprived by the Lay Power were still alive But admit this was the first time that ever it had been thus practiced yet if it were then reasonable and done upon good grounds I cannot see but when the necessity of the Church and State require it and that the Clergy in Convocation are so wilfull and wedded to some old false notions as not to consult the peace and safety of the Church and Kingdom why the King and Queen who are acknowledged to be Supream over Ecclesiastical as well as Temporal Persons may not together with the two Houses of Parliament make the like Law now as was done in the first of Queen Elizabeth for a less matter for none of those Popish Bishops though they believed Queen Elizabeth to have no better than a Parliament Title to the Crown yet ever denied her to be their lawful and rightful Queen only they would not own her Supremacy in Spiritual Matters But leaving the farther discussion of this Point to those who better understand it I would gladly know of you what you intend to do and what you would have us do who are like to be made Deputy Lieutenants and Justices of Peace for if as you your self allow there be a necessity that some Civil Government be maintain'd during King Iames's absence I desire to know of you how it can be managed and who shall manage it in case all the Gentlemen of England were of your Principle and should positively refuse the Oath of Allegiance to their present Majesties for if King Iames be never so much our lawful King it is not now possible for us to be Govern'd by him since he is goâ—e and God knows whether ever he may return again since then you cannot have him if you would and that there is a necessity we should be Govern'd by some body And since it is also as certain that those who actually Govern us will exact this or the like Oaths of Allegiance from us as were due to their Predecessors and that no man must expect to enjoy or execute any Place or Office not only of profit but of burthen and charge for the necessary execution of Justice and the maintenance of Civil Government without which we cannot live or subsist without taking this new Oath of Allegiance as the only means to qualifie them for it if then the end viz. Civil Government be absolutely necessary and the taking of this Oath is the only means allow'd of to qualifie men for it this seems as evident to me that taking of this Oath is not only justifiable by Law but by Reason and good Conscience since it is done for the highest and noblest end viz. the publick good of the whole Nation or Common wealth which you grant cannot subsist without some kind of Civil Government amongst us M. I will say something in answer to what you have now alledged concerning the necessity of taking of the Oath in order to the maintenance of some Civil Government without which I grant the Kings good Subjects cannot subsist till his return since I confess this is the strongest Argument you have yet brought all I can say to it at present it that if all your Country Gentlemen and all the Lawyers in England would be so firm in their Loyalty to his Majesty as unanimously to declare that they cannot take this Oath with a safe Conscience the consequence then would be that either the present Usurped Power must be forced to give up the Government to the right owner or else they must at least desist from pressing this Oath upon you F. You know well enough this is altogether a vain supposition since you cannot but be sensible that their Majesties have not only a sufficient force both of Native Englishmen and Foreigners on their side who can force those that should make any opposition to the taking it and that there are also many Fanaticks and Common-wealths Men who not looking upon themselves as at all oblig'd by your notions of Natural Allegiance and the obligations of any former Oath of Allegiance will get into all the Offices and Imployments of the Kingdom to the great prejudice and destruction not only of the Church but the Monarchy it self which is as yet preserv'd tho the Person
