t
 
 M 
 
 ..>.^-<'' 
 
 
 
 k.
 
 .^lIi.' 
 
 .^.^. ..3Mi^.
 
 ■tttiMMmMMMkMMiaa 
 
 BIBLIOTHECA POLITIC A: 
 
 OR, AN 
 
 E N (iU I R Y 
 
 INTO THE 
 
 Antient Gonftitution 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 ENGLISH GOVERNMENT, 
 
 With Refped to the juft Extent of the R e g a l 
 P o ur E R, and the Rights and Liberties of the 
 Subject. 
 
 Wherein all the Chief Arguments both for and againft 
 the LATE REVOLUTION, are Impartially 
 Reprefented and Confider'd. 
 
 In Fourteen DIALOGUES. 
 
 Colleded out of the beft Authors, Antient and Modern. 
 
 By James Tyrrell, Efq; 
 
 LONDON, 
 
 Printed for D.Browne at Exeter-Change in the Strand, A.Bell in Cori/hil, 
 J. Darby in Bartholomew-Clofe, A. Bettesworth in Pater-mfier-Row, 
 J. P F M B E R T o N in Fkctflreet, C. R i v i n o t o n in St. Paul's Church-yard, 
 J. Hook E in Fketfireet, R. Cruttenden and 1\ Cox in Cheapftde, 
 J. B A T T L E Y in Pater-mJier-Row, and E. S y m o n in Cornhil. M.DCC.XV^llI. 
 
 I
 
 KU; 
 
 A 
 
 i- 
 
 ■ ( 
 
 'I
 
 (iii) 
 
 J!4 
 
 t 
 
 r^ 
 
 'n 
 
 THE 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 AVING outofCuriofity, for fome Years before, 
 as well as fince, the late wonderful and happy Re- 
 volution, carefully perus'd, for the Satisfaftion of 
 my own Confcience, all Treatifes of any Value 
 that have been publifli'd concerning the Origin 
 and Rights of Civil Government ; as well of Mo- 
 narchy as other kinds of it, and alfo concernmg 
 —«==—=. the antient Government and fundamental Confti- 
 tutions of this Kingdom : I found it necefTary, in order to the better 
 retaining of what I had read, and making a more certam Judgment 
 upon it to write down the moft confiderable Arguments on both 
 fides aswellof thofewho will hdive Monarchy to be "Jure Divwo, zs 
 of thofe who allow it only to Government in general ; ot thofe_ who 
 maintain abfolute Subjcftion, or P nffive-Obedknce as they call it, as 
 well as of thofe who hold Reftllance in fome Cafes to be neceffary ; ot 
 thofe that maintain our Monarchy to have bec^n Imtted by the Con- 
 ftitutionit felf, and of thofe that fuppofe all our Rights znd Uhmtes, 
 nay, the very Beingof VArluments, to owe their Ongm wholly to the 
 gracious Conceflion and Favour of our former Kings. 
 
 Having made impartial Colkaions of this Nature, and fiiew d 
 them to fome Perfons of Judgment, they thought they might be ol: 
 great Ufetbr fatisfying fome Mens Doubts concerning lawful Obe- 
 dience to their late Majelties King William and (^ttn Mary. Thele 
 Gentlemen look'd upon it as the beft and moft ingenuous way of con- 
 vincing the Scrupulous, to propofe the Arguments fairly on botU 
 fides, without interpofing my own Judgment ; but leaving it to 
 the intelligent and impartial Reader, to embrace that Side where he 
 found the moft rational and ftrongeft Arguments. 
 
 This Task, tho troublcfome enough, I was prevail d with to un- 
 dertake, not for the lake of Fame, but merely for the publick Good 
 and Happinefs of my Country. , r ^j 
 
 Being alfo fenfible that a Subjea of this Importance deferv d a great 
 deal of^ains, and to be handled in a more artihcial Method than 
 the old dry Scholaftick Way of Objcaion and Solution; I thought it 
 would prove more pleafant as well as profitable to the Reader, efpc-
 
 iv The PREFACE. 
 
 cially thofe of our young Nobility and Gentry, for whom I princi- 
 pally defign'd this Undertaking, to digeft what I had writ into Dia- 
 logues or Converfations, fuppos'd to be held betwixt two intimate 
 Friends, who, notwithftanding their different Principles in Politicks, 
 had always maintained a ftrift and generous Correfpondence. I was 
 the more inclin'd to this Method, becaufe I obferv'd that writing of 
 Controverfies by way of Dialogue, according to true Rules, had ob- 
 tain'd well among intelligent Readers ; and becaufe my Subje£ls are 
 of a nice nature, and that my Collections contain ftrid Inquiries 
 into the Principles laid down in the Writings of feveral Perfons of 
 great Reputation for Learning and Ingenuity. 
 
 I was fenfible how invidious a Task it muft prove to write on pur- 
 pofe againft fo many Great Men, and .how troublefom and tedious it 
 would be to my felf, as well as to the Reader, to confute any Au- 
 thor Page by Page ; which Method, I perceiv'd, had made Anfwers to 
 Books very unacceptable to the "World. And tho I grant that writing 
 by way of Dialogue has likewife ObjcLtions and Difficulties, as being 
 more diffufive, and taking up more time, where either the one or the 
 other Difputant is apt to rove from the Subject ; yet I make bold to 
 affirm, that this may be in a great meafure prevented by the Writer, 
 if he keep clofe to the Queftion, and not ftart a frefh Hare till the 
 old one is run down. So that a Man may make and anfwer Ob- 
 jedions in as few Words this way, as by Polemical Difcourfes. 
 And tho it be granted, that Matters of Form in Dialogues are more 
 tedious, yet the Reader, as well as Traveller, will find, that the 
 Pleafantnefs of the Road often makes amends for its being fome- 
 what about. 
 
 Whether I have truly purfued the Rules of Dialogue, muft be left 
 to the Reader's Judgment ; but I can juftly affirm, that I have care- 
 fully avoided all bitter and reflefting Language on either fide, having 
 defign'd thefe Difcourfes io^ common Places of Argument^ and not Forms 
 of Railing. I have alfo declin'd fliewing my felf a Party, or giving 
 my own Opinion in any Queftion, and therefore have not made either 
 of my Difputants the other's Convert; tho nothing is more eafy in 
 writing Dialogues as well as Romances, than to make the Knight- 
 Errant always beat the Giant. 
 
 In all my Difcourfes I have confider'd and contracted the beft Ar- 
 guments I could find in the moft confiderable antient and modern 
 Authors, either in Latin or Englijb, efpecially in thofe that have writ 
 on either fide fince the late Revolution. As for thofe in our own 
 Language, wherever I conceiv'd any Author to fpeak fo well, or to 
 argue fo clofely, that to put it in other Words would make it worfe ; 
 I have always put the Arguments of both the Difputants in their own 
 Words : and becaufe I would not aft the Plagiary, have truly quoted 
 the Book and Page from whence I took them. For other Authors, I 
 hope none will take it ill, if I have fometimes made bold to contract 
 their Arguments, without altering their Senfe or Words further than 
 by putting in or out an Expreffion to make the Stile run more fmooth. 
 I alfodefire them not to think that I write on purpofe to confute 
 them, fince my Defign is not to write againft any Man's Opinions, as 
 they are his, but only to examine them freely, in order to an impar- 
 tial Difcovery of the Truth. And fince fome of them have been 
 perhaps too commonly and favourably received by our ordinary 
 Gentry and Clergy, if any ingenious Perfon will take upon him far- 
 ther
 
 The PREFACE. 
 
 ther to aftert or vindicate any Opinion here quelHon'd by the one or 
 the other Difputant, and will clearly and fairly flicw me where anv 
 Argument might have been put more home, or any Objedlion more 
 folidly anfwer d ; I fliall, initead of taking it amifs, give him my 
 thanks for his pains, and do here promife to infert all, or at leail the 
 Subllance of his Arguments under their proper Heads with all due 
 Acknowledgments: only I defire him, whoever he be, to forbear all 
 harfli Reflexions and coarfe Language ; otherwife he mull: pardon 
 me if I only take notice of his Reafons, and neglect his PaflTions. 
 
 I hope no candid Reader will flight thofe Dialogues, which treat 
 of Opinions that at prefent may feem to be of falhion, 'viz. the Divine 
 Right of Monarchy, and Succemon from the Patriarchal Power given 
 by God to Jditm; for every one remembers the time when our Pul- 
 pits and PrefTes would Scarce fuffer any other Dodrine to be preach'd 
 or publifli'd on thofe Subjeds. It fares with fome Political Opinions 
 as with Falhions, which are never fo generally receiv'd and worn, as 
 •when they have been in vogue at Court. Thofe Divines and LaW:- 
 •yers, who were the Inventors or new Vampers of them, commonly 
 -receiv'd the greateft Rewards and Preferments : fo that as the Court- 
 Taylors did with Fafliions, they invented fuch Doftrines and Opi- 
 nions as were moft burdenfom and uneafy to all forts of People, ex- 
 cept a few Great ones, who were to be Gainers by them. 
 
 I defire it may be obferv'd, that however odd or unreafonable 
 thefe Dodrines may feem to mofl: Men now, yet certainly they mull 
 formerly have feem'd to carry a great Appearance of Truth, fince 
 they were able to captivate the Reafon of the major part of both 
 Houfes of Convocation in the beginning of King James the Firft's 
 Reign, when by feveral of their Canons they declar'd them to be the 
 only fure Foundations of all Civil Authority, and of Obedience to it ; 
 ^as appears by the Treatife, call'd Bifhop Overal'j Convocation-Book. 
 And tho neither King nor Parliament thought fit to give thofe Ca- 
 nons the Stamp of Civil Authority, and make them Law, yet this did 
 •not hinder feveral of the Learned Clergy and Laity from embracing 
 thofe Opinions ; fuch as Sir Rohert F?7wer,and his Vindicator Mr. Bohun, 
 and the Reverend and Learned Bilhop Sander fon^ with divers others 
 of Note : whofe Arguments I have made ufe of and confider'd in 
 fome of thefe Dialogues, but with as little Reflexion as poflible, 
 fince I know what is due to the Memory of fuch Great and Worthy 
 Perfons. This was the reafon why I only made ufe of the initial Let- 
 ters of their Names, or the Titles of their Books, in the Margin ; 
 which are explain'd by an Index at the beginning of this Work, as 
 they were at the beginning of each Dialogue in the firft Edition : 
 what is not fo mark'd, I defire the Reader to look upon the Words, 
 not the Senfe, to be my own ; for I don't pretend to be an Inventor 
 of new Notions in Politicks, there being no Man more fcnfible tiian 
 my felf of that old Latin Sentence, NihH dictum quod non diifum frius. 
 
 Tho the Title of the firft Dialogue mentions no more than the 
 difcufling of the Qrieftion, whether Monarchy be of Divine Right, 
 yet the natural Power of Fathers, Mafters of Families, and Freemen, 
 are diftinftly treated of, and clofcly enquir'd into, as being the firft 
 Elements or Principles of all Civil Powers, as thofe alone out of 
 which at firft they could be regularly made : And tho I have made 
 one of the Difputants argue pretty ftiffly againft the Divine Right of 
 Monarchy^ and of Indefeasible Hereditary Succejjion to Crotvns •, yet I de- 
 ft clare
 
 vi ■ The PREFACE. 
 
 clare I am not what the World calls a Refubliati or CfmmoKwealjh- 
 Mun, nor do I hereby defign or defire Alterations in t,^e^ .Government 
 either of Church or'Statc, fince none can aid mire our excellent Con- 
 ftitution more than my felf: mucli lefs-'dq I prefer an Ele^ive to ^n 
 He;eaitarj! Succcffion to the Crow.ri, for t'jtiftly efteem. the latter tp 
 be the molt excellent, if not the baly means' t;o t'rcyent allDiTputes 
 and Civil Wars about Sucafflun ; and tlierefo're Is never totjc departed 
 from, unlefs whenfome Natural or Mom/ |)iiability in the Perfon, gjl* 
 ■other unavoidable NecefTity, render it abfoli^tely iiicoafiflent with the 
 publick Peace and Safety of the Kingdom.,.^',.'. , '.' .7^j gjv '^"'^' J - 
 ' Therefore as a Man may be truly devouoyKhout SuperTl^tlon,\vmch ' 
 is a Corruption or Abufe of Religion;- fqTtliink'a Subjeel may. .he 
 truly Loyal and Obedient to his Prince, thb 'he has never heard of, 
 pt.dots not believe any Divine Ri^ht of M'omrfhji df^v'iv^^^rom.J/i/^if 
 artd A'oah ; or of Hehdifarj 'Suca^ofi,' from God's Pioniife, That.Ci^ 
 Ihould rule over ^^f/. Nor have 1 any Averfioh to, Abfolute Jvlpr 
 narchy as fuch, could .1 be afllirM that Pi-inc'e^ would be alway^_^ 
 wife and as good as they ought tobe, for 1 ovyn.that leyeral Katioi^ 
 have never been more happy than. under fijpK'Monarchs. The^fU- 
 ' «z^« Empire, for i;ifi:ance,, never arrived to a,'greater Jieight of Riclifs 
 aJnd Power, if we hiay believe Hlftbrians,, il\a,6^;uriaQr Nerva^^rAli»^ 
 and the two Afitcaims : "So ,that the Fault, is hot in Abjolute Mo»af^ 
 as fuch, but in the. geiiei'at C6rrupEi6n"6f humfili"N4ture, jVyhich rare- 
 ly produces Perfons of ilrch SVifdom,; Gbojtf|e||^''.and, ^f.lier /\bilifjg^ 
 A^'are recjuiritti for fo great, si Truft. . ;', ", '_" f,^//',' 'i avViL •'!-4.f::idi 
 . r^confefs Sub)e£ls maj/fbe happy and' CDnteiifed'enQygli, if th^y 
 jileife, undet- aAy t'orm of Government, whei^ th€;,,^qvernors.|aj-e 
 of, eq\]al Capacity and.'Honeft)^, and have a h^aL.rty Lp^-Cj a^d ^9^9SiJP 
 for the comrn.6j:i.Good of their People; biat,|wlle^^e^.iij|^fer a ^ 
 ing, it is not*^^6re F6rtAs' and empty Names- tH^tcqi}! mak^'p^cflii 
 ft : Therefore' I juftly' admire ihe Wifd.oini of the indent, Gff/jt?^ 
 and Gothick Nations, whp preferM.a L//»/Vf<iMonarchy-'.'tp all q^lj^- 
 Forms of Government-, 'as an excellent M^/Vw betw'e^a the '^iil. 
 chiefs of Arbitrary Poirer, and thofe Ihconveniericies that attend Re- 
 publicks, where either the common People or Nobility muft goveri?.' 
 I, like wife hope, that tho I make one of, my Difputants fhew the 
 Abfurdity and fatal Confequences of Sir Kc^frM'/'/wer's Principles, 
 yet the Reader will not from thence infer, that I pafs an abfolute Judgi. 
 ment againll them ; much kfs have I done this out of any prejudice 
 to Sir Robert J with whom tho I was never acquainted, I honour his 
 Memory, becaufe his Writings flicvy him to have been a Perfon o^" 
 genteel Learning, and very ingenious : But whether his Principles 
 be deftrudive to the Fundamental Conftitution of this Governm,ent, 
 I fubmir to the Reader's impartial Judgment ; who I hope will, 
 without Attachment to Party or Fattion, determine according" tQ 
 the Merits of the Caufe, and obferve the Apoftle's Rule, to try ^ 
 things^ and hold faft that which is good. I beg the Reader likewife 
 to Ddliev^e, that tho under the Name of a ireenun I liaye argue(^ 
 againft an, Opinion now and lately much in vogue, viz.J[hat an ^m 
 folate itrefiJfibiHty is an hfef arable Prerogative of att Sovereign, PorverSj hi. 
 they Monarchies or Commomveatths \ yet no Man rhore abhors all unne* 
 cefiary Refiftance or Rebellion againft Supreme Magiftrates, andi^ 
 more for an abfolute Siibmiflion by all particular Pcrlbns, whether, 
 publitk or private, in cafe of the higheft Injuries and Opprcfhons 
 ■ ", •'-' • • done
 
 r/j^ PREFAGB. vii 
 
 donc'to tUemljcIves alone^- and wliere the com 'iioi*^ Good of the Com- 
 ■raunicy is not jii|i mediately concern'd : And this I own to be tlieir 
 Duty, not Oid;)) out of a generous Regard to the Peace and Tran- 
 quillky of the C^omnionwealth,^/ hereof, they are Members, (and 
 ,\yhicb ought .rfcfc to be difturb'd, . to revenge or redrefs a few private 
 Injuries) but aUb from the expreft Command of God in the Holy Scrip- 
 ture, whicli exprcdy tbrbids not only aI|^Revenge, but even Selt- 
 Dcfence, whilji the Supreme Powersiid legally, cho perhaps contrary 
 to the llrid.Rulcsr of Jultice and, Equity in iiich particular Cafes. 
 Yet "for all this, I doubt whether thofe Precepts do extend to all Re- 
 iijt^pce what€i;'er, viz.. of any whole Nation or great Body of Men, 
 .ur^Ofe Prefefvation or Freedom from intolerable Slavery and Oppref- 
 iiQny lanay.rendei- it necelTary for the Good of tlic Commonwealch, 
 ai^i^.js'DO, ofher, way CO- be procni-'d but by, a. vigorous Refilfance, 
 Of/ eljlu .ipji^iog jwith fome powerful Neighbours,, who Ihall intcrpofe . 
 ^.T^ljCiA'Llj^niiii^lerajiGe.-^So. diat if fuch a Rcfiftaocc be iever lawful, 
 ic^'C^ji be Mp0t4,nP;Iefj»jnctmeritGUs an acco.unr, tJian tliat of a General 
 ^>^p^fk)» 'cidvi\\ oi the Uvles, Libcrtaes, Religion, or Properties of a 
 :W^Ql,e^or n\ajor> patt of a,!Nationj;':as they are eilablilliM by the Law 
 p^' jSTay!^-^ [0\'::thp Fondftmental Cbnftitution.xjf thofe particular Gci- 
 .ve^ftiiients \/Ji9fp. fwh;ihfuppor table Tyranny and Oppreffions are 
 thq5cP^*^''cifcdo ij^rid. ijfjtlys be not Jawful in fuch extraordinary Cafes, 
 k,sy/^uidieem';0S,ifiGod had prefeii'd' the unjuji Power or Force, and 
 iije o^^ix^Grftttikar of ^he Gcxfewcif/, befoire the Goo'fi and Happinefs 
 qI" tl^e^fioverjffd', wliichjisj contrary,. to the main End of all Civil Gc^- 
 'v^vfifq,€DXi_ "viz^ ithQ comnipo'Good. ajad Happinefedf Mankind, even 
 ^^rthoie whOiaj^againftaUlReriftancie mufl:.fiUow.-i-,,-'.'.j'>i vi'.i . '•■' :' 
 :'! ,Bnr.whetjii9rifiJch' Rdiiftanice be intK in tbedie jCafes a lawful, n^y 
 onjly -Means, fpi-,.tbe;jafQg-ut^d and. Deli verande. of fuch opprefs'd Na- 
 tiogiSi :I.l«ay$ i^$fl<)tbe Judgmeat. of the inipartiai Reader^ upon the 
 'Perufal of* my Dialogues on this Subject. . !., 
 
 .jpj'(^|l^owf\?)ei- Ci'iniijjai.ffoQae ha'vie eridcavoor'd to render the Doc- 
 tviae.pf Rdifta'ace eveftiia fuch cafes, yet I mufl: ftill believe, till 
 coijiviAC;d : of the ?onti-ary,:".that the Quelfion being only Moral or 
 iPoUti9)aJ<,,.an4 IJ9S. about tiny Point of Faith or Law, the Affirmative 
 may be fafcly, maincain'dij without aliy Guilt of Herefy or Treafon. 
 .• I furchor deUfA it .tn,ay,ibe obfcrv'd, that, tho/in tiie Diicourfes on 
 jhis^^Mbie^t. I-h(:|ve made Qoe of tl>e Difputanns malic ufc: not only 
 of tli§ ^^fgurtiant^, but of the Ex^Jre^Qons of two Learned Divines 
 yn liCKTijC late Treatifes on this Hcaxl /yet I didiit not firoDi.any Defign 
 jtO'Wi-ife againft,tbem, or; thofe Opinions as dicirs, fioceodiers made 
 .ufeb/.clie.iame ^Jigumeints or Texts On the fame View :before them. 
 ;B»|t;.as it rauftibe confejfs'd, that none have miaag'd the Coatro- 
 varfy ■fJvith'befccer i\rgument and greater Elod[ucnce, I liope chcy wiW 
 ;iQt t^Ti-e it amjfe^'; if, put of a julf Value to tlieir Learning, I have 
 pat diat.pOiVt ^f tlie.Contrp^crfy in their Words, as the bsib I could 
 meet 'With, aj^dj^wJlkh 1 duril not pretend to alter ; bm as for the 
 ^ni^ers, I liaYC given.thcmi in ray own, or elfe in the Words of 
 tvj^o.ubte Jl\^nb:QK$,n(*iba. lioderxook to anfwier-.w.hat thofe Divines 
 ^a4;;^fit^V.. vx\k{<'. rr-.,' V'ii^ 'I irif f 'i.-i '"' 
 
 -:; AfidifiaqcJ dpn't take all that Has been laid down on either fide 
 forunqiiertiQoablp. DemantlnatiDns, I hope neither Party will take it 
 ill that I have fckjrly iiepneifented the flrongcft and moil plauiible Ar- 
 guiiKjnts oabptliijjdcs ; for Truth will not look the worfe, or Ide 
 
 ground.
 
 viii The PREFACE. 
 
 ground, if it appeirs in its true natural Drefs againfi: its Op^ofite, 
 Error. But if a' great deal of what has been faid, by Perfons too vio- 
 lent on either fide, appear to be mere precarious Opinions, whofe 
 beft Authority is from the great Names of thofe that have broach'd 
 them; I hope no indifferent Perfon will take it ill, if I endeavour to 
 difcover thofe Miftakes, fince all Men are liable to Errors : and as 
 none can be more fenfil# of this than my felf, fo when either o^ 
 thofe Learned Perfons, or any other, fliall convince me of weak or 
 falfe Realbnings, I promife to retrad them with the firft Oppor- 
 tunity. 
 
 As to my Difcourfes upon the Supreme Legiflative Power, and the 
 Fundamental Conifitution of our Government, together with the 
 Antiquity of Great Councils or Parliaments ; and whether they al- 
 ways confifted of Bifhops, Barons or Temporal Lords, and Com- 
 mons ; is a Queftion to be decided only from the Hiftories and Laws 
 of the Nation. And I dare aflure the Reader, that I have advanc'd 
 nothing upon it on either fide, but what I have produc'd good Au- 
 thorities for, either from the Hiftories and Governments of our own 
 or neighbouring Nations, or from the Colleftions of our Englifh Saxon 
 Laws, and antient as well as modern Writers upon our Laws ; and 
 laftly, from our Statutes fince the reputed Conqueft, without omit- 
 ting any Authority that I judged material to be urged on either part, 
 i-: As for thofe Parliamentary Records here quoted, they are eithec 
 fuch as have been already printed from the Rolls in the Tower, or 
 other Offices at Weftminjier^ and fo are allow'd for authentick, or 
 elfe are fuch as have not yet been made publick ; for the Truth of 
 which, the Reader may fearch the Records themfelves, if he have any 
 Diftruft that I have not quoted them fairly. And I can farther at. 
 fure the Reader, from better Judgments than my own, that he will 
 find more here than ever was yet publifh'd at once, or perhaps at 
 all, upon thofe important Subjetts. 
 
 As to the fixth Dialogue, I muft own the Subjefl: of it to be one 
 of the hardeft: and moft important, tho perhaps in the Judgment of 
 fome, the dryeft and moft unpleafant part of my Task, viz. to adjuft 
 who were antiently the conftituent Parts or Orders of Men that 
 made up our Legiflative AfTemblies. That the Bifhops, Abbots, Priors, 
 Earls, and chief Thanes or Barons, were principal Members, is gran- 
 ted by all Parties ; but whether there were from the very Original 
 of thefe Great Councils, or till long after the coming in of the Nof'^ 
 mam^ any Reprefentatives for the Commons, as we now call them, 
 in diftintlion from the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, is made a quef- 
 tion. The firft who raifed the Doubt, for ought I can find, was 
 Polydore Virgil^ an Italian, who wrote the Hiftory of England in the 
 fixteenth Century, and it hath been continued by fome Antiquaries 
 fince that time : tho the firft who undertook to prove the contrary, 
 was the Author of a Treatife publifh'd by James Homl in the Cottoni 
 Pofihumny under the Name of Sir Robert Cotton, about 1654. And af- 
 ter him, this Notion of the Bifhops, Lords, and other Tenants in capite, 
 being the fole Reprefentative for the whole Nation in thofe Councils, 
 was next printed in the fecond part of Sir Henry Sfelmanh Gloffary, 
 Tit. Varliamentum ; where King jfo^»'s Charter is brought as the main 
 Argument to prove that Affertion. The next who appeared in Print 
 on this Subjeft was Sir Wtlliam Dugdale in his Origints JuridiciaUs ' 
 who, tho he tranfcribM the fame Notion and Arguments from Spel 
 
 man's
 
 The- PREFACE. ix 
 
 »»4»'s GloiTary .; yet he allows our Commons to have been always 
 fome way reprelcnted in Parliament, tho not by Mn^mbers of their own 
 chuling : notwithltanding which, he agrees with the Author of the 
 Paflage in tlie GlolTary, that the Commons Hrll began by Rebellion in 
 the 49th of Henry HI. 
 