8. p. 580 581. W. All Burroughs that sent Members antiently held in Capite of the King D. 8. p. 557 578. W. They sent such Members by an inherent Right or at the Discretion of the Sheriffs Ib. p. 593. 604. C Cain W. he forfeited his Birth-right by the Murther of his Brother D. 2. p. 67. W. His Eldest Son was a Prince over his Brethren Ib. Canons of 1640. their validity discussed D. 4. p. 284. to 286. King Charles the Firsts pretended Commission to Sir Philim O Neal considered D. 9. p. 636 637. Great Charter of King Iohnâ— W. it was the sole Act of that King or else made by the advice and consent of all the Freemen of England D. 5. p. 324. D. 7. p. 455 456. Great Charter of Hen. the Third W. all the Copies we have now of it were his or else Edward I. his Charters Ib. 461. Children how far and how long bound to be subject to their Parents D. 1. p. 45. to 52. Christians W. as much obliged to suffer for Religion now as in the Primitive Times D. 4â— p. 230. to 234. Chester its County W. the Earl thereof could charge all his Tenants in Parliament without their consent D. 7. p. 501. Church of England W. Passive Obedience be its distinguishing Doctrine from other Churches D. 4. p. 292 293. Cities and Burroughs more numerous in the Saxon times than now D. 6. p. 379. to 400. W. They had any Representatives in Parliament before the 49th of Henry the IIId D. 5. p. 565 572. Whether Cities and Burroughs had not always had Representatives in the Parliaments of Scotland D. 7. p. 505. Clerici terras habentes quae ad Ecclesias non pertinent who they were D. 7. p. 450.451 Clergy a part of the Great Council of the Kingdom in the Saxon Times and long after D. 8. p. 544 to 550. W. None of the Clergy but such as held in Capite appeared at such Councils Ibid. W. The Inferiour Clergy had their Representatives in Parliament different from the Convocation Ib. 546 to 558. Commandment Vth in what sence Princes are comprehended under it D. 2. p. 106. to 109 111. Communitas Regni W. that Phrase in ancient Records and Acts of Parliament does not often signifie the Commons as well before the 49th of Henry the Third as afterwards D. 7. p. 412 to 415. W. That Phrase does not also signifie the whole body of the Kingdom consisting of Peers and Commons D. 6. p. 416. The Drs. proofs to the contrary considered 417 to 423. W. It does also often signifie the Commons alone D. 8. p. 572. to 574. Their Declaration to the Pope in the 48th of Edward the Third D. 8. p. 581 to 582. Their Petition to Henry the Fifth Their Protestation in Parliament in Richard the Seconds time 584. Commons of Cities and great Towns had their Representatives in the Assemblies of Estates of all the Kingdoms in Europe founded by the ancient Germans and Gothes Ibid 607 to 612. Commons their request and consent when first mentioned in Old Statutes D. 5. p. 329. W. Ever summoned to Parliament from the 49th of Hen. the Third to the 18th of Edw. the First D. 7. p. 522. Commons W. part of the Great Council before the Conquest D. 5. p. 369 372. The words Commune de Commune les communes do frequently signifie the Commons before the 49th of Henry the Third D. 6. 423. D. 7. 423 to 484. Common-Council of the whole Kingdom W. different from the Common-Council of Tenants in Capite D. 7. p. 437. to 474. Communitas Scotiae W. it always signified none but Tenants in Capite Ibid. p. 505. to 508. Conquest alone W. it confers a right to a Crown D. 2. p. 128 129. W. It it gives a King a right to all the Lands and Estates of the Conquer'd Kingom D. 3. 168. to 170. W. Any Conquest of this Kingdom was made by King William the First D. 10. p. 715. to the end Constitutions of Clarendon their Title explained D. 6. p. 430 431. Contract Originel W. there were ever any such thing D. 10 p. 695 to 709. D. 12. p. 809 8â—3 Convention W. its voting King James to have abdicaâ—ed the Government be justifiable D. 11. p. 809 to 834. W. Its Declaration of King James's violations of our fundamental Rights be well grounded Ibid. p. 816 832. W. It s voting the Throne vacant can be justified from the ancient constitution of the Government D. 12. p. 839 to 883. W. Whether its placing K. W. and Q. M. on the Throne may be also justified by the said Constitution Ibid. p. 883 to 894. W. It s making an Act excluding all Roman Catholick Princes was legal Ibid. p. 894 to the end Convocation Book drawn up by Bishop Overal its validity examined D. 1. p. 6 8. Copy Holders why they to have no Votes at Elections to Parliament D. 5. p. 513. Great Councils or Convention the only Iudges of Princes Titles upon any dispute about the succession or vacancy of the Throne D. 12. p. 895. D. 13. p. 917. to 919 924. Council of the King in Parliament what it was anciently D. 5. p. 334. Great Council or general Convention of the Estates of the Kingdom W. legal without the Kings Summons D. 5. p. 353. D. 12. p. 894. to 898. Curia Regis what iâ— anciently was and W. it consisted of none but Tenants in Capite Ibid. 368. Crown W. it can by Law be ever forfeited D. 12. p. 833 834. D Defence of a Mans self in what case justifiable D. 3. p. 148 149. Declaration of the Convention setting forth King James's violation of the fundamental rights of the Nation W. justifiable or not D. 11. p. 816. to the end Private Divines their Opiâ—nions about Passive Obedience and Resistance of what Authority D. 4. p. 291 294. W. Many of them have not quitted the ancient Doctrine of the Church of England declaring the Pope to be Antichrist vid. Append. Dispencing Power W. justifiable by Law D. 12. p. 119 to 828. Dissolution of all Government W. it necessarily follows from the Conventions declaration of the vacancy of the Throne D. 12. p. 890 891. Durham W. its Bishop could lay Taxes in Parliament on the whole County Palatine without their consents D. 7. p. 501 502. E Earls of Counties their ancient Office and Institution D. 5 p. 363 to 370. King Edward the Second being deposed W. any vacancy of the Throne followed thereupon D. 12. p. 158 to 861. Queen Elizabeth W. she had any Title to the Crown but by Act of Parliament Ibid. p 872 873. England when first so called D. 5. p. 362. English-Men W. they lost all their Liberties and Estates by the Norman Conquest D. 10. p. 753. to the end English Bishops Earls and Barons W. then all deprived of their Honours and Estates Ib. 756 to 762. English Saxon Laws W. confirmed or abrogated by K. William D. 10. p. 760. Estates of the Kingdom
to hinder Free Elections and due returns of Parliament Men by making either Popish or Fanatical Sheriffs and putting Mayors and other Officers of the like Principles into most of the Cities and Corporate Towns in England nor can I tell but that force would also have been used if they found they could not have compassed their designs without it in those places where Souldiers were Quarter'd since I am credibly inform'd that at the late intended Elections of Burgesses for Northampton and Brackly the Officers and Souldiers Quarter'd at those places declar'd that none of the Towns-men should be admitted to give Voices at the Election unless they would promise to Vote for those that the Court would set up and the like instances I beleive I might give you of other places had I time to enquire into it and as for the house of Peers pray consider how many of the Bishops and temporal Lords the King might have gain'd either by threats or fair promises to the Kings party or at least prevail'd upon to stand Neuters and not to oppose his designs and if these had fail'd it had been but calling up some Popish or high Tory or Fanatick Gentlemen to the House of Lords and to have sate their as Barons Peers pro tempore till this Jobb was done and I doubt not but there would have been enough found out of each sort for that purpose and that I do not speak without Book I have had it from persons of very good Intelligence that such a design was lately on foot and the Court party thought they had very good Authority for it since Mr. Pryn and Sr. Will. Dâ—dgdale pretended to show us several examples of this Kind as low as the Reign of King Henry the 4th and a great part of the design of your Dr. Bs. late Books seem to have been only to prove that the King might not only have Summon'd to Parliament what of the Commmons he pleased but what Lords too and have omitted the rest as I have already shown you at our two last meetings and sure if the King had such a prerogative two or three hundred years ago these Gentlemen would not have deny'd his Present Majesty the like Power Since they have in all their Writings and addresses declar'd him as absolute as any of his Predecessours But to make an end as for what you say of the Kings Redressing the Grievances of the Nation before the Prince of Orange came it is very true he did by the advice of some of the Bishops endeavour to put things into the same state they were in at his first coming to the Crown but I very much mistrust the sincerity of his Majesties intentions since it is plain he never offer'd to do it till the Prince of Orange was â—ust upon coming and that his Declaration had been spread about the Kingdom and then he did it so unwillingly that when the news came of part of the Princes Fleets being Shipwrack'd and that his design was quite put off the Bishop of Winchester who was then but newly gone down to restore the President and Fellows of Magdalen Colledge was immediately call'd back under pretence of being present as the Examination of the Birth of the Prince of Wales and did not return again to finish that business till such time as fresh News came that the Prince was certainly come notwithstanding his late disaster And which is also more remarkable His Majesty in none of His Declarations ever disowned his Dispensing Power or so much as put out Father Peters from the Council or Disbanded one Popish Officer or Souldier out of his Army which is another great Argument of the Sincerity of his intentions So that I think this was sufficient to convince any reasonable Man that there was no other means left us but Resistance and that by Force and a hearty Joyning with the Prince of Orange at his Landing Since this resistance was not