 Which Opinions being look'd upon not only as novel and erroneous, 
 but dangerous to the fundamental Rights and Liberties of the People 
 of this Nation, they were oppos'd by iVi/Iiam Petit E(q; in his Trea- 
 tife, intitlcd, The Rights of the Commons of England affated, ^c. He 
 was fecondcd by the Author of the Trcaufe,caird,jfj»/\,i/^^/(?raw/'^c/>/ 
 nova. Soon afcer both thofe Books were animadvertei upon by Dr. 
 Brady^ in two Editions of his Auiwersto them ; but the Rights ot the 
 Commons were again vindicated by the Author of Jani Anglorum^ &c. 
 4n another Treatife, intitled, f^us Anglorum tb ayitiqao^ which has not 
 yet been anfwer'd. 
 
 I have been the more particular in my Account of thofe Authors, 
 becaufe this Controverfy being largely debated in them, I thouglit it 
 proper, for faving the trouble of reading fo many Books, to reduce 
 all the material Arguments and Authorities made ufe of by both Par- 
 ties, in this weighty Controverfy, into this and the two tbllowing 
 Dialogues ; and have, as near as I could, confin'd my felf to the words 
 of thofe Authors, as will appear by the Qiiotations in the Margin. 
 
 I mull own, that having had a long and familiar Acquaintance 
 with Mr. Petit^ he furniOi'd me with divers Authorities both in Ma- 
 nufcript and Print, not hitherto taken notice of by any Writer on 
 this Subjed. And had Dv.Brady^ or any of his Friends, thought fit 
 to communicate their Obje3.ions againll: any thing I have writ, I 
 fhould have fairly publilh'd them, with fuch Anfwers as the Cafe 
 might have requir'd. 
 
 I hope the Reader will pardon me, if I feem too prolix in the Inter- 
 pretation of divers Words and Phrafes, us'd- b)^Dr. Brady and hisOp- 
 4)onents in a quite different Senfe from our antient Hiftorians, Re- 
 cords, and Statutes ; for if the various Ufe and equivocal Meanings of 
 thofe ExprelFions be truly ftated and laid open, according to the feve- 
 ral Ages in whicii thofe Authors hv'd, or fuch Laws were made, I 
 reckon this great Difpute will foon be at an end. 
 
 I think it needlefs to infill: lipon 'the' Nature of the other Dia- 
 logues. The Defign of them is obvious, from the fummary Account 
 of the Subjeft prefixed to them ; fo that all I (liall add, is, that in each 
 of them, as well as the former, there are many incident Q^uellions 
 handled of Law, Hiftory, and Divinity, that relate naturally to the 
 Subjed. The Reader will eafily find this, by confulting the large 
 Alphabetical Index annex'd to this Edition, whicii makes it a com- 
 pleat Common-place Book for underftandmg our Conftitution : a 
 thing hitherto very much wanted, and not to be met with, but by 
 confulting multitudes of Books, at no fmall Expence both of Mony 
 and Time. 
 
 I.can affure the Reader, that all the Authorities here made ufe of 
 from Hillorians and Records, are truly cited, without leaving out or 
 concealing any thing that I thought made for or againft either Opi- 
 nion. And as for the Records, they are either fuch as having been fuf- 
 ficiently try'd, have pafs'd for authentick betwixt Dr. Brady and his 
 Antagonills, or elfe fuch as I my felf have feen andexamin'd, and 
 confider'd tJie Purport of them carefully. If any fufpe£l the contra- 
 
 b ry,
 
 The PREFACE. 
 
 ry, 1 have given them a fair Opportunity, by my Quotations, to ex- 
 amine the 1" rath of it tliemfelves ; fo that by weighing and comparing 
 Hiftorian with Hii^orian, and Record with Record, and fometimes 
 both together, as the SubjeQi-Matter requires, they may be able to 
 make a right and impartial Judgment of the whole. 
 
 I hope that the Arguments, in all the following Dlfcourfes, will 
 prove lb plain and convincing to careful and unprejudic'd Readers, 
 that they may as eafily difcover the Truth, as an honefl: and unbisifs'd 
 Jury-Man can, at a Trial, judge on which fide the Right and Juf- 
 ticeof the Caufe inclines, upon the bare hearing of Evidence on both 
 fides, even before the Court hath fumm'd it up. But on which fide 
 foever the Reader brings in his Verdift, I heartily wifli that God 
 may direft his Mind, and guide his Judgment to find out and era- 
 brace the Truth J which as it was the only end of my writing at 
 firft, is now the end of republifhing thefe Dialogues : which, fince the 
 principal Subjed of them has again fo lately been controverted, not 
 only by the Pen, but by the Sword, 'tis hop'd may be of ufe to fettle 
 the Minds of People, who to their Coft have been fo frequently mif- 
 ied, becaufe they did not underftand our Conftitution. 
 
 Aii
 
 ( ^'^) 
 
 
 An Alphabetical Catalogue of the 
 LETTERS, by which the Names and 
 Books of Authors are denoted in the Margin 
 of the following- Dialogues. 
 
 *b 
 
 B. A. A. 1"^^ Brad/s Aftfver to Mr. Cook's Argumentum Anti-Norman- 
 
 \_J nicum. 
 B. A. J. Dr. Bradfs Animdhjerftons on jf««/ Anglorum fades nova. 
 B. A. P. Dv.Bradfs Anftver, Edi. in Folio, to bAv. Petu\ mtient Rights 
 
 of the Commons of England. 
 B. C P. Bohu/^^'i Concluftoii to Sir liobprt Filmer's Patriarcha. 
 B D. F. Bohun\ Defenc^: of Sir Robert I'ilmtr. 
 B. G. Dr. Braafs Glojfary at tlie end of his Anfwer to PetWs antient 
 
 Rights of the Cowmoy/i. 
 B. P. K. Dr. Bradfs Preface to i; s Hiflory. 
 B. P. P. Bohun's Preface to Patnarcha. 
 
 B. S. P. P. Bifhop Sanderfon's Preface to the Power of the Prince. 
 D.O. G. Filmer\ DireStions for Obedience to Governors. 
 F. A. M. M. Sir Robert Fiimer^s Anarchy of Mix'd or Limited, Monarchy, 
 F. D. O. Sir Robert Filmer'^s DireSiions to Obedience. 
 F. F. G. J. F timer'' s Freeholders Grand Inqaejl. 
 F. O. G. Sir Robert Filmer''s Obfervations on Forms of Government. 
 F. O. G. Sir Robert Filmer\ Obfervations on Grotius De Jure Belli & 
 
 Pacis. 
 F. P. Sir Robert Filmerh Patriarcha. 
 F. P. O. Sir Robert Filmer''s Preface to Obfervations on Arijfotle. 
 
 F. P. O. Sir Robert Filmerh Preface to his Political Obfervations. 
 
 G. J. B. Grotius de "jure Belli C' Pacis. 
 H. D. L. Harmony of Divine Law. 
 H. J. Dr. Hickes'^s Jovian. 
 
 H. P. O. Hijlory of Paffive-Obedience. 
 
 H. S. B. R. HejlirPs Stambttng-Blockof Rebellion^ Folio. 
 
 H. T. M. Hunton\ Treatife of Monarchy. 
 
 J. A. A. Jus Anglorum ab A.^r^'to. , 
 
 J, E. M G. Dr. John/lofi's Excellency of Monarchical Government. 
 
 L. b. V E/lrange^s Obfervators. 
 
 P. J. N. Puffendorf de jure Nat ur.t (jr Gentium. 
 
 P. N. M. Patriarcha non MonarJja. 
 
 P. P. R. C. Peti>.''s Preface to the Rights of the Commons of England a^ 
 
 ferted. 
 P. R. Plato Redivivus. 
 
 P. R. C.
 
 xii An Alphabetical Catalogue, &c. 
 
 p. R. C. Petit'^s Anttent Rights oj the Commons o/England ajferted. 
 
 R. H. C. Ruj[hworth's Hiftortcd Collet ions. 
 
 S. C. R. Dr. Sherlock's Cafe of Reftfiance. 
 
 S. P. P. Bifliop Sanderjon's Preface to Archbifliop Vfjerh Power of the 
 
 Prtnce. 
 T.T. G. Tipo Treat ifes of Government. 
 V. J. R. Vindicix Juris Regit. 
 U.S.A.S. Mr. Dudley Diggs^s VnUtvfalnefs of Subjects taking up Arms 
 
 a^ainfi their Sovereign^ Edit. 164}. 
 
 a lvii^^ 
 
 -?- .0 .9 /? 
 
 .n.q H 
 
 THfe
 
 C xiii ) 
 
 THE 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 Of the Enfiiing 
 
 DIALOGUES 
 
 pag. r 
 
 DIALOGUE r; 
 
 H E THE R Monarc/jj be Jure Divino. 
 D I A L. II. 
 
 Whether there can he made oat from the Natural, or Reve^f'd 
 Law of God, any Succeffion to Crowns by Divine Right. \o 
 
 D I A L. ni. 
 
 Vfhether Re f fiance of the Supreme Power, by a whole Nation, or People itt 
 Cafes of the Uft Extremity, can be jufttffd by the Law of Nature, or Rules 
 oftheQofpel. jQ^ 
 
 D I A L. IV. 
 
 Whether abfolute Non-Re ft fiance of the Supreme Powers be enjoin' d by the 
 Poclrine of the Gofpel, and was the antient Practice of the Primitive 
 Church, and the cor^ftant Do^rine of our Reformed Church of England. 
 
 156 
 
 DIAL. V. 
 
 Whether the Kjng be the fole Supreme Legiflative Power of the Kjngdom : 
 And whether our. Great Councils, or Parliaments, be a fundamental Par^ 
 vf the Govirnment, or elje proceeded from the k'avour and Conceffions of 
 former KJngs. 214 
 
 D I A t.
 
 xiv The CONTENTS. 
 
 DIAL. VI, VII. 
 
 Whether the Commons of England, reprefeated by fC,»tghts, Citizens, and 
 Burgejfes in Parliament, were one of the Three Ejlates in Parliament^ 
 before the ^()th of Henry III. or iSth of Edward I. 265 
 
 DIAL. vm. 
 
 ji Continuation of the former Difcourfe, concerning the Antiquity of the 
 Commons in Parliament ; wherein the be(t Authorities jor it are propofed 
 and examined : With an Entrance ufon the Queflion of Non-Kejijlance. 
 
 391 
 
 DIAL. IX. 
 
 Whether by the antient Laws and Con/litatioas of this Kingdom, as well as 
 by the Statutes of the 1 ^th and \^^th of Kjng Charles II. all Reftjlauce of 
 the Kjng, or of thofe commiffiond by him, are exfrejly forbid upon any 
 Pretence whatfoever. 
 
 And alfo, whether all thofe who affifled his Majefty Kjng William, 
 either before or after his coming over, are guilty of the Breach of this 
 Law. > ' 442 
 
 DIAL. X. 
 
 I. Whether a Kt»g 0/ England can ever fall from, or forfeit his Royal 
 Dignity for any Breach of an Original Contra^, or wilful Fiolation of the 
 fundamental Laws of the Kjngdom. 
 
 n. Whether Kjng William, the Norman, did by his Conquefi acquire fuch 
 anabfolute unconditional Right to the Crown of this Realm for himfelf and 
 his Heirs, as could never be lawfully refifled or forfeited for any Male-Ad- 
 rninijlration or Tyranny whatever. 498 
 
 D I A L. XL 
 
 I. In what fenfe all Civil Power is derived from God, and in what fenfe it m*j 
 
 be alfo from the People. 
 IL Whether his Majejly Kjng William, when Prince of Grange, had a 
 
 jufl Caufe of War again (I Kjng James II. 
 ni. Whether the Proceedings of his Majefty, before he was Kjngy as 
 
 alfo of the late Convention, in refpeB of the faid K^ng James, is jufli- 
 
 fable by the Law of Nations, and the Conflitution cf our Government. 
 
 555 
 DIAL. XIL 
 
 I. Whether the Vote of the late Convention, wherein they declared the Throne 
 to be vacant, can be jufliffd from the antient Conflitution and Cujloms of 
 this Kjngdom. 
 
 II? Whether the faid Convention, declaring K^ng William and Queen Mary 
 to be Lawful and Rightful Kjng and Queen of England, may be jufli- 
 fed by the faid Ccnftitution. 
 
 HI. Whether the Aci pajfed in the faid Convention, after it became a Par- 
 liament, whereby Roman Catholick Princes are debarred from fucceeding 
 to the Crown, was according to Law, 6z^ 
 
 DIAL.
 
 The CONTENTS, 
 
 XV 
 
 DIAL. XIII. 
 
 I. Whether an Oath of Allegiance may be taken to a Kjng or Queen de Fa6lo, 
 or for the time being. 
 
 II. What is the Obligation of fuch an Oath ; whether to an aHual Defence of 
 'their Title againfi all Perfons what foe ver, or elfe to a bare Submtjjion to 
 their Power. 
 
 III. Whether the Bijhopy who refufei to take the Oath of Allegiance to 
 their Maje/lies^ could be lawfully deprived of their Bifhopricks. 6<i 
 
 DIAL. XIV. 
 
 Shewing, that the Arraigning and Murder of Kjng Cliarles I. can by no 
 means be jujltfied by the Proceedings of the Convention-Parliament againfi 
 Kjng James II. upon his Abdication ; the Grounds anSk Manner thereof 
 being wholly different. Proved by an exall Relation of the Beginnings 
 Progrefsy and Iffae cf the late Civil War. 698
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 PAG E 39, Line. 24! for im^read be. P. ';4. I. 2$. for enjc'm'd read vn]ofi. P. p2. 1. 2^,fot 
 Belkrap read ielknap. P. 108. 1. 23. for Winzerus read Winxctm. P. 181. 1. <;3. for S(a/i/« 
 X, Slaves. The Pags which Jhoft'd he 1S6, is 191, P. 246. 1. 48. for fj^KX/<j//; read efftuxam. A* 
 the bottom of p. 25^. forJVi. r. I. id. /^e ?»;>«/ p, c«;4. P. 280. 1. 9. /f^r; the i-ttcft, for Oectmi 
 t. Oeconomi. lb. 1. 14. /r^w the bottom, for Fcdipl masica, r. S^c Viflmati-i,. T. 28 . 1. 2. /r«»» 
 the bottom, ioi Optimatis r. Optimates. V, iS-^. \. uU. ioc lords r. Lav.s, P. tcji. 1. -I, /w» /;&o 
 bottom^ for Comines r. Homines. P. 3 F4. 1. 5. /row j/;f bottom, for iho^uh r. the. P, gi^. 1. jo, 
 fox Principium r. Principum. P. 538. t. 24.frim thebottcm, tor hon^h v.tho. P. 369. ]. ic. from 
 the bottom, de\e In hefort Inquilini, P. 386. ]. d. for pervaded r.perfuaded. P. 464. J. 24. /r*;» 
 the bottom, {oi accountable r. unaccountable. P. 475. 1. 21. jrom the iottorn, fox Aiedioaue t. Media-, 
 que. P. 507. I. 5. lot the v. they. i. ^x^. \. 1%.. from tht tottiWf ioi l\(XX. Lex, P. 57^. 1. ir« 
 iox State I, fate. P. 629. U •). i'ox-declated r. declared, '" .
 
 vr- it- <r' * 't A .'■>- A A JS-- ft ^> A ^ -^ & ■&■ & ^ ^^ ^i -<Ji 
 
 ^ r^ ^ '# -5? cj- W W ^ % ^ ^ "^ ^ ■^ "^y ^^ ^ ■^ "5? '3" ^ 
 
 O R A N 
 
 E N Q U I R Y 
 
 INT'0-'THE 
 
 ANTIENT CONS7:,IXlJT|gN^ 
 
 •^ OF T H E 
 
 Englijh Government* 
 
 « tj^-^.- 
 
 I.:: :. 
 
 DIALOG U E I. 
 
 Whether Monarchy he Jure Divino. 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 Mr. Freeman, a Gentleman ; and Mr. Me an we ll, 
 
 a Civil Lawyer : 
 
 Suppofed to be immediately upon the late King J a m e s's firft Departure. 
 
 i^ *i,f^.,^, .■?•,*„■? JljcOOD morrow. Sir: What! at your Study thus early this 
 ^i^^^IG^'p Morning. 
 
 .^1 S.^^i^i^ § :* M. That is no wonder, if you were acquainted with 
 
 *o^^ G ft;^|«6 my Hours : But pray. Sir, may I not likewife ask you what 
 
 '^*^'5-'!P^^^^":* extraordinary Occafion brings you out of your Lodgings fo 
 
 ii', tS«i;x5S^(5f5(SQ rjjs much fooner than your ordinary. Time ? 
 
 '#^'•^"^'¥'#"4^ F. Why, Sir, I'll teU you. Being awake very early this 
 
 Morning, and not able to fleep for thinking on the great 
 
 Change that mighr happen, let either the King or Prince get tlic better ; and 
 
 hearing fome odd Rumours laft Night of the King's Intentions to go away : I 
 
 was relOivcd to get up, and go to the Coftee-houfe, to hear what News ; wiierc 
 
 I had fcarcc fat down, before a Gentleman comes in from Whitehall, and brings 
 
 us a certain Account, that the King withdrew himfeff this Morning between 
 
 three and four of the Clock, no Body knows whither, (tho' moft believe he is 
 
 gone after the Queen into France) which I thought would be fo furprizing (I will 
 
 not {ay welcome) to you, that being fo near your Lodgings, I thought it would 
 
 B be
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTICA. 
 
 be worth while to ftep up, and tell you of ir, and take your Thoughts of this 
 great (and I hope happy) Change, which fo great a Revolution is likely to pro- 
 duce in this Nation. 
 
 M. I thank you. Sir, for your Kindnefs, tho' it is not half an Hour ago, that 
 one I employ in fome Bufinefs relating to a Client of mine, came hither, and gave 
 me the fame account, tho' it was no great Surprize to me ; for ever fince Sunday^ 
 that the King fent the Queen and Prince away, I believ'd that he gave the Game 
 for loft. 
 
 F. I muft confefs I was of another Mind, and thought, that when he had fe- 
 cured the Queen and Child, he would have had oi)e Brufh with the Prince before 
 he could have got to London ; and if he had had the Worft of it, he could have but 
 gone away at laft. But to leap away on this manner, and to lofe three King- 
 doms without ever ftriking one flroke, it is nor, I confefs, fuitable to that high 
 Charader his Admirers have always had of his Courage and Condud. 
 
 M Alas ! good King : What wouldj you have trim do ? Ojf '^'hom cOftH^'he 
 rely on, when ioaie of his near Relations, and divers lifthofewjiotn he had'T^ed^ 
 almoflfrom nothing, had &ferted him ? How cottld he thjrfi ti?Wl an Array- of 
 Mercenaries, who being moft of them but the Dregs of the People, would, ir is 
 likely, rather have delivered him up to the Prince, than have ventured their Lives 
 for him. 
 
 F. What you have faid concerning his Majefty's Relations and Confkients de- 
 ferting him, makes rather againit than for the King's Caufe ; fince it cannot be 
 fuppofed they would have left a Prince to whom they were fo much obliged, to 
 join themfclves with his Enemy, from whom they had no reafon to exped greater 
 Advantages than they had already ; unlefs they had been fatisfied in their Con- 
 fciences, that the Protellant Religion eftablifli'd in thefc Nations, and alfo our 
 Civil Rights and Liberties, were in imminent danger of being utterly loft and 
 deftroyed. And tho' I grant that fome of the King's Officers and Soldiers went 
 over to the Prince ; yet, conlidering how few they were that did fo, not being 
 (as I am credibly informed) above feven or eight hundred Men at the moft, and 
 what great Numbers of Men he had left with him ; he might, methinks, have 
 turned out thofe Officers he fufpefted, and put others in their rooms, who would 
 have engaged to live and die with him ; and if this would hot have done, he 
 might have fent thofe Regiments he moft fiifpeded back to London : And then 
 reckoning the Scotc/j and Injh Forces that came lately over, befides the Papifts he 
 had in his Army, and thofe who, having more Courage than Ccnfciencc, could 
 never exped to fight for a Prince, who would pay them better : I am confident 
 (if this had been done) he might, after the going over of thofe few Troops, have 
 made up as good, if not a better Army than the Prince's; and fo need not have 
 fcampered laft Week from Salisbury in that hafte he did, whilft the Enemy was 
 near fifty Miles off. But as it is, I am very well fatisfied with all that hath hap- 
 pen'd in this great Revolution, and convinced of the Truth of that old Saying, 
 jQtm ferdere viilt Jupiter, dementat fnm. 
 
 M. So far I go along with you, that God doth often make ufc of the Wicked- 
 nefs and Treachery of Men, ro bring his great Defigns about ; but whether Gcd 
 hath ordained this great Revolution, as you call it, for a Deliverance or Punifh- 
 ment to this Nation, I am yet in doubt : For if you pleafe to confider how much 
 thofe two Caufes have contributed to this turn of Aftairs, I fuppofe, if you argue 
 according to my Principles, we mult own, that tho' this Change hath happened 
 by God's permiiTive Providence (as all things elfe, tho' never fo ill) yet whether 
 he doth approve of all that hath been done to procure it, I much doubt ; fince if 
 divers of our Nobihty, with fome of our Clergy, had not quitted their Dodrines 
 of Paffive Obedience and Nbn-Refiftance, fo long owned by the Church of Eng- 
 land, this Revolution could not have happen'd at all, or atlcaft not fo fuddenly, 
 as it did : So that indeed I muft confefs, I am not only grieved at his Majefty's 
 hard Fortune, but alfo ftand amazed, and cannot but refled with wonder on the 
 ftrange Viciflitude of worldly Affairs, to fee a Great King, who but laft Week 
 commanded a powerful Army of more than forty thoufand Men, forced out of his 
 Throne, and made to fly his Kingdom, by a Prince that did not bring half that 
 Number into the Field. And who can fufficiently bewail the King's Misfortunes, 
 who hath been at once betrayed by the ill Advice of his Counfellors, the Trea- 
 chery of his Friends, and the Cowardice of his Soldiers } 
 
 F. Me-
 
 Dialogue the Firft. 
 
 F. Mtrliinks, Sir, there is no fiich great Caiife of Wonder, much lefs of Con- 
 cern in all this : For who can much admire that a Prince fliould be thus ufed,who 
 had not only pro\ ok'd a powerful Enemy to invade him from abroad, but (by induf- 
 trioufly labouring to introduce Popery and Arbitrary Government at Home) had 
 loft the Hearts of almoltal), except his PopiOi Subjedts ; infomuch tliat many of 
 his own Soldiers were fo terrified with the Thoughts of being difcarded (like 
 the Proteftant Army in JreLwd) to make room for L-iJh and Fyeuch Papifls, that 
 they ind very little Ccurage to fight, when they faw Cafliiering was the beft 
 Reward they could expeft, if they proved vicTtorious. And who can much pity 
 a Prince, who would rather lofe the Affcftions of his People, tlian difpleafe a 
 fiAv Priefts andjefuits: So that if he fuffers, he may thank himfelf; itnotbeing 
 Religion, but Superftition which brought this Misfortune upon him. Since the 
 King having got a Prince of lViiks,znd (as it is highly fufpefted) joined himfelf in 
 ailrid League with France iov the Extirpation of Hereticks, it laid an abfokiteNe- 
 ccffity upon the Prince of Orange to come over, that, by the Affiflance of the 
 States of Holland, he might not only relieve us, but vindicate his own, and her 
 Royal Highncfs his Princefs's Right to the Succeflion, and fecure his Country 
 from a dangerous and powcrfol Invafion, which it was threatned v.-ith both by 
 Sea and Land, whenever the Kings of France and England fhould be at leifurs 
 to joiti their Forces, to make War upon them j which you know all Europe 
 Kath cxpefted for above thcfe two Years lall part. 
 
 M. Thefc things were fomewhat, if they could be proved ,• but indeed, to 
 deal freely with you, I look upon this League, and tlie Story of the fuppoiititious 
 Birth of tlie Prince of IVales, as meer Calumnies cafi out by wicked and crafty 
 Men to render the King more odious to his People. 
 
 F. Nay, Sir, yon don't hear me pofitively affirm either the one or the other, 
 fince I grant they are not yet made out ; but whofoever will confider all the Cir- 
 curaftances of the Birth of this Child, cannot but be ftrongly inclined to belie\"e 
 it an Impoftor, notwithftanding all the Depofitions that are taken to the contrary. 
 And as for the ivracA League, you may be fure, if there be anyfuch thing, it is kept 
 very private ; and yet I miift tell you there are very high and violent Prefumptions 
 to believe it true ,• or elfe why fhould the King of France, in a late Memorial to 
 the Pope, complain that his Holinefs, by oppojtng his Interejl in Europe, had hindred him 
 in thcfe great Dejigns he had for the Extirpation of Herejie ? by which he muft furcly 
 intend England or Holland ; Proteftantifm being fufficiently expelled out of his 
 own Country already. And he could not do it in either of the other without 
 the Confent and AlTiftance of his Brother the King of England. Or to what 
 purpofe jQiould the King o( England join with France to ruin Holland, and his own 
 Son-in-Law into the Bargain, but to make a War meerly for Religion ; fince nei- 
 ther the Dutch, nor the Prince their Stadt-holder, gave him, 'till now, any juft 
 Provocation ? 
 
 M. Well, however, thefe are but bare Sufpicions and Prefumptions, at moft, 
 and not Proofs ; and therefore in a doubtful Matter, as this is, if wc ought to 
 judge favourably of the Aftions of others, much more of Princes, whofe Councils 
 and Aftions, though private, yet are flill expofed to the Cenfure and Calumnies 
 of their Enemies ; and therefore, I hope, you will not blame me, if I freely con- 
 fcr<;, that I am deeply concerned to fee an innocent and miflcd King forced to 
 feck his Bread in a foreign Land ; and the more, fince many of the Nobility, 
 Gentry, and common People, have contributed fo much to it, by taking up Arms 
 againft him ,• and that fo great a part of his own Army, and Officers, fhould, 
 contrary to their Allegiance and Truft rcpcfed in tliem, run over to the Enemy. 
 Nay, that fome of our Bifliops and Clergy-men fliould, contrary to the fo often 
 acknowledged Doctrines of PafTive-Obcdicnce, and Non-Rcfiftance, not only 
 countenance, but be likewife adtive in fuch defperate Undertakings, and this in 
 direft oppofition to the known Laws of God, and this Kingdom ; which muft 
 needs make our Church a Scorn to our Enemies the Papifts, and a Shame and 
 Reproach to all Proteftant Churches abroad, and render the People of England 
 odious to all the Crowned Heads in Europe. 
 
 F. Well, Sir, I fee you arc very warm, and I hope more ,than the Caufc dc- 
 fcrves. You may judge as fivourably of the King's Proceedings, and as hardly 
 of the Aftions of the Nobility, Gentry, Clergy and People in this Matter as you 
 p'eafc, But yet I think I can make it as clear as the Day, tliat they have done 
 
 B z nothing
 
 4 BibliothecaP O L It I c a. 
 
 nothing by joining in Arms with the Prince cf Orarige, but what is juftiiiable by 
 the Principles oF Sdf-prefcrvation, the Fundamental Connituticns of the Govern- 
 ment, and a juft Zeal for their Religion and Civil Liberties, as they fland fe- 
 cured by our Laws ; unlefs you would give the King a Power of making iis Pa- 
 pifts, and Slaves, whenever he pleafed. But as for your Doctrine of an abfolute 
 Obedience •withuut Refe, I'e, and the Divine Right of Monarchy and Succeffion, you 
 need not be much concerned whether the Papifcs laugh at you or no, lince there 
 are very few of them (if any) who are fuch Fools tiicmfclves as to believe fjch 
 futilous Opinions. But indeed they have more reafon to laugh at ,vou whijft you 
 maintain, than when you quit them ; lince as they have only rendered you a-^t . 
 Objeft of their Scorn, fo tiiey would have made you but a more eafie Sacrifice 
 to their Malice. For wiiat can Tiiieves dcfire more, than that thcfe they de- 
 lign to rob, fliould think it unlawful to refill: them ? And what could the Papills 
 have wifli'd for more, thaii that cur Hands being fetter'd by this Dodcrine 
 of an indefinite Pafilve-Obedience, our Lives, Religion and Liberties Ihould lie 
 at their Mercy ? Which how long we fiiould , have enjoyed, whenever they 
 thought tlicmlelvcs flroug enough to take them away, the late cruel Perfecu- 
 tions, and Extirpations of tlie Proteftants in jR<:2«c£', Savoy, Hungary, and other 
 * Places, have proved but too fatal Examples ; and therefore no wonder (let your 
 high-flown Ciuirch-men write or preach what they pleafe) if the Body of the 
 Nobility, Gentry and People of England, coiild never be perfuaded to fwallow 
 Doftrines fo fatal to their Religion, and deftrudive to their Civil Rights and 
 Liberties both as Men and Chriftians. 
 
 And as for the Antiquity of thefc Doftrines, I think they are fo far from be- 
 ing the ancient Tenets of the Church of England, that they are neither to he- 
 found in its Catecjiifm, Thirty nine Articles, or Book of Homilies, taken in their' 
 true Senfe and Meaning ; though indeed there is fomething that may tend that 
 way in fome of the late Church Canons about fifty Years ago ; but I do not look 
 upon them as the ancient eftablifh'd Dottrine of our Church, becaufe thefe Ca- 
 nons are not confirmed, but condemned by two A<5ts of Parliaments, and confe- 
 quently never legally ellablifhed as they ought to be by the publick Sanftion of 
 the King and Nation. Our old Queen Eliz^abetli's Divines, fuch as Bifliop Bil- 
 Vide Bliron Jon and Mr. Hooker, being wholly ignorant ot thefe Doftrines, nay, teaching in 
 ofchriftlan fgygral Placcs of their Writings the quite contrary. Nor was this Doftrine 
 ^dit^\lu. of abfolute Subjeftion, and Non-Reiiftance ever generally maintain'd, until about 
 p. 179, 283- th^ middle of King Jmne/s Reign, when fome CourtBifhops and Divines began 
 HookerV £»-- to make new Difcoveries in Politicks as well as Divinity,- and did by their 
 rlefxf. FoUc); Preaching and Writings affirm, that the King bad an abfolute Povjer ever Mens 
 L. I. /. II. Ejlates, fo that it was unlawfi)! in any cafe to difobey or refifl Iiis perfonal Com- 
 mands, if they were not direftly contrary to the Law Oi God ; as may appear 
 by Dr. Harfnet, then Bifhop of Chkhefter, his Sermon upon this Text, Give unto 
 Cxfar the things that are Csefar'j ; wherein lie maintained, 'I'hat all the Subjects Goods 
 and Money vcere Caefar'/, that is, the King's, and therefore were not to be denied 
 him if he demanded them for the publick ufe ,• which Sermon (though ordered 
 by the Lords and Commons to be burnt by the Hangman) yet was fo 
 grateful to the Court, that he was fo far from being out of Favour for it, that 
 he was, not long after, tranflated to Norivich, and from thence to the Archbifhop- 
 rick of Tvrk. So likewife about the beginning of King Charlei 1. Dr. Manvja- 
 ring preached before him ; the Subflance of whofe Sermon was fomewhat higher 
 ;?. H. C. t. than the former, (viz,.) T'hat the King n-as not bound by the Lazvs of the Land, not to 
 ^05. impofe Taaes or Subfidies without the Confent of Parliament, and that when they werefo 
 
 impofed, the Subjecis were obliged in Confcience, and upon pain of Damnation, to pay 
 them ; which if they refufedto do, they were guilty of Difloyahy and Rebellion. For which 
 Sermon he was impeach'd by the Commons in Parliament 4 Car. I. and there- 
 upon fentenccd by the Houfe of Lords, to be difabled to hold or receive any Ec- 
 clefiaftical Living, or Secular Office whatever, and alfo to be imprifoned and 
 fined a Thoufand Pounds. Notwithftanding all which, we find him prefently 
 Ibid. 635. after the Parliament was dillblved, not only at liberty, but alfo prefented by the 
 King to a rich Benefice in EJfex, and not long after made Bifliop of .Sit. David's. 
 So likewife one Dr.' Sibthurp about the fame time preached an Affize-Sermon at 
 Northamptvn, on Rom. 13.7. wherein he maintained much the like Doftrines, as. 
 That it was the King alone that made the Laws, and that nothing could excufe from an 
 
 I aclive
 
 Dialogue the Firji: 
 
 allii'e obedience to his Commands, but 'j^hat is againfi the Law of God and Nature : ^'^d' ArMp. 
 
 Atidthat Kir.gi hid Po-Mr to lay Pole-Money iipun their Subjects Heads. But this ■'^'^l""^'^^'"" 
 
 much I h^ve read, that this Sermon was licenfi.d by Dr. Liiid, tlieii Bifliop oCq'T\^'^' 
 
 St. David's, becauA; Archbifeop Abbot had refiifed to do it as contrary to Law, 
 
 for which he was very much Irowned upon at Court ; and it is fuppofed to have 
 
 been one of the m.iin Caufes of his Sufpeufion from his Arch-Epifcopal Jurifdic- 
 
 tion, which not long after happened. But as for this Sibthorp, though lie lived 
 
 long after, (even 'till the King's Rctirn) yet being (as Archbifiiop ^My/ defcribes 
 
 bim) a Man of but fmall Parts or Learning, I cannot learn that he was ever 
 
 preferr'd higher than the Paribiiage of Brackkj, and another in Noythamptoifiire, 
 
 whofe Name 1 have forgot. 
 
 But 1 find a new 'Doctrine bro.ich'd by fome modern Bifiiops and Divines 
 about the middle of the Reign of King ^^wfj- tlie Firft, That Alonarchy was 
 of Dit'ir.e Right, or Inflitution at leafi ; fo tliat any other Government was fcarce 
 warrantabk or lawftil : And of this new Seft we mull more efpecially take no- 
 tice of Sir R. F. who hath written feveral Treatifes to prove this Doiitrine, and 
 which is' worfe, That ail Monardn being abfolute by Divine L/fiitution, they cannot be F- F- <-■ 3- 
 limited or obliged either by Odths, Lav:s or Contracls zuith their People, farther than they '* ^' ^" 
 themfelves Jbail think ft, or coufftent -with their fuppofed Prerogatives ; ofzihich they only 
 are to be the fole Judges. So that whoever will but confide r from the Reign of 
 our four laft Kings, what flrong Liclinations they had to render themfelves abfo- 
 lute, and that few Divines, or Common, or Civil Lawj;ers were preferr'd inf"^°^'^^^ 
 their Reigns to any confiderablc Place, either in Church or State, who did not rltlTsKing, 
 maintain, thefe new Opinions both on the Bench and in the Pulpit : You need F-nhamevu 
 not wonder when the Stream of Court Preferment ran fo ftrong tliat way, if fo Prerogative. 
 many were carried away with it ,• fince it was bat to expofe themfelves to certain 
 Ivlifcry, if not to utter Ruin, to oppofe it. All who offered by fpeaking or wri- 
 ting to maintain the contrary, being branded with the odious Names of Puritans, 
 Commonwealths-men, Whigs, &c. fome of whom you may remember were not 
 long fince imprifoned, fined, nay, whip'd for fo doing. So that it was no won- 
 der if tliere were but very few to be found who durit with fo great hazard fpeak 
 what they thought ; nor could any thing, but the imminent Danger upon our Laws, 
 Religion and Properties, proceeding from the King's illegal Pradices, have 
 opened the Eyes of a great many Noblemen, Gentlemen and Clergy, who, con- 
 trary to the Opinions fo much lately in vogue, did generoufly venture both 
 their Lives and Eftates, to join their Arms with the Prince oi Orange againft the 
 King's unjuft and violent Proceedings. 
 
 M. I do not doubt, notwithftanding all you have faid, to prove before I have 
 done, thefe Doftrines of Noh-Rcfiilancc, and of the Divine Inflitution of Mo- 
 narchy, to be moll confonant to tlie Word of God, and to the Dodrine of the 
 Primitive Church, and alfo to that .of our Reformed Church of England. Nor 
 were thofe Divines you mention in King James the Firfl's Time, tiie Authors or 
 Inventers of thefe Dodrines which were publickly received, and decreed by both 
 Houfes of that Convocation which began in the firfl Year of King 7<zwer, and 
 continued 'till the Yeari(5io, as appears by divers Manufcript Copies of the 
 Ads or Decrees of this Convocation, the Original of which was lately in the 
 Library founded by Dr. Coufns, late Bifliop oi Durham, befides a very * fair Copy, * I'/^/'j '//wrt 
 now to be feen in the Archbifliop's Library at Lambeth : Which if you pleafe to printcdioider 
 perufe, you may be quickly fatisfied, that the Church of England (long before g^ft^'over- 
 ever Sir R.F. writ thofe Treatifes you mention) held that Civil Power wns^i'convo-' 
 given by God to Adam and Njah, and their Defendants ; as alfo that abColute cation-Book, 
 Subjedion and Obedience was due to all Sovereign Powers, without any Re- 
 fiftance ; as claiming under thofe Original Charters : Thefe Dodrines being 
 there fully and plainly laid down and afiertcd, as the Dodrines of our Church. 
 So that you deal very unjuflly with the Memory of thofe Divines, as alfo of 
 Sir R. F. to make them the firfl Broachers of it ; whereas you may find that ic 
 was the Opinion of the whole Convocation, for many Years before ever thofe 
 Divines, or that Gentleman began to preach, or write upon this Siibjed. Nor 
 were thefe the only Men who maintained thefe Principles; but Archbifliop Vjher, 
 and Bifhop Sanderfcn (whom I fappofc jou will not reckon among your flattering 
 Court Bifliops) have as learnedly and fully alferted thofe Dodrines, you fo 
 much condemn, as any of that Party you find fault with, and have very well 
 
 proved
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 proved all Refinance of the Supreme Powers to be unlawful, not only in abfo- 
 iute but limited Monarchies. Of the Truth of which you may fufficiently fatil- 
 fy yourfelt^ if you will but take the Pains to read the Learned and Elaborate 
 Treatifes written by thofl- good Bifhops, (^•iz..) The Lord Primate Ujhey's Pow- 
 er of the PrincCj and Obedience of the Subject, and the Bifhop of Lincohi's Pre- 
 face before it ; as alfo the faid Bifhop 's Treatife de Juramemu, written whilft he ■ 
 was Doftor of the Chair in Oxford. 
 
 F. I muft beg your pardon. Sir, if I have never yet feen or heard of that Con- 
 vocation Book you mention, much lefs ot the Opinions therein contained; lince- 
 therc is no mention made of their Proceedings, in any Hiftory or Record of" 
 thofe Times either Ecclefiaflical or Civil, as I know of. But this much I am ' 
 certain of; that^hcfe Determinations or Decrees yoa mention, (call them which 
 you pkafi) never received the Royal Aflent, much lefs the Confirmation of the- 
 Ring and Parliament, one of which (if not both) is certainly requifite to make any 
 opinion cither in Doftrine or Difcipline to be received by us Lay-men for the Doflrine; 
 of the Church oi England, otherwife the Canons made in 1640 would oblige us in 
 Confcience, tho' they ftand at this day condemned by A6t of Parliament: So that 
 however, even according to your own Principles, you cannot urge this Book as 
 the Authoritative Doftrine of the Church of England, unlefs their Determina-' 
 tions had received the Royal Aflent; which you yourfclf do not afErm they bad;- 
 for you very well know that, as in Ci\'il Laws, no Bill is any more than walk: 
 Parchment if once the King had refufed to give his Royal Ailent to it, fo like- 
 wife in Spiritual or Ecclefiaflical Matters, I think no Decrees or Determina- 
 tions 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 Houfes of Parliament : Or otherwife the Confequence would be, thac 
 if the King, who hath the Nomination of all the Bifhopricks and Deaneries, as- 
 alfo of moil: of the great Prebendaries in England, of which the Convocatioa 
 chiefly confifts, fhould nominate fuch Men into thofe Places, which would agree 
 with him to alter the prefent eftablifli'd Reformed Religion and Government,- 
 ahd to bring in Popery or Arbitrary Power, the whole Kingdom would be ob- 
 liged in Confcience to embrace it, or at leaft to fubmit without any contradic- 
 tion to thofe Canons the I'ung and Convocation fliould thus agree to make; 
 which of how fatal a Confequence it might prove to the Reformed Religion in' 
 this Kingdom, this King's Choice of Bifliops and Deans, fuch as he thought moll 
 fit for his turn, would have taught us when it had been too late. 
 
 M. You very much miflake me, Sir, if you believe that I urge the Authority 
 of this Book to you, as containing any Ecclefialtical Canons, which I grant 
 muft ha\e the Royal AlTent; but whether that of the two Houfes of Parliament, 
 r very much queftion ; fince the King without the Parliament is Head of the 
 Church, and divers Canons made under Queen Eli'z.abeth, and King '[jaiyies, arc 
 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 fee that thcfc Doftrines 
 are more Ancient than the time you prefcribe ; and alfo that the major part of 
 the Bifhops, and Clergy of the Church of England, held thefe Doftrines which' 
 you fo much condemn, long before thofe Court Bifliops or Divines you mention, 
 medled with this Controverfy; and I fuppofe we may as well quote fuch a Con- 
 vocation Book, as a Teftimony of their Senfe upon thefe Subjects, as we do the 
 French, Helvetian, or any other Proteflant Churches Confeflions of Faith, draw^a 
 up and pafled in Synod of their Divines, tho' without any Confirmation of the 
 Ciyil Power. 
 
 F- If you urge this Convocation Book, only as a Teftimony, and not Autho- 
 rity, I fhall not contend any farther about it : But then let me tell you, tiiat it' 
 the Canons or Decrees of a Convocation, tho' never fo much confirmed by King 
 and Parliament, do no farther oblige 'in Confcience, than as they are agreeable 
 to the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures ; fu re their Determinations without anjf" 
 fuch Authority, can only be look'd upon as the Opinions of fo many particulax 
 private Men. And tho' I have a very great Reverence for the Judgments of {a 
 many Learned Men; yet granting thofj Doftrines you mention to be contained 
 in this Book, I think notwithftanding, that we may juftly examine them accord- 
 ing to the Rules of Reafon, and exprefs Teftimonies of Scripture, by either of 
 which, when I fee you can convince me of the faHLood of mv Tenets, I 
 
 fliaU
 
 Dialogue the Firji. 
 
 fliall count myfelf happy to be better informed. But as for thofe Treatifcs of 
 Bifliop Ujhsr, and BiQiop Manderfon, which you now mc?ition''d, I muft needs confefs 
 they are learnedly and elaborately written : And tho' I am againft Rebellion as 
 much as any Man, and do believe that SubjeSs may too often be guilty of it; 
 yet am I not therefore convinced, T'bat it is abjdutcly jwlaiufid in all cafes u-hat~ 
 fccver , even in the mnfl Abfolute and Arbitrary fort of Civil Government , for 
 the People, when violently and intolerably opprefi, to take up Arms and reftfl fuch iinjiifi 
 violence, or to join with any Foreign Prince, -who will be fe genero7ts as to take upon him 
 their Deliverance. So that though I freely acknowledge that thofe good Bifhops 
 you mention were very Pious and Learned Men, and that I bear great Reve- 
 rence to their Memories; yet doth it not therefore follow, that I muft own them 
 to be infalhble, or as great Politicians as they were Learned Divines ; or that they un- 
 derftood the Laws oi England, as well as they did the Fathers. And perhaps there 
 may be a great deal more faid on their Behalfs than can be for divers others, who 
 have fince written andprcach'd fo much upon thofe Subjeds; for if you pleafe to 
 confider the Titoes of their writing thofe Treatifes, you will find them written 
 about the beginning or middle of the late Civil Wars, which they fuppos'd to be 
 bcgi:n and carried on contrary to all Law and Juftice, under the pretended Au- 
 thority of the two Houfes of Parliament againft King Charles the Firli ; and 
 therefore it is no wonder if they thought themfelves obliged to write very high 
 for the Petogatives and Rights of Princes, and the abfolute Obedience of Sub- 
 jcds, when they faw even the King's juft and lawful Perogatives in danger to 
 be taken from him by force. And altho'they may perhaps ftretchfeveral of thefe 
 Points too far, yet this may be very excufable ; lince it is a hard matter to write 
 fo exactly againft any Error as not to fall in to the contrary extream, which ne- 
 verthelefs may fometimes prove ufeful enough : As thofe who would fet a flick 
 ftreight, muft bend it to the other fide : And fo thefe Doftrines which might 
 then be feafonable, whilft the People carried on their Animofities againft the 
 King, farther than in Juftice they ought, have not How the fame reafbn and 
 cogency, when this King hath fo manifeftly endeavoured to pull up the very 
 Foundations both of our Religion and Government. So that I am perfuaded, 
 could thofe good Bifliops haVe lived by the courfe of Nature to our Times, and 
 have feen tiie ill and fatal ufe hath been made of thofe Doftrines by thofe in 
 Power, they would either abfolutely have renounced them, or at leaft have been 
 very cautious how they publifii'd fuch doubtful Opinions to the World. • J-»-'i 
 
 M, I muft beg your pardon. Sir, if I am not of your Opinion, for I look upon 
 the abfolute fubjeftion of the Subjeds to the higher or fupreme Powers, to be a 
 thing of fuch conftant and eternal Obligation, that no change of Times or Cir- 
 cumftances can ever diipenfe with us in, or difcharge us from it; and I am fo 
 far from believing that thofe good Bi(hops would ever have recanted their Opi- 
 nions in this particular, that had they lived until this time, I think they could 
 not (without the Imputation of Time-fervers) have forborn publickly to declare 
 and maintain them : For fure we muft not deny or lay afide true Principles, be- 
 caufe of forae inconveniencies or hardfliips that may thereby happen to our Reli- 
 gion, Perfons, or Civil Liberties, fince that were the ready way to give a Licence 
 to therankeft Rebellion, and the highcft difobedience to the Supreme Powers; for 
 fo the Primitive Chriftians might have claimed a right to rebel againft the Hea- 
 then Emperors, pretending they wrere not bound to fubmit themfelves unto them, 
 becaufe they perfccuted God's Church, and put the Chriftians to death for no 
 other reafon tlian that they were fuch. Whereas we may plainly fee St. Peter and 
 St. Paul teach us another Leflbn, a.nd comma.nd abfolute fubje&wn luithoin referveto 
 the higher Powers, which were then the tyrannical perfccuting Emperors ; and that 
 the Primitive Chriftians who immediately followed the Apoftles, underftood 
 them in this fcnfe ; and altho' they had fufficicnt ftrength, yet thought it unlaw- 
 ful to refift thofe Heathen Emperors under which they lived. I refer you to that 
 vaft treafure of Quotations out of the Fathers and Ancient Church Hiftorians, 
 colJeded with fuch Learning and Laduftry by the Lord Primate UJjer in the fe- 
 cond Treatife. 
 
 F. It is not my intention, Sir, at prefcnt, to fall into a fcvcrc examination of To 
 many Texts of Scripture, and Quotations of Fathers, and other Authors, as are 
 made ufe of by thofe Learned Men yon lately mentioned, which require more 
 conftderation than our fliort time will now aftbrd ,• thercforc the bcft Method I 
 
 can
 
 8 BiBLioTHECA Politic A. 
 
 can propofe to you, for the true flaring and underrtanding this noble Controverfy, 
 were firfi to look into the Natural ftate of Mankind after the fall of Adam ; and 
 enquire, Firfi, If God has appointed any kind of Government by Divine L.flitn- 
 tion before another. Secondly, If he has not; how far Civil Power may belook'd 
 upon as from God, and in what fenfe as derived from the People. 'Thirdly, V/hc- 
 ther Refinance by the Subjefts m fome Cafes be incompatible and abfolutely de- 
 flruftive to all Civil Government whatfoev.er. Fourthly, Whether fuch Refiftance 
 be abfolutely contrary to the Doctrine of Chrift contain'din the Scriptures, and that 
 of the Primitive Church purfuant thereunto. Fifthly, Whether fuch Refiftance be 
 contrary to the Conftitution of this Government, and the exprefs Laws of the Land. 
 Sixthly, Whether what has been done by the Prince of Orange, and thofe of the 
 Nobility, Gentry, &c. in purfuance of thefe Principles, has been done accord- 
 ing to the Law of Nature, the Scriptures, and Ancient Conftitutions of this 
 Kingdom ; which material Points if we can once fettle, and difcover where the 
 Truth lies, it will prove the cleareft Comment and beft Interpretation of all thofe 
 places of Scripture, and Quotations of Fathers, and other Authors which are 
 cited by Divines or other Writers, for the Doftrines of the Divine Inftitution of 
 Monarchy, and the abfolute Subjeftion of Subjeds without any Refiftance. - For 
 when we have once difcover'd what the Law of Nature or right Reafon didates; 
 I think we may reft fatisfy'd that that is the true Senfe of the Scripture :" . God 
 not having given us any Precept or Command, in Moral, or Practical things, 
 that can be contrary to the Law of Nature or Reafon ; or incompatible with 
 the happinefs and welfare of Mankind in this Life j as the rev.cal'd Will of 'God 
 does chiefly regard that which is to come. ; 
 
 M. I do very well approve of your Propofal ; and therefore pray give me iirft 
 your Opinion on thofe Heads, that I may fee how far I may agree with you, 
 and wherein I muft differ from you ; for I do aflbre you my Intention is not to 
 argue with you meerly for difputes fake, but that we may correft the Errors 
 of each others Underftanding, and difcover, if it be poflible, where the Truth lies : 
 Therefore pray. Sir, begin fiyfl with the Natural ftate of Mankind ; but remember 
 to do it like a Chriilian, and one that believes that we are all deriv'd from one 
 firft Parent, and that we did not at firft fpring up out of the Earth like Mufh- 
 rooms, or as the Men whom Ovid feigns to have been produc'd of the Dragons 
 Teeth Cadmm is feign'd to have fown, who, as foon as they fprung out ot the 
 Earth, immediately fell a fightingand killing each other. 
 