made either in Opposition to the King or the Laws but for defence of both against a Standing Army kept up contrary to Law and headed by Officers the greatest part of which by not taking the Sacrament and Test according to the Act made for that purpose had render'd themselves wholy uncapable of holding those Commissions and consequently whilst in Arms were to be look'd upon as common Enemies to the Nation But as for his Majesties Gracious and mercifull disposition as I shall not make it my business personally to Reflect upon him so I must needs tell you the Execution of Mr. Cornish Mrs. Lisle Mrs. Gaunt for Treasons falsly alledg'd or else for such as Women could scarce be capable of knowing to be so were no great Evidences of such highly Merciful Inclinations M. I confess you have taken a great deal of pains not only to set forth the Late Miscarriages of the Government but also to prove that the Army which the King raised upon the Duke of Monmouth's Rebellion and which he hath since kept up to prevent either fresh Rebellions at home or Invasions from abroad has been meerly maintain'd to support all these Late breaches upon our Laws and Civil Liberties which you say were made upon them now this is very uncharitably done for as His Majesty was Forc'd to raise that Army at first because the Late Rebellion in the West was too powerfull to be quell'd by the ordinary Train'd Bands of the Kingdom whom he had too much reason to suspect by the running over of several of them to the Rebels not to be so Loyal as they ought to have been and if His Majesty had not had a small body of an Army on Foot the last Summer before the Prince of Orange came over he must upon his Landing have Yielded to his terms had they been never so unreasonable and though I will not defend the Listing of Popish or Irish Souldiers or the Granting Commissions to Popish Commanders yet it is very hard to prove this to be a making War upon the Nation unless you can suppose there may be War made without Fighting and as for those Violations of the Laws which you suppose were made only upon the presumption of this standing Army this is likewise very hard to affirm since how can you tell that the Judges and Ministers would not have given the same Opinions and advices concerning the Dispensing Power Chimney Money the Ecclesiastical Commission had there been no Army at all rais'd since they might for ought I know have presum'd that the People of this Nation had been sufficiently convinc'd of the truth of the Doctrines of Passive Obedience and Non-resistance as not to have needed a Standing Army to back what he had already done tho' contrary to Law but as for the latter part of your Dicourses say the People ought to have waited till the King had call'd a Parliament and then if they had betray'd their trust and given up our Religion and Liberties as you suppose they would have done it had been
then time enough and not till then for the Nation to have call'd in the Prince of Orange and His Dutc-hmen to their Deliverance so that till this Parliament had been try'd you could not say that matters were altogether desperate F. I see you do all you can to prove that the Kings Raising an Army wherein he had Listed so many Popish Officers and Souldiers and which were like to be daily increas'd upon us was no making War upon the Nation because they had not yet actually robb'd or murder'd People and you may with as much reason tell me that a Thief upon the High-way do's not use any Violence upon the party he robbs if he should only clap a cok'd Pistol to his breast without asking him to deliver his Money Now I suppose you will not deny but that the Passinger would quickly understand the meaning of that sign and wo'd soon deliver his Purse for fear of loosing his life apply this to the Chimney Money that has been rais'd upon the poor part of the Nation and the taking away the Charters from the Corporations merely through the Terrour of this standing Army and see if the Similitude do's not exactly fit and for what you say concerning the presuming upon the Doctrine of Passive Obedience and so might have done the same Arbitrary things whether he had raised an Army or not tho' I am very glad you confess that those Doctrines encouraged the Kings Arbitrary proceedings yet I must Beg your Pardon if I cannot beleive the rest whatever thoughts the King might have of the Major part of the Clergy Nobility and Gentry Yet certainly he had no such good Opinion of the Ordinary People who compos'd the Militia and indeed are the Hands of the Kingdom since you confess the King did not look upon them as sufficiently Loyal and therefore was forc'd to maintain a Standing Army for fear of them So that it seems the Nation