 F. I thank you. Sir, for your honeft and kind Advice; and fiiall therefore in the 
 firft place fuppofe, that the Neceffity as well as Being of all Civil Government 
 proceeded from the Fall of Adam ; fince if that had not been, we had ftill liv'd, 
 as the Poets fancy Men did under the Golden Age, without any need of Kings 
 or Commonwealths to make Laws againft Oppreffion, Theft, Adultery, Mur- 
 der, and thofe other Injuries which Men are now too apt in this iapfed corrupt 
 State to commit againft each other; much lefs would there have been any need 
 of Judges or Executioners, either to fentence or punifli Offenders ; for if Man 
 had continued as free from Sin as he was in Paradife, there could have been no 
 need of a Supreme Coercive Power, fince every Man would have perform'd his Du- 
 ty towards God and his Neighbour without any punifhment orconftraint. So that 
 all the Authority that can be fuppos'd could have been then necellary for the 
 good and happinefs of Mankind, would have been no more than Diredive, as that 
 of the Husband over his Wife; or Imperative, as that of Parents over their Chil- 
 dren ; the former of which would not have been an Abfolute Coercive Power nei- 
 ther, but rather fuch a Power as his Underftanding then had over the inferiour Fa- 
 culties of his Soul, join'd with a voluntary Submifjlon of her Will to his; the Coercive 
 Power of the Husband, and his more extenfive Rule over her, being conferr'd by 
 God on Adam, and in him on all his Pofterity after the Fall, for the regulating and 
 rcftraining the unreafonable Defires and PafTions of the Woman, which then began 
 to exert and fhew themfelves in her : And as for paternal Authority, that would 
 have been fo far from being Coercive, that Children having no Inclination to dif- 
 order, either in their Wills, Appetites or Pafllons, there would have been fo lit- 
 tle need of Punifhments, that they would not have required fo much as Reproof 
 or Correfiion; God having firft planted the Laws of Nature or Reafon in every 
 Man's Breaft free from rebellious Motions againft it ; fo that Children then could 
 have had no more to do, than to pay their Parents all that Gratitude, Duty and 
 
 Obe-
 
 Dialogue the Firft, p 
 
 Obedience which was due to tliem as the fubordinate Caufcs of their Being, 
 wliich could only confiH: in performing thofe indifferent things, which they then 
 would have- had occafion to command them i iince Mankind being immortal, and 
 the Earth bringing tbrth of it fclf all Neceffaries for Human Life, there could 
 have been no occaiion of attending and relieving their Parents, when fick, old, 
 or decrcpid, and unable to keep thcmfelvcs ; and fo likewiie upon the fame 
 grounds all other Men would have been equal by Nature, in rcfped of any Civil 
 Difference ; for when there was no necefhty of Men's Service, there would have 
 been no Diftinftion between Maflcr and Servant. 
 
 But after the Fall the State of Mankind was altered, and Self-love, and the 
 Delirc of Self-prefcrvation, grew fo flrong and exorbitant above all natural Equity, 
 ^hat the inordinate Pallions of Men blinding their Reafons, they began to think 
 they had a Right not only to the Neceliaries of Life, but to whatever their unruly 
 Appetites dclired, or that they thought they could make themielves Mailers of 
 To remedy which Inconveniencics, 1 fuppofe, tlie Fathers and Mailers of Fami- 
 lies, and other Freemen (in whom alone then refided that little Government that 
 tb?n was in the World) were forced, after fome time, to agree upon one or more 
 Men, into whofe hands they might refign all their particular Powers, and to make 
 Laws for the due governing and retraining thofe diforderly Appetites and Paf- 
 fions, and alfo .endowing them with a fufficient Authority to put them in execu- 
 tiojt. But wliich of tlie Governments now extant, or that have been formerly, 
 tyere prior in Nature, I think cannot well be known ; whether it was a Monarchy, 
 or an Arillocracy, confifting of all the Heads or Fathers of Families, or Freemen, 
 is not material, lincc the S.S. are filent in it : But it being fufficient to fuppofe, 
 that it was at firft begun by the Perfuafion or Mediation of fome one or more wife 
 *ud virtuous Perfons, and was confented to by the whole Number, confifting of 
 many Families, who were fenfible of thofe great Inconveniencies and Mifchicfs 
 they jay under for want of Civil Government. But be it which way it will, 'tis 
 tjioil certain that it was principally inunded by Godfvr the Good mid Prefervation of the 
 Governed, ttnd mt for the Greatnefs or Advantage of the Peijon or Perjms appointed to 
 govexn ; fince God defigned all Civil Government for the reftraining of Man's in- 
 ordinate PufTions and Lufts after the Fall, and procuring, by fufficient Rewards 
 and Punifhments, that Peace and Happinefs, which could now noMonger be ob- 
 tained by Men's natural Inclinations to that which was equitable and honeft. A'ld 
 befides, it is abfolutely impolfible to fuppole, that any great Number of People, 
 not preflbd by the Invafion of a powerful Enemy from abroad (which could noc 
 be fiippofed in this early Age of the World) would ever be brought to confent to 
 put themfelves under the abfolute Power of others, but for their own greater 
 Good and Prefervation, or to part with their natural Liberty, v/ithout advan- 
 taging themfelves at all by the Change. 
 
 ■ M. I will not take upon me to aifert after what manner Mankind would have 
 been governed, in cafe our firft Parents had continued in their primitive State of 
 Innocency. But this much 1 think I may boldly affirm in oppolition to what you 
 have already faid, that Civil Government, after the Fall, was not alike in all the 
 Fathers andMafters of Families; but that Adam alone was by God endued with 
 '\ty as tlie great Father and Monarch of Mankind : So that not only Civil Power, R.f.A.MMl 
 ingenerc, but in fpecie, (viz..) Monarchical, was immediately after the Creation ^ 2 54) ^ 55- 
 conferred by God upon him. And Adam was Monarcl| of the whole World, even 
 before he had any Subjefts. 
 
 F. Sir, not to interrupt you, it feems fomewhat hard to conceive how Adam 
 could be a Father before he had Children, or a Monarch before he had Subjefts. 
 .^M. If )ou pleale to confider it, you Will find no Abfiirdity at all in this Aifer- 
 tlon. For thougii I coiifefs there could be no acftual Government without Sub- ibid. 
 jedts, nor Fatherhood without Sons ; yet by the Riglit of Nature it was due to 
 Adam to be Govcrnour of tiie World, when as yet he had neither Sons nor Sub- 
 jedcs : So tho' not in Ad, ) et at leaft in Habit, or m potenfia (as they fay in the 
 Sfhcols) Adam was a King, and a Father, from his Creation,- and even in the 
 State of Innocency, he had been Govcrnour over iiis Wife and Ciiildren. For the 
 Integrity or Excellency of the Subjett dotii not cake away the Order or Eminency 
 ot the Govcrnour : For Eve was iubjcdt to Adam before he limned ; and the An- 
 gels, who are of a moft pure Nature, and cannot fin, are yet Subjects to God, and 
 pertorm all his Commands. Which will ferve to confute vvhat you fay in deror 
 
 C gation
 
 10 BibliothecaPolitica. 
 
 gation of Civil Government, or Power, that it was introduced by Sin, or the Fait 
 of Man. Government, I grant, as to coaftive Power, was not till after Sin, be- 
 caufc Coac^tion fuppofcth feme Diforder, which was not in the State of Innocency ; 
 but as for directive Government, the State of Humane Nature requires it ; fince. 
 Civil Society cannot be imagined without a Power of Government. For altho* 
 as long as Men continued in the State of Innocency, they might not need the Di- 
 reftion oiAdain in tiiofe things that were neceflarily and morally to be done ; yet 
 things indiftcrent, that depended meerly on their Free-will, might well be direfted 
 by Adam's foic Command. 
 
 F. Pray, Sir, give me leave to fettle this Point between us, before you pro- 
 ceed farther j and I doubt not, when you better confider what I fay, you will 
 not think we have any jufl Occafion to differ. So far then you and I are agreed, 
 that even before the Fa.\l Adam was fuperior over his Wife and Children, and that 
 they owed him not only Gratitude and Refpeft as a Parent, but alfo Obedience 
 in all indifferent things : Yet I deny that this Pow-er or Superiority.of ^^/ztw over 
 his Wife and Ciiildren was at all a Defpotical or Civil Power, but meerly Oeco- 
 nomical, for the Good and Convenience oi Adam, and the well ordering and Pre- 
 fervation of his Family; which you will eafily grant, if youpleafe to confider what 
 are the eflential Differences of Civil Government from Oeconomical. Now the 
 effential Properties of Civil Government confift in preferving and defending the 
 Subjeds, both in War and Peace, from foreign Enemies, and inteftine Injuries, 
 and Invafions of Men's Perfons or Properties, and in revenging and punifliing all 
 fuch Tranfgreflions by Death, or other Punifhments, and confequently in making 
 Laws concerning Property, and for retraining all Robberies, Murders, and the 
 like. Now, in the State of Innocency, there could be no need of any of thefe 
 effential Functions of Civil Power : for your felf muft grant, that Man was then 
 not apt to fin, and alfo immortal ; fo that all Laws about Peace or War, Punifh- 
 ments of Offences, publick Judgments concerning Meum and Tuum, and all Inju- 
 ries, were abfolutely needlefs, and had never been in Nature,- ii Adam had not 
 finned ; and then how you can call this Authority, or Superiority (which I 
 grant Adatn had over his Wife and Children) Civil Power, I can by no means 
 underftand. 
 
 But I do utterly deny, that even after the Fall AJam was a Monarch, or So/e 
 and Al>fohite Lord over the whole Earth, and all Creatures therein contained ,• and 
 defire you to give me fuch plain Proofs of it, either from Reafon or Scripture, that 
 I need no more doubt of it, than your felf ' 
 
 M. I fliall, firft of all, give you an Argument drawn from the Reafon of the 
 thing i and in the next place, the Authority ot Scripture, for my Opinion : And 
 firft, I think it is evident, that every Man that is born is fo far from being free, 
 that by his very Birth he becomes a Subjeft of him that begets him ; and even 
 G>-o««5 himfelf acknowledges, xh^X Generatione Jm acquhitur in Liherof. And in- 
 deed the Ad of Begetting being that which makes a Man a Father, his Right of 
 a Father over his Children can naturally arife from nothing elfe. And the fame 
 Author in another place hatli thefe Words upon the Fourth Commandment : Pa- 
 renmm noinine, qut naturales jimt Magifiratus, etiam alios ReEJores par eft inteUsgi, quo- 
 rum authoritat Societatem hiimauam contiaet : And it Parents be natural Magiftrates, 
 Children muft needs be born natural Subjeds. So that not only Adam, but the 
 fucceeding Patriarchs had,, by Right of Fatherhood, Regal Authority over their 
 Children, as may appear by divers Teftimonies out ot Scripture ; and thereforo 
 it is very reafonable, that all Fathers fliould have a Power over the Lives of their 
 Children, fince it is to them that they owe their Life, Being and Education : And 
 I think that even the Power, which God himfelf exercifeth over Mankind, is by 
 Right of Fatherhood. 
 
 F. Before you come to Scripture, give me leave, in the firft place, to examine 
 your firft Argument, which you deduced from the Law of Nature, or Reafon : 
 For I doubt, if you pleafe better to confider of it, you will find, that fo light and 
 tranfitory an Adion, as that of Generation, cannot give any Man an ahfolute 
 Property and Dominion over the Pcrfon and Life of thofe whom he begets ,- Jince 
 few Men do principally intend the giving of a Being to another, fo much as they do their own 
 Pleafure, in that A^ion. Nor do we owe our Lives, properly fpeaking, to our 
 Parents, but to God, who is the true and original Caufe of our Being ; tho' it is 
 true he makes ufe of our Parents as phyfical, tlio' not as moral Means or Inftru- 
 
 ments
 
 Dialogue the Firfl. 1 1 
 
 merits for that end ; fince it doth not h"c in their power to hinder the generating 
 of Children, if they perform the Afts neceffary thereunto. So that both tiie An- 
 tecedent and the Confequent are altogether falfe, viz.. That Parents give their 
 Children Life and Being, and that therefore they liave an abfolutc Power over 
 their Lives and Perfons : Which, if it were true, would give the Mother an equal 
 Title to the Lives of the Children, as the Father ; feeing they owe their Live? 
 as much to the one as the other : Which Power in the Mother I am fure you will 
 not admit of But as for what you fay concerning the Power of Fathers, arifing 
 from Education ; tho', I confcfs, that is a much better Title than the other ; yet 
 doth it not follow, that, becaufe by reafon of my Parents Care of mc, before I 
 was able to help my felf, I owe my Prefervation and Well-being to them, that 
 therefore tiiey are to be perpetual and abfolute Lords over my Perfon and Life ; 
 fince, by thus breeding me up, they only performed that Duty and Truft, which 
 God had laid upon them., for the Good and Prefervation of Mankind, and which 
 they could not, without committing a Sin, either refufe or decline ; and there- 
 fore their Authority or Power over ray Perfon, being only for my Well-being, can 
 extend no farther than whilft I am not of Years of Difcretion to underftand the 
 true Means of my own Good and Prefervation : And tho' I grant, that I am bound 
 in Gratitude to return this Care and Kindnefs by all Afts of Duty and Piety to- 
 wards them, as long as 1 live ; yet doth it not therefore follow, that they are 
 Mafters of my Life, and of all that I have ; lince this were to take away more 
 than they themfelvcs ever gave. And tho' I fhould grant you, that even the 
 Power, which God himfelf exercifeth over Mankind, is by Right of Fatherhood 
 or Creation ; yet this Fatherhood is fuch, as utterly excludes all Pretence of Title t. T. G. c. 5. 
 in earthly Parents : For he is our King, becaufe he is indeed the Maker of us all, h ^9- 
 which no natural Parents can pretend to be of their Children. But if you pleafe 
 more clofely to confidcr your own Argument, you will find that it will quits 
 deftroy your Hypothefis. For if all Fathers have an abfolute Power over their 
 Children by Generation, then Adam could only have Power over his own Chil- 
 dren which he begat, and none at all over his Grand-children ; fince their Fathers, 
 by this Argument of Generation, ought to have had the fame Power over their 
 Children, which Adam had over them, for the fame Reafon. So that this Mo- 
 narchical Power of Adam, as a Father, could extend no farther than one Genera- 
 tion at the moft. 
 
 M. I (hall not further urge this Argument of Generation, fince I fee you are 
 not fatisficd with it ; but this much I think I can clearly prove from Scripture, 
 that Adam was Lord over the Perfons and Lives of his Wife and Children, by 
 virtue of that Command which God gave Eve, Gen 3. 16. Unto the Woman hefaid, 
 I will greatly multiply thy Sorrow and thy Conception : Inforroiv thouPialt bring forth Chil- 
 dren, and thy Dejire Jhall be to thy Husband, and he jhali rule over thee. From which 
 Words it appears, that Adam had not only an abfolute Power granted him by 
 God over his Wife, but all the Poftcrity that Ihould be born of her. For, in the 
 firft place, it here fcems that Eve was to yield an abfolute Subjedion to her Huf- 
 band, who was to rule over her as her Lord, from thefe Words, and thy Dejtre fia'J 
 he [fiibjed] to thy Hwband, (as it is better exprcfs'd in the Margin) and he jhall rule 
 ever thee. And if his Wife was thus to be fubjeft to him, then likewife by a Pa- b.P.P. {. 91. 
 rity of Reafon all her Children were to be (o too ; it being a Maxim in the Law 
 of Nature, as well as in the Ci\'il Law, that Partus fequitur ventrem : So that if 
 Eve was to be abfolntely fubjeft to Adam, the Iflue by her mufl be fo too ; as in 
 the cafj of a M^J}er of a She-Jlave, not only the Perfon of the Woman, but all that 
 are begotten of her, either by her Mafter or any other Man, are likewife his Ser- 
 vants; otherwife the Children would be in a better condition than their Mother; 
 for Adam having no Superior but God, both his Wife and Children mufl have 
 been alike fubjed to him. There is likewife another Rule in .the Civil Law, lb. j. ji. 
 which is a Voice of Nature too, Quicquidex me & uxore mea nafcitur, in foteflate 
 mea efl : And tho' this is true in fome fenfe in all Fathers whatfocvcr ; yet it was 
 fo in a more fuperlative degree, where the Father liad no Superior over him but 
 God, a.s Adam had not. And f;irther, it feems apparent to me, from the very lb. $.20,41. 
 Method that God us'd in creating Mankind, that Adam's Wife and Children 
 fliould be fubjeft to him : For i( Adam and Eve had been created at once, it 
 could not have been known which of thcfe two had the bcft Right to command, 
 and which was to obey. For Adam's Strength, or Wit alone, would not have 
 
 C 2 given
 
 12 BiBLiOTHECA Politic A. 
 
 given him any Authority over her ; and it might be that Eve v/^s as ftrong and as 
 wife as he, or at leail flie might liave thought her felf fo ; and if thefe two had 
 difter'd and fought, nought but the Event could have declared whicli of them 
 iliould have been Mafter. 
 
 So when they had Children born between them, the Children could have told as 
 little which of the Parents they fhould have obey'd, in cafe they had difter'd in 
 their Commands : So tliat it had been impoffible this way that any Go\ crnment 
 
 5. 22. could have been in the World. But when God created only one Man, and out 
 4' of him one Woman was made, fure he iiad fome gre:.t Dcfign in this; for no 
 'im.'z. II, other Creature was thus made at twice, but Man. Now St. Paul fliews a Reafon 
 
 for God's afting thus, when he fays, tiie Woman fhould not teach, nor ufurp Au- 
 thority over the Man, &c. And mark the Reafon : For Adam uw oeated, and 
 then Eve. So that, in the Apoflle's Judgment, this was one main Caufe why 
 Adam fliould be fuperior to his Wife, and all other Husbands to their Wives. And 
 
 -5' in the Corinthians, from the Hiflory of the Creation, the fame Apoille deduces two 
 
 other Reafons for the Superiority of the Man over the Woman : For (fays he) the Man 
 
 or. II, S,isnotoftheWo}?ia?i, butthelVomanof the Man ; (that is, £i/f was iotmtd out o'i Adam) 
 neither ■nas the Man created for the IVoinan, but the Woman for the Man. So that you 
 fee here is Adam ftated in a degree of Superiority over his Wife before the Fall ; 
 and immediately after it, God again renew'd ^Jaw's Title, when he told E-ye (as 
 
 6. I have but now mentioned) thy Dejire JJ:all he fuhjecl to thy Hmland, and he jl^aU rule 
 ever thee. Now I fo far agree with what you at iirft laid down, that if the Fall 
 had not diforder'd her Faculties, and render'd her apt and prone to difobey her 
 Husband, this Command need not have been given her ; but flie would have 
 known her Duty from the Order and End of the Creation, without this explicite 
 pofitive Command. 
 
 F. You have. Sir, taken a great deal of pains to prove that which I do not at 
 all deny, that as well before as after the Fall, Adam, (and confequently all other 
 Husbands and Fathers) ought to be fuperior to their Wives and Children, and 
 likewife govern and command them in all things relating to their own Good, and 
 that of the Family, as long as they continue Members of it ; nay, that Children, 
 after they are feparated from their Father's Family, fiill owe their Parents all the 
 Gratitude, Duty, and Refpeft imaginable : But yet I deny that this Power, which 
 Adam had over Eve, and his Ifl'ue by her, and all other Husbands have over their 
 Wives and Children, is a regal defpotical Power, or any more than conjugal in 
 refpeft of his Wife, and paternal in refpect of the Children ; nor is that filial Re- 
 verence and Obedience, which Children yield their Fathers, the fame with that 
 Refpeft and Duty, which a Wife owes her Husband, or the fame with that (er- 
 vile Subjeftion, which Slaves owe their Lord and Mailer ,• neither is the Duty of 
 a Wife of the fame kind with that which Sons pay their Fathers, or Slaves their 
 Lords ; nor did Sarah, when fhe called Abraham Lord (who was then Mailer of a 
 feparate Family, and fo fubject to none) ever fuppofe that her Husband had the 
 fame Authority over her, as he had over Hagar her Bondwoman, to fell her, or turn 
 her out of doors at his pleafure. But to make it more apparent to you, that this 
 Power granted to Ada7n over Eve, was not regal nor defpotical, but only conjugal, 
 and for the well ordering of the Family, where fome one mull command in chief, 
 and the reft obey, to avoid Confulion, will appear, firft, if you confider 
 that this Subjeftion of Eve to Adam was not enjoin'd till after the Fall, and 
 is part of God's Judgments denounc'd againft her, for tempting her Husband to 
 eat the forbidden Fruit, and certainly included fomewhat more than that Supe- 
 riority which he had over her by his Creation, or elfe God fhould not have made 
 it any part of the Judgment denounc'd upon her. If this Submiffion flie ow'd to 
 her Husband before the Fall, had been of the fame nature with that Subjc&'on {he 
 was to be under after it ; which yet I take to be neither fervile nor abfolute, but 
 only a conjugal Obedience or Submiffion of her Will to his, in all things relating 
 to the Government of the Family, and the Carriage of her felf; tho' I do not de- 
 ny but the Husband may fometimes reftrain her by force, in cafe fhe carries her 
 felf unchaftly, or indifcrectly, to the lofs of her Reputation, and Prejudice of his 
 Intereft, when fhe will not be direfted, or advis'd by his Perfualion, or Com- 
 mands, which before the Fall, when fhe was in a State of Innocency, there was 
 no need of; fince (as your felf grant) before the Fall fhe knew what was her 
 Duty, and performed it without any force or conftraint, (7c. And therefore that 
 
 Text,
 
 'Dialogue the Firfl. I^ 
 
 Text, which you have now quoted out of ffi?«e/?j, I'hy DeJi.eJIjaU be [rubje«5t] to 
 thy Husband, and he Jhall rule OTer thee, is not fairly cited : For, as for the marcfinal 
 Addition, I'iz.. \_fiiljeB ] to thy Husband, it is not warranted from the Kbrrsi 
 Original, or Verlion of the LXX ; the Hebreiu having no more than (thy Def.; e 
 fjallbe to thyHi'jbimd) wliich the LXX renders a^o^pofii^ i.e. the Converiion or In- 
 clination of the Defire, by which fome Interpreters underftand no more than the 
 carnal Appetite. So likewife from the Words \^,uk oi'er thee] they likcwife ob- 
 ferve, that Alofes makes ufe of the fame i/t^-eu) Word, when he makes mention of 
 the Sun and Moon ruling the Day and Night, tho' they do not do it by any .Vio- 
 lence, or corporeal Force : So likewife, by this ruling of the Husband, is not to 
 be under/lood any abfolute, defpotick Power, whereby he hath a Right to difpofc 
 of the Perfon and A<ftions of his Wife in all things ^t his pleafure ; but that flic 
 may in many cafes rcfufe, nay controul his Commands, and refill his Actions, in 
 cafe they prove unlawful, or deftruftive to her felf and Children. 
 
 But that tins Argument of St. Paul, of tiie Husband's Superiority over his 
 Wife, was not granted to Adam alone, but equally extends to all Husbands what- 
 foever, appears from the very Text it felf,- or otherwife St. Paul had argu'd very 
 impertinently of the Duty of all Wives : And if fo, it will follow that every one 
 of Adam's Sons, as focn as he took a Wife, had the like Authority over her, as 
 Ada?fi had over their Mother : And if over their Wives, then, by your Maxims 
 (oi Partm fequitur verarcm, & quicquid ex me (j uxoremeanafatur, in pctejlate mea ejl) 
 all the Sons of Adam muft have had the fame Power over their Children, as their 
 Father had over them. So that the fame Confequcnce will flill follow from thefe 
 Places of Scripture, and alfo from your Civil Law Maxims, that either v^^^/ot had 
 no Civil or Defpotick Power over his Wife and Children ; or elfe, if he had, that 
 every one of his Sons, when married and feparated from hi : Father's Family, lud, 
 the fame, and confequently there were as many Princes as diftinft Matters of Fa- 
 uiiliesi and then what would become ofy^^<^;«'sMonarchy,Igiveyoulcai'e to judge. 
 
 M. I muft beg your Pardon, if I am not fatisfied with your Anfwer to my lafl 
 Argument : For 1 am ilill of opinion, notwithflanding what you have faid, that 
 Eve was to yield an abfolute Subjedion to her Husband, from that Place 
 already cited, T'hat her (tiiz. Eve'j) Dejire (i. e. V/ill) JImild be fubjeci to her Huf- 
 band, &c. To which you anfwer, that this Sabjeftion of Eve to Adam was not 
 the fame which Sons owe their Fathers, or Slaves to their Lords ; and that Eve 
 owed ^Ji7;« not a filial, orfervile, but a conjugal Subjeftion. For I would fain 
 know the dirferencc, in the State of Nature, between one and the other : For B. P.P. ,'. ly, 
 if you pleafe to compare that Place oi Genejis, I but now quoted, with that other -^• 
 where God gives Cain Power over Abel, his younger Brother ; you will find them 
 the fame in Words, as alfo in Senfe. For in this God likewife tells Cain, "that 
 unto thee Jliall his Dejire be fubjeci, and thoujlmh rule over him. And fure God could Gea.i^. 7. 
 not intend by thefe Words, that Abel fliould yield a conjugal, but a filial Sub- 
 jection to his elder Brother ,• and thefe Words are not capable of twoScnfes, but 
 muft be underftood alike in both Places (/'. e.) That the Dcfire (which is a Fa- 
 culty of the Soul, and that the moft attive too) was to be fubjedt, and the Body, 
 and all the Powers of it, were to be over-ruled by him ; which is as full and 
 abfolute a Subjeftion as can be exprefs'd in Words. And whereas you fay, that 
 thefe Words were not fpolcen till after the Fall, and thence feem to infer, that 
 Eve, did not owe Adam lo much as a conjugal Subjeillon before that ; St. Paul 
 hath given you an Anfwer fo that already, which it is needlcfs to repeat ; and 
 therefore, upon the whole matter, I think your Diftinftion of a conjugal Sub- 
 je<5tion difterent from a filial or fervile one, will lignify nothing- ' ' 
 
 F. I doubt not, Sir, but I fhall be abk to make good this Dillinflion of a fer- 
 vik apd a filial Obedience ; and in order to it, fhall reply to tlie Confequcnce 
 you have made, for Eve's abfolute Subjection to Adaw, from the like ExprefTion 
 u fed by God to Cam concerning his ruling over his Bxoihtx Abel, as is us'd here 
 to Eve concerning her Subjection to her Husband ; and that becaufe the Subjeftion 
 oi Abel was abfolute, that therefore her Subjection muft be fo too- I muft crave 
 your Pardon if I deny you Aifumption ; for I think I am able to prove, that nei- 
 ther Abel, nor any other younger Brother, was, or is obliged, by virtue of this 
 Text, to yield an abfolute Obedience to his elder Brother, in the State of Na- 
 ture, or that he is therefore his Lord and Mafter- Nor can I fee any Abfiu'di- 
 ty, but that the fame Words might b<; fpoken to feveral Perfons, yet in different 
 
 Senfcs,
 
 14 B I B L I O T H E C A P O L I T IC A. 
 
 Senfes, which, according to the Nature of the Perfons to whom they were fpoken, 
 might have different Eftfts. As here thefe Words, when fpoken to Eve, enjoin 
 a conjugal Submiffion of Eve's Will to Adam as her Husband j but when fpoken 
 to Abel, they may fignifie a fraternal Submiffion of AbeVs Will to Cain's, as the 
 elder, and perhaps the wifer of the two, but without giving any abfolute or 
 defpotick Power over either. 
 
 M. I cannot be yet fatisfied with your Reply ; for methinks this is bnt to 
 trifle with God's Word, when he told Cain, thy Brother's defire (hall be fubjeft 
 to thee, that is, (fay yctt) T'houjiialt rule ever him only as far as he thinks fit ; or if 
 thou haft the knack to wheedle or perfuade him. Was not this a mighty Matter 
 for God Almighty to appear to Cii/« about } An excellent and rational way toap- 
 peafe his Wrath towards his Brother? Whereas Godhereplainly en joineth a Subjec- 
 tion (rom Abel to his elder Brother ; and if fo, by vertue of the fame Words, a like 
 Subjedion oi Eve to Adajn; and then it will likewife follow, that as the Streams are 
 of the fame Nature with the Fountain, the Subjeftion of all her Pofterity will like- 
 wife be included in hers, which I have fufEciently proved already, had you not 
 miftaken the true Senfe of thofe two Maxims I laid down. For firft, if Partm 
 feqiiitur ventrefn, and the Mother be a Subjeft, as Eve was, all her Pofterity mull 
 be fo to all Generations. And if Quicquid ex me & uxm-e mea nafcitur, in ptejiate 
 mea efl, be true, then Adams Grand-children, and great Grand-children, deri- 
 ving themfelves from him and Eve, muft be likewife under Adam's Power. Nor can 
 I fee how his Sons, or Grand-children, by fetting up feparate Families, could 
 ever difcharge themfelves from this abfolute Subjeftion to Adam, fince they could 
 never have quitted his Family without his Confent ,• and when they did quit it, 
 unlefs he pleafed to manumit them, they, tlieir Wives and Children were ftill as 
 •much fubjeft as they were before. Since I do not fee, if they were once Subje(S:s 
 to him, how any thing but his exprefs Will and Confent could ever difcharge 
 them from it. Nor was that Authority (which every one of thefe ^ovisoi Adam 
 might exercife over their Wives and Children, though they were not freed from 
 the Power of their Father) any more inconfiftent with that Subjeftion and Obe- 
 dience they owed him, as their Prince, than in an abfolute Monarchy, the Power 
 of Fathers and Husbands over tlieir Wives and Children, as to the things rela- 
 ting to the well-ordering and governing their Families, is inconfiftent with that 
 fupreme predominant Power which the Monarch hath over the Father himfelf, 
 and all his Family ; or than the Power of a Mafter of a Family, in the Ifle of 
 Barbadoes, over his Slaves that are married, and have Children, is inconfiftent 
 wath that Marital and Paternal Power which fuch a Slave may exercife over his 
 Wife and Children within his own Family, tho' ftill fubordinate to the Will of the 
 Mafter, who may forbid any fuch Slaves, or their Children to marry, but where 
 he hath a mind they fhould ,- and may likewife hinder them from correfting or 
 putting to Death tlieir Wives and Children without his Confent. Though fuch 
 Subjcds in an abfolute Monarchy, or Slaves in a Plantation, cannot have, or 
 enjoy any Property in Lands or Goods but at the Monarch's, or Mafter's Will. 
 And fo likewife at firft none of thefe Sons of Adam, though they fet up diftinft 
 Families from their Fathers, could enjoy, or enclofe any part of the Earth with- 
 out his Grant or Aflignment, to whom the whole was given by God before. 
 
 It feems likewife to be a great Miftake, when you at firft affirmed, that all 
 Civil Government was ordained by God, fir the Benefit and Advantage of the Sub- 
 je^s, rather than the Governours. Whereas from the firft and moft Natural Go- 
 vernment it appears, that Children, who were the Subjefts, were ordained as 
 much for the benefit and help of their Parents, who were the firft Monarchs, as 
 F, A. MM. their Parents for them. From all which we may draw thefe Conclufions : 
 h 244- pirft, That from Gen. 3. v. 6. already cited, we have the Original Charter of 
 Government, and the Fountain of all Civil Power derived from Adam as the 
 Father of all Mankind. So that not only the Conftitution of Power in general, 
 but tlie fpecial Limitation of it to one kind, (viz,.) Monarchy, and the Determina- 
 tion of it to the individual Perfon of Adam, are all Ordinances of God. Nei- 
 ther had Eve, or her Children, any Rigiit to limit Adam's Power, or join them- 
 felves with him in the Government. Now if this Supreme Power was fettled, 
 and founded by God himfelf in Fatherhood, how is it poffible for the People to 
 have any Right to alter, or difpofe of it otherwife ? it being God's Ordinance 
 that this Supremacy (hould be unlimited in Adam, and as large as any Ads of 
 
 his
 
 Dialogue the Fir ft. i^ 
 
 his Will. So that he was not only a Father, but a King, and abfolute Lord f. P. 0. A. 
 over his Family ; a Son, a Subjedf, and a Servant, or Slave, beingone and the 
 fame thing at firft ,• the Father having Power to difpofc of or fell his Children or 
 Servants at his pleafure : And tho' perhaps he might deal too feverely or cruelly in. 
 fo doing, yet there was none above him, except God, in the State of Nature, 
 who could call him to an account, much lefs refifl; or punifh him for fo doing. 
 
 F. You have. Sir, made a very long Speech upon the Monarchical Power of 
 Adnm.which you have made of fo large an extent, that this imaginary Kinglhip muft 
 fwallow up all the other more dear and tender Relations both of a Husband, and 
 of a Father. So that were I not fatisfied you were a very good natured Man, 
 and fpokc more the Senfe of others than from your own natural Inclinations, I 
 fhould be apt to believe, that if you had fufficient Power, you would prove as 
 great a Tyrant over your Wife, Children, and all that fhould be under your 
 Command, as fuch Arbitrary Tenets would give you leave : But fince, I hope, your 
 Error lies rather in your Undcrfianding, than in j'our Nature ; I fliall make bold 
 to Ihew you the Miftakes you have committed in thofe Principles you here lay 
 down. I migin firfl: begin with the Place of Scripture you farther infift upon, 
 for Eves abfolute Subjection to AdiVn from the like Expreffion ufed by God to 
 Cain concerning his ruling over his Brother Abel, as is us'd here to Eve : And 
 though you are pleafed to think my Expofition of this Place fo ridiculous, yet I 
 doubt not but to be able to prove, when I come to fpeak of this pretended 
 Divine Authority of elder Brothers over the younger, that this Place cannot 
 be underflood in any fuch Senfe, according to the beft Interpretation that both 
 the R^afon of the Subjcft, and the Senfe the beft Commentators put upon it can 
 allow : But I fhall defer this 'till we come to difcourfe concerning the SuccelVors 
 of Adnm in this Monarchical Power you fuppofe. And therefore I fhall only at 
 prefent purfue that 'abfolute Power, which you fuppofe Adam to have had, not 
 only over Eve, but all her Defcendants. For ii-deed your Argument of Eve's, 
 and confequently all her Children's abfolute Subjedion to Adam, depends upon 
 a very falfe Suppofition. Siace if the Subjedion of Eve to Adam, and of all 
 Wives to their Husbands is not fcrvile or abfolute, neither can that of the Chil- 
 dren be fo ; fince, according to your own Simile, if the Streams are of the 
 fame Nature of the Fountain, they can never rife higher than it : And tho' I 
 grant, Adam mi^hi'm fome cafes have put his Wife or Children to Death, for any 
 enormous Crime againft the Law of Nature ^ yet I allow him that Power, not as 
 a Husband or Father, but only as a Lord or Mafter of a feparate Family, who 
 having no Superior in the State of Nature, I grant, is endued by God with this 
 Prerogative, for the Good of his Family,and Prefervation of Mankind,left fuch horrid 
 Crimes, fo much to its prejudice, fhould pafs unpunifli'd. But that the Husband, 
 or Father, doth not aft thus in either of thefe two Capacities, I can calily prove. 
 
 Firft, Becaufe the Scripture tells us the Husband and Wife are one Flcfh, Gen. 2. 24. 
 and that no Man ever yet liated his own Flefh ,• fo that it is impoffible for a ^t'H' 5) 19. 
 Husband to put his Wife to Death, 'till by the Greatncfs of her Crimes fhc be- 5°' 
 comes no longer worthy of that tender Affeftion he ought to bear her. Then as to 
 the Father, lie, as a Father, ought not to defire to put his Son to Death, whofe 
 Being he hath been the caufe of, and who is principally made out of his own 
 Subftancc, and on whom he hath beftowed Nourifliment and Education for fo 
 many Years, un^il he Hnds that inftead of a Son he proves an Enemy to his Fa- 
 mily ; or hath foiaid wait againft his Life, that as long as he lives he can- 
 not be hk ; or elfe commits fome of thofe heinous Crimes, which, by the Laws 
 of God and Nature, do juftly deferve no lefs Punifliment than Dcatii ; in fhorr, 
 when he ceafes any longer to deferve the Name of a Son. 
 
 Yet this Authority holds no longer than w'hilft the Son remains part of his Fa- 
 ther's Family, and fo fubjeft to his Power : And this I take to be the rcafon 
 why we do not read, that ^^^w took any notice oi Cain's murdering his Brother, 
 becaufe he was before freed from his Power, by fctting up anotlicr Family, which 
 certainly had been Adam's Duty to have done, had" he been then under his Ju- 
 rifdiftioii ; Murder being as great a Crime before the Flood as after, though 
 the Punifliment of it by Death were not pofiriveiy cnjoin'd by God 'till then. g,„. „, , 
 But I fhall prove this point more particular!)' by and by, as alfo that Adam's 
 Children might enjoy, or enclofc fome part of the Earth without any Grant or 
 
 Alfent
 
 l6 BiBLiotHECA Politic A. 
 
 Aflent from Adam, to whom you fuppofc (though widiout any Proof as yet) that 
 the whole Earth was given by God. 
 
 To conchide, I doubt you miflook mc when you fay, I at firft afljrmctl, that 
 all Civil Government was ordained by God, for the Benefit or Advantage of the 
 Subjefts, rather than that of the Governours ; anil therefore you undeuake to 
 fliew me, that in the firfl and moft natural Government, 1.72,. that of aTamily, 
 Children, rcho are SiibjeEii in the State of Nature, are 0; darned as much for the Benefit 
 and Help of their Parent.', uho are their Primes or Mafters, as their Parents for them } 
 in which Afl'ertion you fall into more than one Miltake ; for J do not aflc-rt, that 
 in Civil Government the Benefit or Advantage of the Sicbjcct is only to be con- 
 lidcred : For I fliall ealily grant, that Princes may very well challenge a very 
 great fliare in the Honour and other Advantages that may be reap'd by their 
 Government ; and yet for all that, when the Happinefs and Prefervation of the 
 Subjefts is incompatible with that of the Prince, the former is to be preferred ; 
 * Be ohlig. and Bifhop Sanderjm is of this Opinion, when he tells us in his Leftures * Dg 
 coi.'fc. Vr£l. yuramento, T^hat the end of Ciiul Government, and the Obedience that is due to it, is tlif 
 J- f- 19' Safety and 'Tra)iquility <f Humane Society ; and therefore the end is certainly to b? 
 preferred betore the means, when they cannot both confift together. But this 
 is no Argument for the preferring the Benefit or Ad\antages of Parents before 
 that of their Children, fince Paternal is not Civil Government : Nor are Fathers 
 abfolute Princes or Mafters over their Qiildren, as you fuppofe ; and yet I think 
 I may fafely affirm, that even m this Paternal Government, though it be granted 
 that Children are ordained for the Benefit, or Help of their Parents ; yet when 
 their Happinefs and Prefervation is inconiiftent with that of their Children, it 
 may be a great doubt which is to be preferr'd, fince God's chief Intention in Pa- 
 rents was for the Prefervation and Propagation of Mankind ; and therefore I 
 cannot fee how it could ever be any part of tlie Paternal Power, for a Father to 
 make his Child a Slave, or to fell him to others at his pleafure, as you fuppofe ; 
 this being no part or end of the Defign or Duty to a Father. 
 
 And whereas you lay to my charge my miftaking the true Senfe of thofe Civil 
 
 Law Maxims you have quoted; I think I can eafily prove, that the Miftake lies 
 
 on your fide, and that you have mifapplied them, to make them ferve your pur- 
 
 pofe : for as to your firif Maxim, Partm fequitiir Ventrem, from which you infer, 
 
 that the Child ought to be of the fame condition with the Mother, this Rule in 
 
 your Civil Law relates only to Baftards, and not Legitimate Children, who fol- 
 
 ^ low the condition of the Father according to your Digeft : Qtii ex uyore mea naf- 
 
 fi'^L 16. ' '^'^"''j fii't^ mariti efl habendm ; fo like wife in your Code, Cum kgiti?nx ntiftia faBa 
 
 Cod Tt 10 i^'''^» patrem Itberi fequuntur, "uulgo quxfitm matrem feqtiitur. Nor is your fecond 
 
 L. 14, Maxim more true; for though 1 grant, according to your /Jo7Wfl« Law, the Father 
 
 Big. "Tit. 5. might have abfolute Power over his Wife and Children ; yet I cannot fee how this 
 
 I" 19. word, nafcitur, can be extended beyond thofe that are born of a Man and his Wife, 
 
 and therefore can never concern Grand-children much Icfs any more remote 
 
 Defcendants ,• and this very Law, that a Son or Daughter might be killed by 
 
 , a Father, feem'd fo cruel and odious, even to the ancient Romans themfelves, that 
 
 neither the Law of the twelve Tables, nor the Julian Law of Adulteries, 
 
 which were provided againil Fathers, Sons, and Daughters, ever extended it to 
 
 the Grand-father, Grand-fon, or Grand-daughter by Interpretation ; or Argument 
 
 a cafu confimili. Nor do tliefe Words, m Pvtejlate mea efl, prove more than that 
 
 all Children are born under the Power of their Parents, though whether they 
 
 Ihall always continue fo long as they live, is not to be proved from this Maxim ; nor 
 
 if it were, doth that make it a Law of Nature. For I mull: needs obferve this 
 
 of divers of you Civilians, that whatever Maxim you find in your Civil Law 
 
 Books, that will make for your Notions, you prefently adopt them for Laws 
 
 of Nature, without ever enquiring by the ftridt Rules ct Rcafon, and the Good 
 
 of Mankind, (by which alone any Law of Nature is to be tried) whether they 
 
 are fo or no. 
 
 "I fhall not trouble ray felfto confute thofe falfe Conclufions you have brought 
 from thofe weak Premillcs ; for if I have deftroyed your Foundation, I think 
 your Superftructurc cannot ftand ; and therefore you mult pardon me, if I can- 
 not find this Or.gi al Charter of Government, and ot all Civil Power, to be 
 derived from A^iam by .any Argument that yet you have brought either from 
 - ,. . " • Scripture,
 
 Dialogue the Fir ft. 17 
 
 Scripture, or Reafon ; only give mc leave to obferve thus much upon what yoti 
 have faitl. That if not mU the Coii/litution of Civil Potxer in general, but the fpecial 
 Limitation of it to one kind, (viz..) Monarchy, be the Ordmance of God, I 
 cannot fee how any other Government but that can be lawfully fet up, or obey- 
 ed by Men, lince no Government can challenge this Priviledge againft Divine 
 Inftitution. 
 
 M- Since this Hypothcfis doth not pleafe you, I fhall be glad if you can fhew 
 me any better Original, cither of Adams Paternal Power, or of Civil Govern- 
 ment, than this that God gave Adam over Eve, who indeed was, as at the firll B.V.T.tj 55. 
 Subjcft, fo the Reprcfcntative of all that followed; and it reaches not only to 
 all her Daugiiters in relation to their Husbands, but to all of them in relation 
 to their Fathers, and to her Sons too, in relation 10 botii their Father, and their 
 eldefl; Brother after his Deceafe, if no Body fuperiur to both of them, and him 
 interpofed, and diverted, or rather over-ruled it. 
 
 For (i.) If a Priority of Being gave Adam a Power over his Wife, it gave him 
 much more fo over his Ciiildren. 
 
 (2.) If God's taking Eve out of Adam, the forming her of one of his Ribs 
 without his Concurrence, did yet make her his Inferior, his Children were 
 much moiJ fo, which were derived from him, and by his A6t. 
 
 (3.) If flie were formed for him, not he for her j and that was another rea- 
 fon ; this extended to his Children too, who were begotten for the Comfort and 
 Afliltance of both him and her. 
 
 (4.) When God put Eve under the Subjeftion of her Husband after the Fall, 
 her Children muft needs be fo too, if they were not excepted, but we read of 
 no Exception. 
 
 (5.) Is it not an eternal Law of Nature, that all Children fhould be fiibjeft to 
 their Parents ? And did not this Law fpread itfelf over the Face of all the Earth, 
 as Mankind increafcd ? 
 
 And whereas you would limit this Power of Parents over their Children, both Ib'iA, 
 in its Extent and Duration, this is purely owing to the Civil Laws of Nations, 
 and not to the Laws of Nature, and is dilterent in difterent Places ; ibme 
 having reftrained the Power of Parents more, and fume lefs. But God gave 
 the Parents a Power of Life and Death over their own Children, amongft his 
 own People th.e Jews, and that not limited in Duration neither, for the Fa- 
 ther's Power over his Son was not determin'd but by his Death, though tliey 
 could not execute that Power, but in the prefence of a Magiflrate. And I am 
 alfofure that in all the Hiftcries and Relations I have met with, amongft eivi- 
 liz'd Nations (where it is nor othcrwife order'd by the Civil Laws of the Coun- 
 try) all Husbands and Fathers ha\ e Power of Life and Djath over their Wives, 
 and Children ; and fo it is at tliis Day amongft many Eaftern Nations, and was 
 antiently amongft the Rvmans, Gauls, and Perfians, &c. Which Power I take not 
 to have been given, or conferred on them, but rather leic: to them by the Civil 
 Laws of their Country in the fame State, as it was eftablifli'd by the Law of 
 Nature, or rather Nations. Now if ftich Husbands and Fathers antiently had, 
 and ftill have a Power of Life and Death in divers Couniries over their Wives 
 and Children, 1 delire to know what higher Power they could enjoy, (ince he 
 that hath power over a Man's Life, which is of the liigui.il concern to iiim, may 
 certainly command him in all things elfe } 
 
 But as for your laft Scruple, that you cannot fee, if Monarchy be of Divine 
 Lifiitution, how any Government but that can be lawti;lly let up or olicyed by 
 Men, I think it may be a fatisfaftory Anfwer, if I tell } nu, that ii thofe who 
 are born under a Monarchy can juftihc the Form the\ lire under to be God's „ , ,„ . 
 Ordinap.cc, they arc ndt bound to forbear their own Jiiftilication, bccauic nrhers,,*,'^,^^ 
 cannot do the like for the Forms they live under ^ let others loulc to the Defence 
 oi- their own Government : If it canncit be proved, or lliewed, that any other 
 Form of Ciovemment had ever any lav/ful beginning, but was brougiit in, or 
 eredcd by Rebellion, muft therefore the lawful and juft ObcdiL-ncc to Monarchy 
 be denied to be the (Ordinance of God } 
 
 F. I hope, before 1 have done, to give you a clearer Original from t!ie Law 
 of Nature, as well of Paternal Authority, as Civil Ciovernmenr, without re- 
 curring to Divine Revelation, wiiich (as 1 fa id before) would oblige none but 
 j-Vtyj, and Chriliians, or Mahowetans, whofe Law is a Mixture of both the other. 
 
 D In
 
 l8 BiBLioTHECA Politic A. 
 
 In the mean time give me leave to tell you, tliat Ezis being the Reprcfentative 
 of all Wives, did not put either herillf or lier Daughters into any abiblute Sub- 
 jeftion either to Adam, or their Husbands ; if it did, tlien could not this Sub- 
 jection be likewife owing cither to Adam, as the Patriarch, or Grandfather of 
 the Family, or to his eldeft Son after his Deccafe; fince this would make every 
 Wife in the ftate of Nature, to have had two abfolute Lords, her Husband, and 
 her Husband's Father, which is contrary to our Saviour's Rule, that no Man 
 can ferve two Matters, that is, in the fame kind of Service : And therefore it 
 plainly makes oin: my diltindion, that there is a great deal of difference between 
 a Conjugal Submiffion of a Wife to her Husband, and a Servile Subjeftion of a 
 Servant to his Lord, as alfo of that Obedien.ce or Dut\', which a Subjeft oweth 
 his Sovereign ; fince by your own Hypothelis it necelVarily follows, that either 
 Cain's Wife (for Example) was not to be fubjec^t tp her Husband, or clfc muff be 
 free from all Subjedion to her Father Adam : But as for any Submiffion to Cain, 
 as elder Brother after Adam's Deceafe, I deiire to be excufed medling with it, till 
 we have difpatch'd the Q_ue/lion in hand. 
 
 I come now to thofe frefh Confiderations you bring for this Monarchical Pow- 
 er of Adam; for indeed I cannot call them new Arguments, becaufe moft of them 
 have been anfwered already. The firft Confideration is from the Pricdty of the 
 Being, which you fuppofe gave Adam a Power over his Wife, and confequently 
 over his Children; but I think this Priority of Being could give him no fuch Pow- 
 er at all over her, and confequently not over them ; for I defire to know whether 
 if God had been pleas'd to have Created, the fame day that Eve was made, 
 twenty fingle Men, and their Wives, that therefore Ada-m muft have been, from 
 liis being firft Created, Monarch over them all, unlefs God had particularly 
 commanded it? .."i 
 
 I grant indeed that from God's Creating Eve out of Adam, it did render her 
 inferior to hun, and alfo from God's exprefs Command, that fhe was to be fub-: 
 jeft to him in all Conjugal Duties ; yet did neither of thefe render either her, or 
 her Children abfolute or perpetual Subjeds, and Slaves to Adam. And that their 
 being dcriv'd from him, or by his Aft, doth not at all alter the Cafe, I have al- 
 ready proved. 
 