was not yet thorough pac'd in your Doctrines of Passive Obedience and Non-resistance as you would have had them but that even this Standing Army when it was to Fight against the Religion and Liberties of their own Country it was not to be trusted the King himself was convinc'd of when he so lately ran away from them at Salisbury and because some of them deserted him he feared the rest wo'd not Fight in so unjust a Quarrell But as for the rest of Tour Speech that the People sho'd have â—arried till matters had become altogether desperate and that a Parliament had actually given us our Religion Civil Liberties and Properties to the Kings Arbitrary will that had been indeed intalling Slavery upon us by a Law and would have made good the Proverb of shuâ—â—ing the Stable Door after the Horse is Stolen and puts me in mind of a Story I have heard of a Gentleman whose House being beset by Thieves who were actually breaking in at a Window and that he was about to shoot at them his over scrupulous Chaplain who I suppose had nicely study'd your Doctrine of Nonresistance desired his Patron to forbear because the Thieves had not as yet sufficiently declar'd their wicked intentions by assaulting or robbing any Body in the House But I suppose the Gentleman was not such a Fool as to take his Chaplains advice and a great part of the Nation was too sensible of the dangers they saw hang over their Heads than to follow your Opinion M. I see you are very free in your Comparisons in making the Kings Late Army little better then Thieves and then what Opinion you have of the King himself who headed 'em I leave it to your self to consider but since Similitudes are no Arguments I shall not trouble my self to argue this point any longer with you since I see it is to little purpose but yet let your right of Resistance be what it will in desperate cases yet I am sure that diverse Lords and Gentlemen of your Opinion can no way justify their renouncing all Allegiance to his Majesty by adhering to a Foreign Prince and by their Late advising the same Prince to call a Free Parliament without taking any notice of the King or making any more Addresses to him about it than if he had never been their Anointed Soveraign and indeed it was a burning shame as well as a crying Sin for the Nobility Gentry and People in and about this great and populous City to let their King be hurryed away Prisoner by a handful of Dutch-men though his Majesty hath had since the good Fortune to escape out of their hands when he saw there was no other means to fail him F. In answer to what you have now said I must freely tell you that if the resistance that hath been made against the Army Commission'd by the King was Lawfull so has all that has been done in pursuance of that resistance been alike Lawfull and necessary and therefore what if I tell you that the King by breaking the Fundamental Constitution of the Kingdom and by twice going away without ever offering to repair those breaches and give the Nation any sufficient satisfaction for the same has not only put himself in a state of War against the People but has also thereby ceas'd to be King or if you will have it more plainly has lost and forfeited his right to the Crown M. This is rare Commonwealth Doctrine and of the same batch with that of Bradshaws and Cooks Speeches against King Charles the First but I thank God I have learn'd Loyaler Principles and do firmly believe that a King of England cannot for any Tyrrany or breach of Laws whatsoever forfeit his Crown or Royal Dignity as you suppose But since this is a new Doctrine I shall not be unwilling to hear what you have to say upon this Subject another time since it is now too late to pursue this Argument any further F. Before I make any reply to what you have now said I desire not to be misunderstood as if I call all the Kings Late Army Thieves or himself the Captain of them since in Similes it is sufficient if they agree in some common propertie without being the same things to which they are compar'd tho this much I may safely say that those that take Free Quarter without consent of the owners in time of Peace and those who support 'em in it are no better than Thieves but since you desire to hear my reasons for this opinion I have now given you I desire that we may have another meeting to debate this weighty question and then I will likewise hear whatever you have to say against it but I must tell you by the way that you are very much out in making my opinion of the same batch with that of the Regicides for it appears plainly by the Printed Tryal of the King that they acknowledged him for King of England at the same time when they read his Indictment to him whereas I affirm the contrary and