 As for the third. That if fhe were formed for him, and not he for hep, that 
 this muft be another reafon which muft extend to his Children too : Here the Af- 
 fiimption is not only falfe, but the Confequence too : For fhe was not only form- 
 ed for him, but that they might be a mutual help to each other; and therefore the 
 Scripture tells us, A Man [hall leave his Father and his Mother, and fiall cleave unto his 
 fVife, and they two flmll be o;u Flejh ; which Words (in my Opinion) are very far 
 from proving any fuch abfolute Subjeftion ; for no Man can ever tyrannize over his 
 own Flefli ; and if fuch an abfolute Subjeftion had been intended from Eve to 
 Adam, it had been more confonant to Reafon, for the Scripture to have enjoin'd 
 her to have left her Father and Mother to cleave to her Husband. Whereas in- 
 deed there was no more meant by this Text, than that when a Man marries, he 
 may freely quit his Father's Family, and joining himfelf to his Wife, may fet up 
 another of his own. But as for the Children that were begotten between them, 
 tho' I grant they might be intended both for the Comfort and Affiftance of him, 
 and her; yet I have already proved that the Parents are more chiefly intended 
 for tlieir Children's Propagation, and Prefervation, than the Children are for their 
 Intereft and Happinefs. 
 
 Your fourth Confideration is only a fuppofition cf the Qiieftion which is yet 
 to be proved; that Eve was under an abfolute Subjection to Adam after the Fall. 
 1 have already proved this fuppofition not to be true ; and therefore the confe- 
 quence, as to the Children, is falfe likewife. 
 
 Your fifth is rather an Interrogation than an Argument, whether Children 
 ought not to be, and have not always been fiibjeft to their Parents all over the 
 World? In anfwer to wliich, I grant that it is true, that they have ever been fo," 
 tho' not in your Senfe. For I hold this Subjeftion neither to be fervile, or abfo- 
 lute, not yet perpetual, as long as they live : But in reply to this limitation of 
 the Power of Parents over their Children both in its extent and duration, you 
 tell me, this is purely owing to the Civil Laws oj Nations, and not to the Laws of Na- 
 ture ; and for a Proof of this, you produce God's own People the Jews for an 
 Example, that the Power of the Father over his Son was not determined but 
 
 * by 
 
 Ge«. z. 14.
 
 Dialogue the Firjl. ip 
 
 by his Death. B.it yourfclf confefl'sd, that he could not exercife this Poiier of Life andV"^- Selden 
 Death, but in the pnfence of the Mtigiflrate ; the Circumftances of which, if they be''" !?•'« G?«- 
 confider'd, will rather make againit you ; for, firft, the Father could not lave this^7''"'o 
 rebellious Son put to Death, till he had accufed him before tiie Elders of the 
 City, that is, the Judges who were eftablifli'd in every Precind, who, upon a fo- 
 lemn hearing, were to fentcnce fuch a rebellious Son to be floned to Death by all 
 the People of the City : Where you may obferve that the Father had no Power 
 to put him to Death himfelf; and therefore adcd in this cafe, as an Accufer, or 
 a Witnefs, not as a Judge. But if ycu'll bclie^■e Maimonides, one of the moil: 
 Learned of the Jeui/h Rabbins, he will tell you that by tlie Municipal Law of 
 the Jewf, this Power of the Father did fcarce extend beyond the thirteenth Year ' 
 of the Son's Age, af:er which tlic Son was reckon'd adult, and emancipated from 
 his Father's Power, and could not after that incur this Punifliment of a Hubborn 
 and rebellious Son ; and a Father who did but ftrike his Son after he was adult, in- 
 curr'd Excommunication, for that he oft'ended againft the Law. And tiio' I grant 
 that the Nat'ons you mention did exercife a Power of Life and Death over their 
 Wives and Children, yet will not the Pradice of forae particular Nations, tho' ne- 
 ver fo much civiliz'd, amount to a Proof of a Law of Nature, which is only to 
 be made out from evident Rules of riglit Reafon, and the great end of tliis Law, 
 the common good of Mankind; and efpecially when againft the Examples of thofe 
 Nations which you produce, I can likcwife fet thcfe of many more Nations, where 
 this Cuftom was not allowed, after once Civil Government was eftablifh'd. 
 
 And as for the Rcina;:! therafelves, amongft whom the greateft Examples of this 
 kind are to be found, they will not all of them amount to above three, or four, in 
 fix or feven hundred Years ; and then, tho' there might be very good caufe for it, 
 yet the People of Rome never fo much efteemed or loved fuch f athers after they 
 had put their Sons to Death, as they did before, but counted them too fevere and 
 cruel for fo doing. And you may read in Valerim Maximns, a.rA Seneca, that D« C/tw. 
 they killed Eiixion, a Roman Gentleman, for whipping his Son to Death like a 
 Slave i fo mucli did they abhor all fuch Cruelty of Parents towards their Children, 
 And afterwards, when by the general Corruption of Manners amongft the Romans, 
 Fathers grew more cruel to their Children, and often put them to Death without 
 caufe ,• thofe of your Faculty fuppofe that fome of the Roman Emperors (the' 
 it is uncertain who) took away this Power from Fathers, and made it (as it is 
 now among us) Murder, for a Father to put his Son to Death ,• tho' others fup- 
 pofe (fince there are no particular Edifts to be found concerning this Matter) 
 this Law to be changed by degrees, and to be left off by common confent of the 
 Romam themfelves ; for it feems dangerous to grant to a private Perfon the Cog- 
 nifance of any Crime, which might belong to publick Authority; and they 
 thought it better to ftrengthen both the Paternal and Marital Power by other 
 Laws than putting to Death. And therefore SimpLcius, upon Eptcietin's Enchiri- 
 dion, iays, that the Romans allowed Fathers this Power, becaufe they thought 
 they miglit very well truft their natural Aftection to their Children, for the exercife 
 of that Power of Selling them, or putting them to Death, which 'twas fuppofed 
 they would rarely ufe, unlefs compelled byextream NeceiTity, or unpardonable 
 Crimes ; and therefore if a Father would pur his Son to Death, he was to do it 
 with his own Hands, that he might fufier as well as his Son; but when this tender 
 Artcdion too failed, it was no wonder that the Riman Emperors did not think it 
 for the common good of their People to truft Fathers with this Power any lon- 
 ger, which they had hitherto exercifed, not fo properly by right of Fatherhood, 
 as that of the Mafter of a Family, who governed his Servants and his Sons by a 
 like Autiiority. 
 
 To conclude, I cannot but obferve, how flyly you wave my objeftion againft 
 the Divine Inftitution of Monarchy ; for tho' you fecm loth exprefly to condemn 
 all other Governments as unlawful, yet the confequence will be the fame upon 
 your Principles: For if it be a good Argument which fome make ufe of, for the 
 Government of the Church by Bifliops, becaufe that Government being fuppofed 
 by them to have been inftitutcd by the Apoftlcs by Divine Precept ; therefore 
 that no otJier Government but Epifcopacy can be lawful, or any true Church, 
 where that Government is not in ufe : So the fame Argument will likcwife hold 
 in Civil Governments, that all others muft be unlawful, if Monarchy alone were 
 
 D 2 * crdained
 
 2,0 BiBLioTHECA Politic A. 
 
 ordained by God, and chat all other Forms whatfoever began from Rebellion, or 
 the Fancies of Men. 
 
 M. To anfwer what you have faid, in tlie firfl place, I cannot fo flightjy pafs 
 over this Argument of the Law of Nations, by which I fuppofed the Power 
 of Fathers over the Perfons of their Children is fu/ficiently eftabliflied, and front 
 whence alfo it appears that among the Jeics, as well as Romans, the Children were 
 look'd upon as part of the Subftance of their Father, and confequently that they 
 had a perpetual right in their Perfons, as long as they livedo that the Ro?n.ws had 
 the Power of felling their Children three times, yourfelf do not deny ; that the 
 jfra).f alfo had it in ufe among them, appears firft, by the Srory of the Poor 
 Woman, the Widow of one of the Sons of the Prophets, who complained to 
 Clap.^. I- Elijha, in the fecond of Kings, telling him that her Husband is dead, and the Creditor, 
 is come to take her tvjo Sons to be Bondmen. And fo likewjfc in tlie New Tefiament, 
 our Saviour in St. Matthew fuppofes it as a thing commonly pradifed in thofe 
 parts of the World where he lived. For in the Parable of the King, who woul4 
 take account of his Servants, amongft whom, one owed him Ten thoufaud Talents : 
 M-tt' iS. ;4, £ut forafmiich as he had nothing to pay, his Lord commanded him to be fold, and his Wife 
 *5' and Children, and aU that he had, and payment to be made. Which was foiuided upon 
 
 that Law amongft the Jervs, that Fathers might fell their Children for Bond-fer- 
 vants, until the Year of Jubilee, as appears by Nehemtah, Chap. 5. where he re- 
 lates the Complaint of thofe poor ^ews, who had been forced, for want, to 
 bring their Sens and their Daughters into Bondage : Neither u-cti it in their Power to re- 
 deem them, for other Men had their Lands, and their Vineyards. 
 
 And amongft tlie Romans, this Power of fettling their Children continued, till 
 it was forbidden by the Emperor Juflinian. And as for the Grecians, Plutarch in 
 his Life of Solon relates, that till his time it was lawful amongft the Athenians^ 
 for Fathers to fell their Children to pay their own Debts : And I fuppofe it wa? 
 upon this account, that Cymon, the Son of that great General MUtiades, was kept 
 in Prifon by the Athenians, till he had paid the Fine of Ten thoufand Talents, 
 which his Father died indebted to the Commonwealth. And Phikjb-atus in hi? 
 Life of Apolivnius 'Thyaneus relates, that it was common amongft the Phrygians to 
 fell their own Sons. And to come to more Modern Times ; a. Son amongft th^ 
 Mufcovites may be fold four times ; but after the fourth Sale, the Father hath 
 no longer a Right in him, as the Baron of Heberfiein tells us in his Relation of 
 MufcDvy ; and it is not only in ufe amongft them, but alfo amongft the Tartars, 
 Eafi-Indians, Chinefes, and the People of Japan, not only to fell their Ci;iidren 
 themfclves, but alfo, that they are liable to be fold by the Prince, or his Of- 
 ficers, for their Father's Debts, or Oftences : So that you fee here is the confent 
 of moft of the civiliz'd Nations in the World, who fure in this follow the Dic- 
 tates of Nature and Reafon, in the exercife of a full and abfolute Propriety and 
 Dominion, in, and over the Perfons of their Children; fo that if it be a received 
 Cuftom or Law amongft moft Nations, it is alfo from Reafon too, Jince the Law of 
 Nations is only that which receives its obligation jro}n the confent of many Nations, as Grotius 
 well obferves : And Artflotle lays it down as one of the ftrongeft Proofs, when all 
 Men agree in any thing: And Cicero tells us, That the confent of moft Nations 
 is to be looked upon as a Law of Nature ; and therefore thefe Cuftoms are to 
 be efteemed as obligatory amongft all civiliz'd Nations, where the Municipal 
 Laws of thofe Countries have not reftrained or altered this natural Power, and 
 Intercft, which Fathers had originally over the Perfons of their Children. 
 
 But as for what you fay, that according to my Principles, no other Govern- 
 ment can be lawful befides Monarchy, I fluU give you the fame anfwer, that fome 
 of the moft Moderate of our Divines have given to thofe, who would make the 
 like Objeftion againft us of the Church of England, that believe Epilcopacy to 
 be Jure 'Divim, viz.. That God, for the neccllity of fome Ecclefiaftical Order 
 and Government in a Church, may permit, nay (perhaps) allow that Form of 
 Government as lawful, which himfclf never inftituted ; nay, which perhaps was 
 unlawful to have been fet up in the Church at all : And (o likewife in Ci\ il Go- 
 vernments, I will not deny, that thofe Forms may be lawfully obeyed as the 
 Ordinance of God, which he never inftituted ; but have wholly proceeded 
 from the Rebellions, or Inventions of Men. 
 
 F. I muft confefs. Sir, I cannot fee how any Law of Nations can be fuppofed 
 to lay any Obligation upon Mankind, difterent &om the Law of Nature, and 
 
 Reafon,
 
 Dialogue the Firji. 21 
 
 Rcafbn, or the revealed Law of God in Scipturc. And, tho' I confcfs there 
 is fome divificn amongft Learned Men about this Matter ; yet I think it 
 is far more Rational to fuppofc, that there arc but two Lav/s that can be 
 Rules of" Humane Aftions, the Natural Law, and the Divine. And of this 
 Opinion is the Learned Grotius himfcif, in the place you but now cited, where 
 he fays, he added the Words, 7iiany Nations, becaufe there can fcarce be found 
 any Natural Law, which is alfo wont to be called the Law of Nations, that is 
 common to all Nations .- Yea, tliat is often look'd upon as a Law of Nations in 
 one Country, wliich is not fo any where elfe ; as (fays he) wc fhall flicw in its 
 due place, concerning Captivity, and PojUimn.ium. 
 
 And for a farther ConHrmation of this, I will make bold to read to you in 
 Enghjh fome part of what tlie exce lent Pujfendm-f hacli written upon this Sub- 
 je(5t, in his Learned Work De Jure Natiira & Gemnm, Lib. 2. Cap.^. which you S. : 
 may here perufe with me ii you pleafe. 
 
 " The Law of Nature, and the Law of Nations, is accounted by many, one 
 "and the fame, which only differ by an extrinfick Denomination. And from 
 " hence Hibbs, De Ciiie, c. 14. §.4. divides the Law of Nature into the natural Law 
 " of Men, and the natural Law of Commonwealths, wliich is commonly cal- 
 " led yiii Gentium : And then adds, that the Precepts of both are the fame ; but 
 " becaufe Commonwealths, when once inflituted, do put on the Perfonal Proper- 
 "' ties of Men ; that Law which {peaking of the Duty of particular Men, we 
 " ;caii natural, being applied to all Commonwealths or Nations, is called Jm 
 ";'■ (aenttum, to which Opinion we do likewife fubfcribe; neither do we think there 
 "••can be any other voluntary, or pofitivc Law of Nations, which can have the 
 *' 1 ower of a Law properly fo called, and wiiich may oblige all Nations, as pro- 
 " .ceeding from a Superior. But moft of thofe things, which amongft the Ro~ 
 " man Civil Lawyers, and others, are referred to the Law of Nations ; as fup- 
 *' pofe, about the manner of acquiring of Contracts, and the like, do either be- 
 " long to the Law of Nature, or elfe to the Civil Laws of particular Nations, 
 ■?S which agree together for the moft part in thefe things j yet from wliich no 
 " new or diftinft fort of Law can be rightly conftituted, becaufe thofe Laws are 
 " common to Nations, not from any Agreement or mutual Obligation, but in 
 " that they do by accident agree, from the peculiar Will of the Law-givers in 
 *' each particular Commonwealth ; from whence the fame things may be changed 
 ^' by one People or Nation, witliout coiifulting the reft, and oftentimes are four.d to 
 •" be fo changed." And of this he here gives us feveral Examples of different Cuf- 
 toms amongft Nations, in making War upon each other, according to diverfe 
 Forms or tacit Agreements, whereby War may be managed with as little Cruelty 
 as may be. But thus he proceeds ,• " Thefe Cuftoms, although they may feemto 
 " contain fome Obligr^tion, as arifing from this fort of tacit Agreement amongft 
 " Nations ; yet if any Prince fliall wage a lawful War, and ncgleft them, or 
 "fliould do quite contrary to them, he would not be guilty of any Sin againft 
 *' the Law of Nature" ; but only of a piece of Roughnefs or Incivility, that he 
 did not make War according to tliofe Rules of Honour, which are ufed among 
 them, by whom War is looked upon as a liberal Art. [And a little farther pro- 
 ceeds thus :] " Amongft the principal Heads of the voluntary Law of Nations, 
 *' Gntim reckons the Right of Ambaffadors, where we alfo fuppofe, that by the 
 .*' very Law of Nature, Ambaifadors are inviolable even with the Enemy, as 
 ■" long as they appear Ambafl'adors, and not Spies, and do not contrive Plots 
 -" againft tliofe to whom they are fent. And h.ivii7gP:ewn the neceff-ty of Ambajfadors 
 *' in order to Peace, he thus gees on : But there are other Privileges attributed to Am- 
 *' bafladors, cfpecially to thofe who refide in a place rather to fifli out the Secrets 
 " of another State, than for Peace fake ; tliofe Privileges depend from the mcer 
 " indulgence of that Prince to whom they are fent, and fo, if it feems good to 
 *' him, may be denied them, without the violation of any Right, if he will like- 
 " wife fiiffer that his own Ambafladors (liould be treated in a like manner." 
 
 M. I fee whether this Author tends, but do not underftand what ufe you can 
 make of it to your purpofe. 
 
 ■ F. Bur I will quickly Ihew you, if you pleafe to have a little Patience: And 
 therefore to apply what 1 have now read to the Matter in hand ; in the firft place, it 
 is apparent from tiiis Author, that the Law or Ciillom of Nations iiath no Ob- 
 ligation as fuch, but only as it agrceih with the Law of N.iture, and the Law 
 * of
 
 22 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 of God ; and what Laws of Nations are founded on the Law of Nature, can 
 only be tried by fome Rule, which certainly is not to be learnt from the Know- 
 ledge of the Cufloms or Laws of all Nations ; fince who is able to know them 
 all ? And therefore thcfe Laws muft be tried, either by the natural light of a 
 Man's own Confcience, or elfe by confidering, whether this or that Pradice of a Na- 
 tion conduces to the honour or fcrvice of God, or the common good and happir.efs 
 of Mankind, and fo may be known as well by the Unlearned as the Learned. Now I 
 fuppofe you will not affirm, that this Law of the abfolutc Property and Domi- 
 nion of Fathers in and over their Children, can be difcovered by either of thefe 
 ways; or that a Man's Confcience will tell him, that it is his Duty to let his Fa- 
 ther kill him or fell him, or ufe him like a Brute, without any Contradiftion or Rc- 
 fiftance. And as for the other, I think I have fufficiencly pro\ ed, that this abfolute 
 Power, whicii you aflert of Fathers over their Children, doth not proceed from 
 that great Law of Nature, vizj. the common Good and Prefervation of Mankind, 
 to which the Practice of it may prove very deftruftive ; which, if proved, I think 
 I may eafily anfwer all that you have now faid about the particular Cuftoms or 
 Laws of divers Nations concerning this matter, tho' your Liftances were many 
 more than they are. 
 
 For, in the firft place, as for thofe you alledge out of Scripture, they do (as I 
 faid before) only regard the Municipal Laws of the Jev^s : Thoieof the Romans 
 touching this matter did only concern that Commonwealth whilft it was in being, 
 and no other Nations whatfoever. And for this Opinion I have both Grotim and. 
 Pujfendoif oi my fide : For the former, in the beginning of the Chapter laft quoted, 
 after having fet down the different Powers which Fathers may exercife over their 
 Children, according to their different Ages, thus affirms : " VVhatfoever is beyond 
 " thefe Powers, proceeds only from a voluntary Law, which is different in divers 
 *' Places : So by the Law which God gave the Jens, the Power of the Father 
 *' over his Son or Daughter, to diflblve their Vows, was not perpetual, but only 
 " endured as long as the Children were Parts of their Father's Family. 
 
 And by the fame Rule I may add, that Children were not reckoned as part of 
 their Father's Goods, and to be fold by him, or feized upon by Creditors for his 
 Debts, any longer than they continued Members of their Father's Family, and con- 
 fequently were not feized upon as his Sons, but Servants. And I defy you to 
 Ihew me an Example, where ever among the Jewr, the Children, after they were 
 adult, and parted from their Father's Houfe, were fold or feized as Slaves for their 
 Father's Debts. And as for the Remans, it is plain they acknowledged their Patria 
 Poteflcu to be in ufe amongft them neither by the Law of Nature or Nations, but 
 only from their own Civil Law, as appears by this Title, almoft at the very 
 beginning of 'Juftinians hjihutions (which, as I fuppcfe, you know better than I) 
 Infl.L.i. f.i. Patria Potefias ejl Juris Civilis & Civium Romanorutn frcpria. The Text follows in 
 2". 9- thefe Words (as I remember) Jta Pctejlatis, quod in liieios habemus, proprium eft 
 
 Civium Romamrum ; nuUi enim alii fuiit homines, qui talem in liLeros habeant potejlatemy 
 quakm nos habemm : And therefore they would not permit Strangers to exercife it 
 over their Children within the City of Rome. And if the Power of the Father 
 amongft the Jexvs and Remans was not by the Law of Nature cr Nations, no 
 more could it be fo, tho' exercifed amongft never fo many other Nations ; lince 
 if- it were one of the Laws or Precepts of Nature, it could never have been taken 
 away or rcftrained by any Civil Law, no not by the exprefs Confents of all Fathers;. 
 And as for your Inftance of Cymon amongft the Athenians, it makes nothing to this 
 purpofe ; fince, if I take it at the worft, it maketh no more, than that the Athe- 
 nian Commonwealth dealt very ungratefully and tyrannically with Miltiades and 
 his Son ; and it might be that they kept him Prifbner, as being Heir to his Fa- 
 ther's Principality in the Thracian Cherfonnefe, out of which theyluppofcd he might 
 pay the Debt ; as the King with us doth often put an Heir in Priibn for his Fa- 
 ther's Debts, where he hath Affets by Defcent- 
 
 But for all your other Examples, unlefs they have a Reafon in Nature to fup- 
 port them, they will no more prove that by the Law of Nations Fathers fhould 
 have a Right of Life and Death, or of felling their Children, than if you fhould 
 argue from the common Cuftom amongft the Lacedemonians, the Aborigines in Italy, 
 the Inhabitants of the Kingdom of Scphiris, as amongft the Indians mentioned by 
 Qu. Curtim, and the Chinefes, and the Inhabitants of Fo>-mofa at this Day ; all 
 which cither did, or now do dsftroy their Children as foon as they are brought 
 
 ! forth,
 
 Dialogue the Firjt, 23 
 
 forth, or elfe in die Womb before they are born, if they plcafe fo to (.[c Ai'.d 
 as for fome of thefc Nations you have inftanced in, and particularly the Mufco- 
 vitef, who can fell their Children but four times, it is apparent it is only a Muni- 
 cipal Law ; for if the Property of the Father over the Sons Pcrfons were by them 
 looked upon as perpetual, he might not only fell him four times, but forty, if ic were 
 pofllblc. And after all, I fuppofe you will not be ty'd to follow the Praftice of 
 the MiifciTjites in other AAions, as a Pattern for other more civilized Nations ^ 
 
 But on the other fide, I have, againft this Cuftom of your Nations, the Exam- 
 ples of divers altogether as wife and civiliz'd, who did not permit Fathers to 
 exercife this abfoiute Power over their Children ; and therefore againft your 
 Example of tiie Je-Ms I let that of the£^/'/;rt«f, who did not permit Parents to 
 put their Children to Death, nor yet to fell them, imlefs in cafe of great neccf- | 
 
 fity, and when they could not otherwife maintain them ,• and then I grant it may 
 be neceflary. So likewife againft your Roman Law, I fet tiiat of al} the Greek Na- 
 tions, none of whom permitted Fathers to j>ut their Children to Death, except Phttarch. ;» 
 the Spartans ; and that was only in one cafe, and that with the Judgment and Lycurio. 
 Coiifent of the eldeft Men of the Family, when their new born Infants were fo 
 weak or ill fliaped, as to be thought not worth the rearing. So likewife againft 
 your Examples of the inticnt Gauls, I fet that of the Gt^,mans, a Nation altogetlier 
 ^s wife and civiUzed as the other, towhom I could likewife add the antient Bri- 
 taiit.<, Spa,iiar4s, and divers othiCrs. And to the mere modern Examples of tlie 
 Eaftern Nations, where this Cuftom is permitted pt felling or killing their Chil- 
 dren, I fiiall oppofe the T'urks and modern Perfiam, amongil whom it is forbidden, 
 as alfo amongft all the Nations of Europe, who believe Chriftianity : And if we 
 go over X.O America, we {hall hnd that they are there fo indulgent to their Children, 
 that no Fault whatfoever, tho' never fo grear, flialljmake them put them to Death- 
 And to let you fee that this is moft fuitable toReafon, the two greateft Philofo- 
 phers amongft the Greeks, Plato and Arifiotle, have condemned it ; the former in 
 his Laws, where he exprelly forbids it, luppoliiig that in no cafe whatever a Fa- 
 ther ought to put off all Piety and Humanity towards his Son, and that a Son 
 Ihould be rather led by Nature, than driven by Force, to obey his FatJier ; Spe- 
 cially fince his Power is fufficiently eftablifhed by the Law, and the appointing of 
 publick Judges- And Anfiotle, in his Morals to Nuomaclnti, liLS. cap. 12. ac- 
 cufcs the Jus Patrium, then in ufe among the Perfians, as tyrannical : And Gyotipn 
 tells you, he produces thefc Examples of the Romans and Perfians, only that we 
 might diftinguifli Civil Rights from Natural- From whence it appears, that the p-,^, p, ^55,.^. 
 putting of Children to death by Parents was look'd upon as an odious thing a- d.m Rcrum 
 mongft the wifeft of the Antients ,• and therefore neither the Lex Regia, nor the JiiAu.itariim 
 Law of the XII Tables, nor the Julian Law tk Adultertis (all which left Fathers ^* ^'' '^^i 
 a Power over the Lives of their Sons and Daughters) yet would extend this Power ^Enuld^tioL 
 by Interpretation to the Grand-father towards his Grand-fon or Grand-daughter. Liberorum. 
 
 M. Yet for all this, I think all the wifeft and moft civilized Nations were of 
 my opinion, and it is from them that we ought to take this Law of Nations 
 rather than the others ; and therefore I think the Romans were a great deal wifer 
 and better People than tiie Greeks, and the antient Gauls than the Germans. Nor 
 does your Argument againft this Power of Life and Death in Fathers by the Law 
 of Nature feem cogent, that if it were fo, it could never be taken away or 
 reftrained by any Civil Law ; fince this Argument will make as much againft that 
 Power of Life and Death, with which you inveft your Fathers of Families in the 
 State of Nature ; fince if they have it by the Law of Nature, it could no more 
 be reftrained or taken away by Civil Laws, than any paternal Power in the 
 like cafe. 
 
 F. I pray. Sir, hold : If this Controverfy is to be decided by theWifdom and 
 the Civility ot Nations, we fliall never have done : For in the firft place, who 
 Ihall judge of this Confent of the moft civilized People ? and that no accoimt is 
 to be made of thofe whom you call barbarous ; for what Nation will acknow- 
 ledge it felf to be fo, or can arrogate fo much to it felf, as that it may require 
 alt others to conform tliemfelves to their Laws andCuftoms ,• and that all Nations 
 inuft be barbarous that a(5t otherwife ? Antiently the Arrogance of tlie Greeks made 
 them look upon all other Nations as barbarous ; and then the Romans fucceeded 
 in this foolilh Conceit of themfclves ; and at this day we People of Europe (who 
 are but a few in compariion of the reft of the World) do fuppofe our fclves to 
 
 exceed 
 
 \
 
 24 BiBLioTHECA Politic A. 
 
 exceed all others in Knowledge. And yet on the other fide there are divers Na- 
 tions, who prefer themfelves tar before us ; and I have read that the Chinefes have 
 a Saying, that the Europeans fee with one Eye, themfelves with two, but that all 
 the reft of the World arc flark blind ; and yet this Nation maintains a Power of 
 felling and expoiing their Children, which we Europeans abhor. Now pray tell 
 me, if there is not fome common Rule to be drawn trom Reafon, or the common 
 good of Mankind, how fliall we judge which is in the right ? So that notwith- 
 Itanding all that hach been faid on this Subject, I think I may fafely conclude 
 with the Judgment of the Learned Pujfendorf, in Lib. 6. Cap. 2. where fpeaking of 
 the Paternal Power, he fays thus : " But neither the fame Power, as fuch, feems 
 *' to extend it felf to that of Life and Death by reafon of any fault, but only to a 
 ** moderate Chaflifement. For fince this Authority is employed about an Age 
 " that is weak and tender, and in which fuch incorrigible Crimes can hardly be 
 " committed, which nothing but Life can expiate ; it is much better that a 
 *' Father ftiould turn out of doors a Son, who doth wilfully refufe through Obfli- 
 *' nacy and Wickednefs all due Correftion. So that Abdication and Difinheriting 
 •• feems to be the utmofi; Punifhment which can be inflicted by a Father on a 
 *' Son, conlidered as fuch. 
 
 M. I fee it is to no purpofe to fpend longer time about this Qiicftion ; fince 
 yourfelf have all along allowed, that the Father of a feparate Family in the State 
 of Nature hath a Power to put his Wife or Children to Death, in cafe they have 
 committed any heinous Sins or Offences againft the Laws of God or Nature. 
 But you have not yet told me (and I doubt cannot) how Adam, or any other Maf- 
 ter of a Family, could be endued with this Power of Life and Death, unlefs it 
 were granted him by God. 
 
 F. I promife to give you full Satisfaftion to this Qiieftion by and by ,■ but in 
 the mean time, pray let me make it a little more plain to you, that this Power 
 of Life and Death, which may be exercifed by Mafters of feparate Families over 
 their Wives and Children, in fome cafes, is not by any Power they receive from 
 God, as Husbands or Fathers, but only as Heads or Mafters of fuch Families, 
 may be proved by this Inftance : Suppofe a Mafter of a Family, independant on 
 any other (as in the Indies) hath neither Wife nor Children ; yet fure he hath 
 notwithftanding the fame Power of Life and Death over his Scrwints or Slaves, 
 for fuch great Offences as you have mentioned, in cafe there be no fuperiorPowtT 
 over him to take cognizance of fuch Crimes. And to make this yet plainer, fuppofe 
 a married Man, having a Wife and Children, will live (togetlur with them) in 
 the Family of fuch a Mafler as I have now defcribed (yet not as a Servant, but 
 as an Inmate or Boarder) and whilft he fo continues, his Wife kills one of her 
 Children, or one of his Sons, murders his Brother, who hath Right to punifli 
 this Offence, but the Mafter in whofe Family he is an Inmate ? And this fol- 
 lows from your own Suppofal : For if every feparate Family in the State of Na- 
 ture be a diftinft independent Government, then all thofe'that enter themfelves, 
 as Members of fuch a Family, muft be fubjed to the Mafter or Governor of it. 
 Nor do you reduce me into any Abfurdity by your Reply to my Argument, 
 by urging, that if the Power of Life and Death were originally in Fathers by the 
 Law of Nature, it could never be reftrain'd nor taken from them without their 
 Confent : That then this will make as much againft the like Power of Mafters of 
 Families ; fince I muft grant, this is taken away by Civil Laws ; and why may 
 not the other ? To this I reply, that you do not obfcrve tiie ftrength of thefe 
 Words, Without their Confent : For I fuppofe that no Power whatever can take this 
 out of the hands of fuch Fathers, cr Mafters of Families, in the Scate of Nature, 
 •without they affign it to the Supream Powers of the Commonwealth upon its firft 
 Inftitution ; whereas you make this Power to be obtainable by Force, by Con- 
 queft, or Ufurpation, not only over thofe that are not at their own difpofal, as 
 Children and Servants, but over their Fathers and Mafters too, without their 
 Confents ; which is contrary to the Law of Nature and Reafon. 
 
 M. I fee you take it for granted, that I will admit your Inftance of the Power 
 of Life and Death to be in the Mafters of Families, and not as Fathers, in the 
 State of Nature : But as plain as you think it, fince you queftion the Power of 
 Life and Death, which I fuppofe to be inherent in all Fathers ; I know not why I 
 may not with more Reafon queftion your allowing the like Power to Mafters of 
 feparate Families, fince there is no reafon, in my Opinion, which you can bring 
 
 I for
 
 Dialogue the Firji, ZJ 
 
 for fucli a Power in your Maflcrs of Families, which I cannot with like rcafon 
 urge, may be alfo excrcifed by Fathers and Husbands over their Wives and Chil- 
 dren, in cafe they defervc it. For if it be for the Good and Prefervation of Man- 
 kind, that great and enormous Crimes, fi ch as Murder and Adultery, fiiould be 
 punifhed, and that with Death ; who is more fit to inflift thefe Punilhments, or 
 who can bfe fuppofed to judge more impartially of them than the Father or Huf- 
 band himielf ? (ince he cannot put his Son or Wife to death, however they may 
 deferve it, without very great rclua3r,cy ; fince he, as it were, thereby lops 
 off a Limb from his own Body. And therefore I cannot fee any Reafou why 
 fuch a married Man as you defcribc fliould, by coming under another Man's Roof 
 only as an Inmate or Boarder, and not as a Slave (which I grant would alter the 
 Cafe) lofc that Power of Life and Death, which I fuppofe he hath bj- the Laws 
 of God and Nature over his Witc and Children, unlefs he had aftually given it up 
 to the Mailer of that Family, with whom he came to board. And therefore as 
 I do not deny, but that a Mailer of a feparate Family hatli Power of Life and 
 Death, and alfo of making Peace and War with otiier fuch Maflers of Families, 
 nay with Princes themfelveS, if there be occafion, as we read in Genefis, Ch. 14. 
 that Al>Yaham made War with the four Kings who had taken Lot Prifoner. So 
 likewife when Judnh pronounced Sentence of Death againll 'thamar his Daugh- 
 ter-in-law, for playing the Harlot, Britig her forth, fays he, md let her he burnt. 
 Gen. 38. I own tiiis was not done by the Authority of a Father alone ((lie not 
 being his own Daughter, and his Son being then dead) but as the Mafler of a 
 feparate Family, who hath (I grant) Power of Life and Death, as he is Lord over 
 thePerfonsof his Children, as Servants, and confequently over their Wives alfo : 
 For if he hatli Power over his Son, he hath certainly the like over all that belong to 
 him, as long as they continue Members of his Family, and that he hath not thought 
 fit to manumit or \cii them free. But now I dcfire to know by what Right thefe Pa- 
 triarchs could exercife all thefe Marks of Soveraigncy,efpecially this great Power of 
 Life and Death, unlefs it were derived from God at fir/l ,• fince no Man hath any 
 Power to difpofe of his own Life at his pleafure, and therefore fure hath naturally 
 ro Power over that of another Man's : So that not only this Pov:er of the Patriarchsy 
 but alfo that of all Mmardn to tliis day, muft be derived from this Divtm 
 Original. 
 
 F. Well then, I find you're forced to quit the Power of a Father, as fuch, by 
 Generation ; lince it plainly appears, that this Power of Life and Death, which 
 you afErma Husband or Father may exercife over their Wives or Children in the 
 State of Nature, is not, quatemn a Father, but Lord and Mailer over them ; 
 •which in the firft place I cannot allow to be true in relation to the W^ifc ; nor 
 that tlie Submiflion of the Wife's Will to the Husband mufl imply a Power of Lite 
 and Death over her : For if Ihe is not his Slave (as certainly flie is nor, for then 
 a Man migiit fell his Wife wjicn he pleafed) I cannot fee how fiie herfclf could 
 convey by force of theContratt any fuch Power o\ cr her Life, tho' 1 grant indeed, 
 if flie happen to commit Murder upon one of her Children, or other Perfon of the 
 Family, he may proceed againfl her as an Enemy, but not as a Subjeft ; and if it 
 be for Adultery it felf, I cannot fee that the Husband can by the Law of Nature 
 punifli her with Death : Forfince that Crime doth really dillolve the Bond of Ma- 
 trimony, Divorce, or putting her away, and deferring the Child born in Adultery, 
 was even among the Romans look'd upon as a fuffieient Punilhment. But as for the 
 Power of Parents over their Children, I do not deny but that a Father may have 
 the like Power over his Children whilfl they are part of his Family^ as over his 
 Slaves or Servants, in cafe of fucli great and enormous Crimes as )ou iiave already 
 mentioned ; but that this is not as a Father, but Mailer of a Family, your felf 
 have already granted in your Inflances of Abraham and "J udah ; tho' if you will 
 conlider tlic laft a little better, you will find that Judal) did not proceed thus 
 againfl Thamar, as her Father or Mafler, but by fome other Right : For if you 
 pleafe to look upon the nth Verfe of that Chapter oi Genefs, from whence you 
 cite this Example, you will find that Thamar, after the Death of Onan her Huf- 
 band, went with Judah's leave, and dwelt in her own Father's Hcufe, and (lie 
 was then a Member of his Family, and confequently (according to your H}'pc- 
 tiiefis) not under Judah's Power, when fhe was thus got with Child by him ; and 
 therefore not he, but her own Father ought to have condemned her, if this Judg- 
 ment had belonged to hiin as to the Mafler of the Family. And therefore fome 
 
 E of
 
 26 BibliothecaPolitica. 
 
 of the Rabbins with more reafon ftippofe, that when Judah gave this Judgment 
 againfi; Tha?/mr, he did not aft either as a Father or Maflerot' the Family ; for he 
 was then under the Power of the Cmidanites (who certainly had fbme Civil Govern- 
 ment among them at that time) and therefore they fuppofe that he afted thus as 
 a Civil Judge, appointed by the Prince or fupreme Magiftrate of that Nation. 
 
 But to defend the Inftance I have given you of a Father of a Family loling his 
 Power of Life and Death, upon his becoming a Part or Member of another Fa- 
 mily ; you your felf have already yielded me as much as I can reafonably defire 
 for the defence of my Afleition, lince you allow this Power of Life and Death to 
 Fathers, not as fnch, but as Lords and Mafters over their Children, as over their 
 Slaves ; and if fo, I delire to know who can challenge this Power but the Matter 
 of the Family with whom he lives, unlefs you can fuppofe two diftinft Heads or 
 Matters in the fame Houfe j and then they will not be one Family, but two, under 
 different Heads, each of them ttill retaining their dittinft Rights, But you will 
 fay, that this Boarder or Inmate is not a Servant or Slave to the Mailer with 
 whom he lives, and therefore hath not forfeited or given up his Right or Power 
 of Life and Death over his own Children to him. It is no matter whether he did 
 or not, fince by making himfelf a Member of the other's Family, he ceafcd to be 
 Matter of his own, and confcquently mutt lofe all the natural Rights or Prerogatives 
 belonging to it, of which I grant this of Life and Death to be the chief : For if 
 Families in the State of Nature are like fomany dittinft Commonwealths, indepen- 
 dent upon each other ; it will likewife follow, that the Heads of thofe Families 
 mutt be in all things neceflary for the Good and Prefcrvation of the Family, like 
 fo many dittinft Civil Sovereigns, and confcquently mufl have a Power of Life 
 and Death, and alfo of making Laws, with Punifhments annexed to them, in all 
 Cafes where the Good and Peace of the Family require it. If therefore in a Civil 
 State, or Monarchy, an abfolute Prince come into the Dominions or Territories of 
 another, ir is acknowledged by all Writers on this Subjeft, that fuch a Prince lofes 
 that Power of Life and Death which he had before, and cannot exercife it as long 
 as he is in the other Prince's Dominions : So by the fame reafon, if Matters of 
 Famihes, in the State of Nature, are likefo many Civil Sovereigns, it will follow, 
 that they mutt ceafe to be fiich, when they become Members of another's Family, 
 unlefs you will fall into the Abfurdity of fuppoling two abfolute independent 
 Heads, or Matters, in one and the fame Houfe ,• which, what a Confufion it 
 wotild bring, I leave to your felf to judge. 
 
 M. I fhall not much difpute this Power of Life and Death with you, as belong- 
 ing to Matters of feparate Families : But pray ftew me how they can exercife 
 this Power over the Lives of thofe that are under their Jurifdiftion, unlefs it were 
 granted them by God, by virtue of that original Power given to Adam, not only as 
 a Father, but Prince of his Potterity. 
 
 F. I do not doubt but I fhall give you a fatisfaftory Anfwer to this important 
 Demand, without fuppoling any extraordinary Divine Commiflion from God to 
 Adam : For as for your Inftance of Abrahams making War, Leagues, or Cove- 
 rants with other Princes, it is no more than what any Matter of a feparate Fa- 
 mily may do for his own and their defence ; and what, if you or I were Matters 
 of a Family in the Indies, where there is no Power above us, we might do as well 
 as Abraham ; and all this without any other CommiCRon from God, tiian the great 
 Right of Nature, Sett-prefervation, and the Well-performance of tiiat. Trutt whicli 
 God hath put into our hands, of defending and providing for our felvcs and our 
 Families ; fince if God hath ordained the End, he hath likewife ordained all Means 
 neceffary thereunto : and therefore there is no fuch great Myttery in this as you 
 fuppofe. 
 
 M. If there were no more in it than a mere Right of Self-defence, for which I 
 grant Retaliation or Revenge may be alfo neceflary, you would ha\e a great deal 
 of Rcalbn on your fide : But pray Ihcw me how a Father, or Matter of a Family, 
 can condemn either his Wife, Child, or Servant to Death, as k Punifliment for 
 any enormous Crime, fuch as I have mentioned (and you agreed to) without fuch 
 a Divine Commiflion as I fuppofe Adajn had ; fince 1 own Revenge or Retaliation 
 may be ufed by private Men in the State of Nature, by the Right of Self-defence, 
 which I grant may be exercifed between Equals. But fince all Punifliments, pro- 
 perly taken, arc the Afts of Superiors towards their Inferiors, I cannot conceive 
 how any Father, or Matter of a Family, can inflift fo great a Punifliment as 
 
 Death
 
 'Dialogue the Firft. 27 
 
 Death upon any Member ot ir, unJefs he derived this Power immediately from 
 God, by vcrtue of the Divine Charter committed by him to Adam, and from 
 thence to be derived to all Mafiers of Famihcs, or Ci\il Sovereigns, who conid 
 never derive this Power from the joint Compafts or Confent of Fathers, or Mas- 
 ters of Families ; fince no Man could convey tiiat to another, which he had not 
 hirafclf. And I have already, I think, with a great deal of Truth allertcd, 
 that no Man hath Power over his own Life, to take it away when he pleafcs, 
 and tJierd'ore cannot have it over another Man's ; much lefs can convey any fuch 
 Right to others, except it were granted at hrft by God, in the manner I have 
 fuppofed, which I conceive may cafily be made out by feveral Places in Cencfn; 
 by which it plainly appears, that Adam, and after him Noah, were fupernatu- 
 rally endued with this Divine Power. 
 
 F. Though I am fatisfied that this Hypothefis is extfeamly abfurd,- fince if 
 it were fo, only Chriflian or j'fttT/J Sovereigns, or Magiftrates, who acknow- 
 ledge the Scriptures, could lay any claim to, or exercifc this Divine Power; 
 whereas we hrrd it praftifed by all thofe Nations, witji whom the Memory of 
 Adam and Nuah is quite loft, and therefore muft claim this Prerogative, not from 
 any revealed, but natural Law of God : Yet however, fince you think you have 
 fm;h:Clear Texts of Scripture on your ^\di*t, I defiire you to produce them, tho', 
 if they ftould make out what you fay, they would only fcrve to confirm, by 
 Divine Revelation, that Prerogative of Life and Death, which all Mafters of 
 Families, as well as Civil Sovereigns, enjoyed by the Law of Nature, before 
 ever the Bible was written. 
 
 M. As for my own pare, I am fo well fatisfied of this Supream Power of Life 
 and Death granted at firll: by God to Adam, and after to Noah, that I cannot 
 fee that without the SuppoHU of this, any Supream Power could lawfully be exer- 
 cifed by Civil Sovereigns at this Day : And therefore I am of Mr. Seldens Opi- 
 nion, who in his moft learned Treatife, De Jure Gentiujn apud Hebrms, maintains, 
 with the Jeiuijh Rabbins, That the Law of Nature can never be plainly proved, 
 and made out by Reafon, without a Tradition of its Precepts, as given by God 
 to Adam, and thence conveyed to Noah, and his Poflerity : Which Div'ine Laws, 
 or Coinmands, are called by the Jews, the Seven Precepts of Noah, whicli 
 whatfoever People would obferve, they permitted them to live as Inhabitants 
 among them ; though they did not embrace Circumcifion, or thofe other Rites 
 and Ceremonies commanded by the Law of Mofef. Now amonglt thefe Precepts, 
 that of inftituting publick Judgments for Capital Crimes, is one of the firft, in 
 purfuance of that Command which God gave Noah immediately after the Flood, 
 Gen.g. v. 6. l07ofoeve-rJI.ieddethMaui Blood, by ManJJjallhis Blood be Jbcd;foy inthe Image 
 of God made he Man. By which Text almoft all Commentators underftand, that it is 
 not any common Man, but the Perfon of the Civil Magiftrate, or Sovereign, 
 that is to be meant : Since it would be both impradicable, and alfo breed great 
 Confufion in Civil Societies, if by this Word Man, every common Perfon, not 
 endued by God with tiiis Supream Power of Life and Death, fliciuld be under- 
 ftood ; and therefore I do'fuppofe, with the moft learned Jews, that this Power 
 •was firft cxercifed by vertue of that Divine Charter that was given of it by God 
 to Adam, and then renewed again to Noah, by the Text above-mentioned. 
 
 Now that Adam had, by Divine Grant, an abfolute Dominion over the whole 
 World, and all Creatures therein contained, will appear from Gen. i. v. 27, 28. 
 (Here is the Bible, I defire jou would read it with me.) So God created Man in 
 his (Tivn Image, in the Image of God created he him ; Male and Female created he them .- 
 And God blcjjed them ; and God f aid unto them. Be fruitful and multiply, and replenip 
 the Earth, andfubdite it ; and hai'c dominion over the Fijh of the Sea, and ever the Fowl 
 of the Air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the Earth. By which Grant, 
 or Donation, from God of fubduing the Earth, and having dominion over the 
 Creatures, Adam was made the general Lord of all tilings, with fuch a particu- 
 lar Propriety to himfelf, as did exclude his Children from having any {hare in 
 it. So that if Cam had his Fields for Corn, or Abel his Flocks, and Pafturc for 
 tliem, it was only by Adam's Grant, or Aflignation, none of his Children or 
 Dclcendants having any Property in Lands or Goods, without his particular 
 Grant, or Permiflion. 
 
 F. You muft pardon me, Sir, if I cannot be of your Opinion, that all the 
 Precepts of the Law of Nature mnft depend upon no firmer Foundation, than 
 
 E - a Tradition 
 
 F.P.0. 110,
 
 28 BiBLio T II ECA Politic A. 
 
 a Tradition of the feven Precepts, fuppofed by the JciiijJ: Rabbins to be gip^n' 
 to Adam, and Noah, and from them conveyed to all their Pofterity ; fince wc find 
 not the leaft mention of any fuch Precepts in the Scripture, or in Jufefhis, Philo 
 ^udaus, or any other antient Writer, but only in the 'Jahmid .■ Which, though it 
 pretends to a great Antiquity in its Traditions, yet any judicious Man that will 
 but pcrufe it, may eafily fee the Falfliood, as weir as Abfnrdity of the pretend- 
 ed Tradition of thefe Precepts i one of which is againft eating the Members of' 
 any living Creature, which favours fo ftrongly of a yeivijb Superfiition, that if 
 that were a true Precept, or Law of Nature, no Man could eat a Difli of Lamb- 
 ftones, or a Black-Pudding, without finning againft the Law of Nature : And it 
 is very improbable to fuppofe, that all Mankind, except Jews, Chriftians, and 
 Mahometans, fliculd be obliged to live or aftby thofe Laws or Precepts they never 
 heard of. For if (as you your felf muft grant) the Memory or Tradition of 
 thefe Precepts be quite loft amongft all Nations, except the Jews, it is all one as 
 if they had afted without any Law at all ; and confequently, if they have not foiffe 
 better grounds for their Observation of the Law cf Nature, than thefe Precepts 
 of Noah, I doubt whether (according to your Hypothefis) all Civil Sovereigns, 
 that do not own the Original of their Power of Life and Death to this Divine 
 Charter granted to Adrnn, and Noah, are any better than Murttierers, 'ImCt 
 they take upon them to exercife this great Prerogative without any Divine Au- 
 thority for fo doing. But I hope to flicw you, before we have concluded this 
 Converfation, that not only the Power of Life and Death, but alfo other Laws 
 of Nature, may eafily be deduced, by Reafon, to have been given by God to 
 Mankind, by the ordinary Courfe of his Providence, without recurring to Di- 
 vine Revelation ,• which can only oblige thofe that have heard of it. But fifice 
 you lay fo much ftrefs upon thofe Texts of Scripture you have now cited/I 
 pray give me leave to examine, whether they will bear that Senfe you put upon 
 them. As for the firft of thofe Texts you quote, IVhofoevcr JJjeddeth Mans Blood, 
 by Man JI}all his Blood kflied, &c. Suppcfe I fhould take it in that fenfe you put 
 upon it, only to extend to Civil Sovereigns, or Magiftrates, it will be fo far from 
 proving a Power of Life and Death to have been granted by God to Adam, 
 and from him conveyed to Noah, that this Place feems to imply the contrary ; 
 for if it was a known Law before, that Murther was to be punifhed with Death 
 by a Father, or other Magiftrate, to what purpofe was this Command now 
 given to Noah ? Since if it were a Divine Law before the Flood, wherefore is it 
 here repeated ? And therefore all Expofitors agree, that this is the firft Precept 
 enjoining Murther to be punifhed by the Civil Magiftrate, which, before, any 
 of the Kin of thePerfon flain might have executed ; as appears by Genejts 4. v. 14. 
 when Cain faid unto the Lord, / Jhall he a Fugitive, and a Vagabond en the Earth ; 
 and it Jhall come to pafs, that every one that findeth me, pall Jlay me ; which had been 
 a needlefs fear, if none but Adam had a Power to take away his Life for the 
 Murther of his Brother, as you fuppofe ; much lefs tliat God fhoiiki have need- 
 ed to have fet a Mark upon him to keep him from being ihurthered by his 
 Brethren, or other Relations. Nor will that other Place )ou cite out of Genejis 
 prove Adam's fole Dominion over the Earth, and all the Things and Pcrfons 
 therein contained : For if you pleafe to conlider it, you will find, that it is fo 
 far from proving your Opinion, that it fpeaks the dired contrarj'. Pray there- 
 fore obfen'C of whom Mofes fpeaks in that Place : Surely, not of A^dam alone, 
 when he fays, Male and Female created he them ; and God hhjjed them, and faid unto 
 them. Be fruitful and multiply, and replenijii the Earth, and fiihdiie it, and have Do- 
 7ninion over the Fiji of the Sea, and over the Foiul of the Air, and ever §veyy living 
 thing that moveth upon the Earth : From whence we may obferve, firft, That thefe 
 P. n. M. p. Words being direfted in the plural number, both to the Male and Female, were 
 »<?• not intended to Adam alone; but by way of Anticipation, not only to himfeJf, 
 
 and Eve, (who was not then made) but likewife to their Pofterity (that is) all 
 Mankind : Then that they fliould le fruitful, and multiply, andreplenijh the Earth, and 
 fiibdtie it, (that is, polfefs and enjoy it) and have Dominion, Ike over every living 
 thing that moveth (in the Hebrew) creepeth upon the Face of the Earth. By which 
 Words it appears, that not any Dominion over Mankirid, but only over Brute- 
 beafts, that move or creep upon the Earth, is hereby conferred. And that 
 this muft be the true meaning of this Place, is plain, if you will but read the 
 two next Verfes that follow. And Cod faid, Bthvld I hair given you every Herb 
 . I hearing
 
 Dialogue the F'lrfi, 2p 
 
 bearing Seed, v:hkh is upon the Face of all the Earth ; and every 'tree, in v.hich ii the 
 pyfth of a 'tree yielding Seed ; to )Vii ttjhaS Le jvr Meat. And to every Bea/l of the Earth, 
 and to every Fvnl of the Air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the Earth, xdierein 
 there IS Life ; I have given every green Htib jor Aleat ; and itvcaiju. Which Words 
 are ccrtaml)- diredted to the fame Pcrfons as the former (that is) to all Mankindj 
 by the fame Argument as that every green Herb is here granted for Meat to 
 every Bealt of the Earth, aiid every Fowl of the Air, &c. that then was, or ever 
 {hall exilt in Nature. So that this Text, which you ha\e cited to prove this 
 abfolute ar.d fole Doramion oi Adam over the Earth, and all the Creatures tliere- 
 in coiitaincd, is fo £ir from proving any fuch thing, tliat it fecms to me to make 
 out the dire^ contrary Dcftrinc, viz,, that the Earth, and ail the Creatures 
 therein, were not granted to Adam alone, as the fole Lord and Mafler of them ; 
 btit in common to himfelf, his Wife, and all his Pofterity, who had as good a 
 ri^ht ro them, as he had hijTifelf. So tliat I miifl tell you, if you intend to 
 brtng me over to your Opinion, you muft produce fome better Proofs out of 
 Scripture, or Pvcafon, than tho'fe made ufe of by Sir R. F. And therefore I defire 
 that you would give me fome plainer Proofs for Adam's abfolute Power over his 
 Wife, afid. all his.Pofterity, -than hitherto, you have done j lince I cannot fee any 
 Divine Charter granted by God" in Scripture, of any abfolute Povcer, or Dominion, 
 over their Lives or Pcrfons.' . . 
 
 M I fHall, Sir, do my beft Endeavour to give you all the Satisfaftion I can 
 poffibly therein ; therefore I delire you farther to take notice, that Mr. Sel- 
 den, in his Ma.e CLiujum, from tiie ancient Tradition of the je'-^ifi Rabbins, L.i. r. 4. 
 has undcrflood this Text in Genef.s, to give Adam an abfolute Power over the" 
 Earth, and all thir.rs therein contained, exclufive to his Pofterity, as long as he 
 lived. So that if Sir R. F. and divers others, have erred in the fenfe of this 
 Place, 1 believe it is more than you or I can prove, fince fure they would-not 
 have put this fenfe upon it, without they had fome good reafon for it. 
 
 But this much, I fuppofc, you will admit, x.\\Sit Adam was created by God, 
 and IS in Scripture called the Son ot God, as indeed he was; and iffo, let i,«Z:. -.z-. 
 your felf, or any other rational Man coniider, whether it be at ail likely that 
 God ftiould not endow this Son of his, the Father of Mankind, with fo much 
 Autliorityand Power as fbould enable him to govern his own Family, and Chil- B. P. P. 
 drcn, as long as he lived, without depending upon them for their Confenr, and ^*'^' 3^* 
 chopping Logick with them, whether his Commands were reafonable, or lawful 
 or not !" And if a Power ol' Litre and Death was necelfary (as the Murther of 
 AM by Cain Ihcws it was) whether Adr.m had no more {hare in that Power, 
 than any of his Cliildren or Grand-children: Which isfufficient to fhew you the 
 Abfurciit}- of your Tenets, that the Authority of Adam over his Pofterity was 
 not ablblute in its Excrcire, as well as perpetual in its Duration : And this, I 
 think, you cannot but adjnit, bccaufe you have already acknowledged this 
 Power of Life and Death to proceed from, or to be granted by God to Adam; 
 and fo confequcntly mull have continued with liim as long as he lived. 
 
 F. Well, I perceive you find your Monarchy, or abfolute Dominion oi Adam 
 o\er Eve, and all her Pofterity, as alfo overall the Creatures of the Earth, not 
 to be pro\ed from any of tliefe places of Scripture you have brgught for this 
 extravagant Opinion'; and therefore you now urge upon me my own conce/Tion 
 of this fupream and abfoliitc Authority of Life and Death, which I do not deny 
 but Adam might iiave exercifed in fome cafes over his Wife and Cljildien, as 
 long as they continued part of his Family.- But that he was not endued with 
 this Prerogative as a Father, but as a Head or Mafter of his own Family, I 
 think I have fufficiently proved, and therefore need not repeat it. And indeed, 
 your own Inft-ance of the Murtlier of Abel by Cain, (which, for all we can find, paft 
 unpunifhcd by Adam) fuiEciently proves. That this Power of Life and Death 
 over his Children or Grand-children, when once they were feparated from his Fa- 
 mily, was not a necefl'ary Prerogative of his Government ; or clfe that his Children, 
 and Grand-children, wiicn they have erected new Families of their own, had it 
 as much from God as he ; and that trom the fame Reafon which you give, why 
 God endov/ed Ad^m with it, viz,. bccaufe without fuch a Power, they could not 
 have been enabled to govern their Children and Families as long as they lived. 
 So tiiat Adam's being created by God, or called his Son, gave him not a /ot 
 more power over his Chiltlren, and Ids Dtllendents, than what, as a Mafter, or 
 
 He.id
 
 I 
 
 50 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICAi 
 
 Head of a Family, he would have had by the Law of Nature however; and it 
 is all one in this Cafe, whether you fuppofe Mankind to have been created by 
 God, or to have exiflcd from all Eternity, provided you hold the Being of a 
 God, according to the Hyf othe/is of the more Modern Phnowfts, who tliough 
 they held the Eternity of the World, yet lilcewife owned all things to be govern- 
 ed by God's Providence : And tliercfore, if on this Snppofition Mankind could 
 not be well governed nor prefcrved, without inHicting of Capital Punifhments for 
 great Crimes, and that they are neceflary for its Peace and Prefervation ; it 
 IS likewife as neceflary, that there fhould be fome Judge appointed by God to 
 inflift them, which in the State cf Nature can be cnly the Head, or Mafler of 
 a Family ; as after Ci\ il Government is once inflituted, it belongs to tlie Civil . 
 Sovereign or Commonwealtli. And this I hope will ferve to anfwer your Scru- j 
 pie, how Adcvn, or any other Maftcr of a feparate Family, may very well be en- i 
 tiucd with this great Power of Life and Death by the Law of Nature, without 
 fuppoling any Charter granted him for it by Divin'e Revelation ; or elfe depend- 
 ing upon his Children's confsnt for his Excrcife of it. 
 . But before I farther conlider, whether this Power of Ada?n, or of any other 
 Father or Mader, be perpetual or. not, and extends any farther than his own 
 Family, give me leave to examine, whether or no Children, when grown to years 
 of Difcretion, and even while they continue Members cf their Father's Family,, 
 may not in fome cafes chop Logick with him, (as you call it) and riOt only qucf- 
 tion, but judge whether his Commands be reafonable or lawful, or not; or 
 elfe Abraham (tor Example) mufl have facriHced to Idols, becaufe his. Fatlxej: bid. 
 Vid. Jof. him. Whereas ynjephm tells us. He rather chvfe to quit his Country, and his Father's 
 Aiit.h'o.i. jjoiifi;^ than to Jin agamfl God. And therefore I think you cannot deny, bitt if 
 Husbands or Fathers command their Wives or Children to do any thing thax is. 
 morally unlawful, or contrary to the Laws of God, or Nature, .they may law- 
 fully (nay are obliged) not to obey fuch unlawful Commands. 
 B. P. P. ^^' ^ ^^'^ ^° ^^"^ agree with you, that if the thing commanded be apparently 
 
 iieft. 48. contrary to the Laws of God and Nature, thatthey are not obliged to obey, 
 their Commands; but they muft be evidently, and apparently fo, before they 
 thus take upon them to refufe Obedience to them; othcrwife 1 deny, that their 
 Confcience, however mifguided, ought to be any excufe, or Juft ground of their 
 Diibbedience. For if their Confcience be truly grounded upon the Laws of God, 
 or Nature, that will excufe them; but if it be not, Confcience without fuch a 
 Law can never do it. And yet this Non-performance of the unlawful Commands 
 cf the Husband, or Father, may very well conlift without any Anarchy, or Dif- 
 order.in the Family; fince the Wife and Children mull always yield hira an 
 aftive Obedience, in performing all his Commands, or elfe a paffive one, infubmit- 
 ting to whatever harlh Ufage,or Punifliment, fuch a Husband, or Father, fhall pleafe 
 to exercile or inflict upon them for their Nonperformance of them, though never fo 
 unlawhil. But yet certainly in all poffible and indili^erent things, Children are bound 
 to yield, not only a palTivc, but an adiive Obedience to their Father's Commands: 
 For il his Children ftiould have a liberty to judge of his Commands, whether they 
 are reafonable or not, what can enfue but Anarchy and Confufion in all Families? 
 F. Well, I am glad we are fo far agreed, that a Wife and Children in tJie ftate 
 of Nature hzxc liberty to judge of their Husband's and Father's Commands, 
 whether they are lawful or not, and alfo to difobey them when they are not fo : 
 And I think I may carry this a little farther, and affirm, that fuch Wife and 
 Children ought not to obey the Commands of fuch a Husband, or Father, though 
 they are not really contrary to fuch Divine or Moral Laws, but only errone- 
 ouily fuppofed fo by them ; and therefore moft Cafuifts agree, that even an er- 
 roneous Confcience does oblige, as long as a Man lies under that miftake. For St. 
 Paul tells us, IVhaifoezer is not of Faith, is Sm, Rom. 14. Nay farther, fuch an 
 erroneous Confcience may excufe a Man before God, if his ignorance was not 
 wiltul, but invincible, and not proceeding from his ov.-n fault ; but of this no 
 Man can judge but God alone, and the Party vv^hofe Confcience it is; and there- 
 fore fuch a Husband, or Father, can have no right or authority to compel their 
 Wives and Children to perform fuch Commands, becaufe the Will ought always 
 to lollow the Dictates of the Underftanding ; and therefore they fiiould not be 
 forced to do that, whicii they judge contrary to God's Moral or Divine Law ; 
 fmce Cv/tfdeace may be inftrn^ed, hut can never be forced. Neither will \'our diftin(^ion 
 
 of
 
 Dialogue the Fir ft. 31 
 
 of an aftive and paiTive Obedience help you in chis Matter : For acti\x; 
 Obedience I underftaiid well enough ; but as for paffiic Obedience, I think 
 it is next door to tliat wc call a Bull or Nonfcnfc. And to prove this, I fhall 
 t^ive you this plain Iiiftance; fuppofe yon had a 'Je-M to your Servar.r, and fi^ould 
 command him to do )ou feme \\ork or other on a Satindjy, wliich i:c judged a 
 Breach of the fourth Commandment, that forbids him to work on the feventh 
 Day, (or Sabbath) and you being very angry, ftould cudgel him four.dly for this 
 refufal ; whereupon he tejls you, tliat jou may beat him as long as you pleufe, 
 he would not redft, but yield a paffive Obedience ; but yet could not perform 
 your Commands : I ask you now, whether you would reft fatisfied, that this 
 yewijh Ser^•ant had fuflieiently performed wliat you bad Jiim, by fubmitcing to 
 your cudgelling ? And whether your Dinner or Horfe would not be as mucii un- 
 drelled after this fort of palFive Obedience, as it was before? 
 
 M. Perhaps indeed tliis Phiafe of Paffive Obedience may be fomcwhat im- 
 proper, and may be more properly termed an abfolute Subjeiiticn, or Submiflion i 
 but it is all one what we call it, as long as you underftand what we mean; iince 
 fuch Submiflion doih fufficiei\tly avoid that Anarchy and Confulion which would 
 necefl'arily follow, in cafe it were lawful for Wives, or Children, in any cafe 
 whatfoever, to.relift their Husbands, or Fathers, though for the defence of Life 
 it fclf i fince no Government can be maintained, where the Parties governed 
 have a right to refill their Superiors, or Goverr.ors, in any cafe. 
 
 F. I grant indeed, that no Government can be maintained, where the Parties p. „. M. 
 governed relift their S.:periors or Governors in the due exercife of their Power jf. no. 
 but when they exceed tnofe limits, they ceafe to aft as true Superiors, or Gover- 
 nors; and therefore when, inftead of Husbands, or Fathers, they prove Dcllroyers 
 of their Families, I doubt not but they may then be lawfully relifted by them. 
 For fuppofe fuch a Father of a Family fhould, in a furious or drunken fit, go 
 about to kill his Wife, or one of his innocent Children j can any Body think this 
 was Treafon againfl the Monarch of the Family, if his Wife, or one of his Sons, 
 Ihould refcue herfelf, or this innocent Child, out of his Hands by force, if they 
 could not otherwife quiet him? 
 
 AX . This fuppolition of Madnefs or Drunkennefs in Fathers of Familie;?, you B. P. P. 
 Gendemen of Commonwealth Principles make great ufe of, to juftify your Doc- Se^l:. 47. 
 trine of Rcfiftance ; and I know no reafon why you might not e.\tcnd it as well 
 to Anger, Luft, or any other Paflion that a Man is fubjecl toj and have given all 
 the World a power to judge when a Man is drunk, and mad, as well as his 
 Wife, Children, or Servants i nor do I kiiOw wliy ycu fo much inlift upon it, but 
 becaufe the AutJ}ors from whence you had it, are fo in love witji Rebellion and 
 Dforder, tliat they ieek and catch at every opportunity to recommend it to the 
 World. But, I believe, had you a Wife, Child, or Servant, tiiat fliould take the 
 liberty ot controuling you upon this pretence, you would be more enraged with 
 the reafon of the Rclillance, than with the Reliftance it felf. 
 
 F, Lam ibrry, Sir^ any thing I have faid can fo far tranfport you. to paflion, as 
 to make fuch unkind Rellections upon your Friends ; but pray be not fo hot ; is it 
 no: poflible tiiat a Mafter, or Father, in the State of Nature, may be mad, or drunk ? 
 
 ■A/. Yes, and is it not poflible alfo that the Wife may be I'o too ? Now I'up- 
 pofethcy fliouid mutually charge each other with madnefs, or drinking too much, B. P. P. 
 who (hall judge betwixt tlrem ? What horrible Confulion mufl this introduce into ^^'■^■ 
 all Societies, to give Inferiors a power to judge their Superiors to be mad, or 
 drunk j and thereupon to relift, and oppofe them with force ? But if i: doth at 
 any time happen. Wives, Children, and Servants, that are d.;tifi:I, may iiave 
 ways to appeafe their Husbands, Fatliers, or Mafters, when mad, or drunk, 
 witiiout relilling, or fighting them ; as by getting out of the way, or by fub- 
 miffiou, prayers, and tears, which Nature hath taught them on fuch occafions 
 to make ufe ofi and which is.^thoufand times a better Method, than thofe violent 
 Courfcs you propofe. 
 
 F. All 1 delire of you in this Converfation, is, that you would be plcafed to 
 believe, I do not argue out of any love to Rebellion, or Diforder, or that I de- 
 fire to encourage it in private F.imilics, much lefs to recommend it to 
 the World; only what I fpeak, is purely out cf a defire of the hap- 
 pinefs and pre/crvation of Mankind; and 1 hope I fay no more, than wh^it 
 all fober Men will allow may be every Day pr.iftifed in private Families: 
 
 And •
 
 ^2 BiBLioTHECA Politic A. 
 
 Alnd therefore, fince you will needs have it, I do extend this Power of Refiflance, 
 not only to Madnefs, or Drunkcnnefs alone, but even to Anger, Liift, or any other 
 exorbitant PafTion a Man can be fubjedt to; and I do likewifc give all the World a 
 power to judge when fuch a Man is mad, or furioufly paffionate, as well as his 
 Wile, Servants, or Children, if in thofe drunken, and mad fits, lie goeth about 
 to kill them, or any elfe. For I think in that Cafe, you will not deny, but any 
 honeft Neighbour may flcp in, and bind him, or hold his Hands; and fo may 
 likewife the Wife or Children themfelves. As fuppofe, this Father, or Hul- 
 band, fliould be fo far tranfported with PalTion, or Luft, as to go about to kill 
 his Wife, or ravifh his Daughter; I hope you will not deny, but they may law- 
 fully relift him, if they can neither run away, nor yet pacify him by fubmiffion, 
 prayers, or tears ; which I grant are much better Methods, if they may pre- 
 vail : But what if they can neither get away, nor yet any of thofe gentle Means 
 you propofe, can work any good upon him ; what fhall they do then ? Can any 
 one believe, that God hath appointed an innocent Wife, or Children, to be made 
 a Sacrifice to the Madncfs, Drunker.nefs, Paffion, or Luft of fuch a Father, or 
 Husband ? And as for the Caf^ you put, where .the Husband or Wife fhould 
 charge each other with Madnefs, or drinking too much, who fhould judge be- 
 tween them ? It is a meer Cavil ; for as long as they fall out, and only brangle, 
 it is no matter whether there be any Judge or not. But if it proceeds to blows, 
 and they are like to mifchief or kill each other, no doubt but the Children or 
 Neighbours may come in and part them ,• and may either hold, or fhut up one, 
 or both of them, till they are fober. 
 
 M. Pray, Sir, let us leave this touchy Difcourfe concerning Self-defence till 
 anon, when we fhall have occafion to fall more naturally upon it. Suppofe 'then 
 I fhould at prefcnt grant you, that a Wife or Children may (in cafe of fuch ex- 
 tremities as may happen to them by the Madnefs, or Drunkennefs of the Hus- 
 band, or Father) reftrain, or relift his violence, in cafe no other means can pre- 
 vail ; what is this to difobeying his Commands, or relifting him when he is fo- 
 ber ? Which certainly they have no right to do. But to come as near you as 
 pofTibly I can, and to let you fee I am not a Man of a domineering Temper, and 
 who approve of unneceftary Severities, or unnatural Rigours, either in Mafters 
 of Families, Husbands, or Fathers ; 1 grant that no Father, or Mafter of a Fa- 
 mily, has any right to punifli, or put to death the meaneft of his Slaves, much 
 lefs his Children, without a fufHcient caufe ; or that he may fell his Children, 
 or otherwife tyrannize over them by cruel Ufage, or too fevere Punifhments, fince 
 they are not only part of his own Subftance, and to whom by the order of the 
 Creation he gave a Being; but was alfo (as you well obferve) ordained by 
 God for their happinefs, and prefervation, as -they were alfo (as well as his 
 Wife) for his conftant help, comfort, and fubJiftence ; and therefore they were 
 as much, or more, made for him, as he for them ; as it is plain concerning the 
 Wife from the Text in Genefts, when Godfaid, it is not good that the Manjhould be 
 alor.e, I-will make him an Helpmeet for hitu. Gen. 2. 18. ("viz.) the Woman; and there- 
 fore, as her fubjeftion to her Husband is perpetual, as long as fhe lives, fo like- 
 wife is that of the Children, in whom he acquireth a Property by their Educa- 
 tion for fo many Years ; which I Icok upon as a greater obligation than their 
 Generation; and over both whom he muft in the ftate of Nature have an abfo- 
 lute Power of Life and Death ; which though I grant he may happen fometimes 
 to abufe, yet I fuppofe no Pcrfon living hath any right in that ftate to refift him 
 in the execution of it, much lefs to call him to an Account, or punifh him for 
 the Male-adminiftration of his Power. And )ou have granted, that the Husband 
 in the ftate of Nature hath a Powet of Life and Death over his Wife, if fhe 
 murthers her Children, or commits any other abominable Sinagainft Nature; 
 and that then fhe may be juftly cut oft" from the Family, and punifhed as an 
 Enemy to Mankind, and fo certainly may his Children too. But what need I 
 fay any more of this Subjcft, when you have not as yet anfwered my former Ar- 
 guments, concerning the Abfolutenefs, and Perpetuity of this Conjugal Subjec- 
 tion, (and that which will likewife follow from it) the conftant Service and Sub- 
 jeftion of Wives and Children to their Fathers in the ftate of Nature. There- 
 fore pray. Sir, let us return again to that Head, and let me hear what you have 
 to objett againft thofe Reafons I have brought for ic. 
 
 F. I
 
 Dialogue the Fir ft. 55 
 
 F. I beg your pardon, Sir, it" 1 ha\e not kept fo clofe to the Point as I might 
 have done ; but )ou may thank your felt" for it, who brought mc off from what 
 I was going farther to fay on that Head, by yovLr:'D\(co\xri<i oi Paffive-Obedience and 
 No)i-ReJiJiance, and I ki'.ow not what ftrange unintelligible Power of Life and Death, 
 conferred by God on Adam, as a Husband, and a Father. But firft, give me leave 
 farther to prove, that this Subjedion of the VVif- is neither abfolute, nor irrevo- 
 cable. For Proof of which, I fhall lay down thefe Principles, i^ That the Wife in 
 the State of Nature, when (he fubmits hcrfelf tothe Power of her Husband, does 
 it to live as happily as fhe did before, or rather to enjoy more of the comforts of 
 Life, than in a fingle State. 2. That tlierefore fhe did not renounce either her 
 own Happinefs or Self-prefervation. 3. Neither did fhe make him the fole and 
 abfolute Judge of the means that may conduce to thefe Ends : For if this were 
 fo, let him u/e her never fo cruelly, or feverely, £he could have no caufe to cen- 
 fure him, or complain in the Icali againfl him. 4. If fhe has not fo abfolutely 
 given up her Will to his, flie is llill Judge when fhe is well ufed by him; oc 
 clfe fo cruelly, that it is no longer to be endured. And therefore if fuch a Huf- 
 band will not allow his Wife ilifficient Food and Raiment, and other Neceffa- 
 ries ; or that he ufes her cruelly, by beating, or other Punifhments, or hath en- 
 deavoured to take away her Life; in all thefe cafes in the State of Nature, and. 
 where there i s no Superior Power to complain, or appeal to, fhe may certainly 
 quit him ; and I think fhe is not bound to return, or cohabit with him again, un- 
 til (he is fatisfied he is forry for his former cruel Treatment of her, and is re- 
 folved to make amends for the future. But whether this Repentance be real or 
 not, fhe only can be Judge, fince fhe can only judge of her own Happinefs, and 
 the means of her Prefervarion. And the end of Matrimony being for their mu- 
 tual happinefs, and help to each other ; if he has broke his part of the Com- 
 paft, flie is then fo far difcharged from hers, and confequently in the meer State 
 of Nature (which is that we are now talking of) the Vmailum Matrimonii (as you 
 Civilians term it) will be likewife diffolved : So likewife if fuch a Husband, for 
 no jufl caufe, or crime in the Wife, but only to be rid of her, fhould endeavour 
 to take away her Life ,• as fuppofe, to ftrangle her in her Sleep, or the like, no 
 doubt but fhe may (notwirhftanding your Conjugal Subjeftion) refift him by force, 
 and fave her Life, until fhe can call in her Children, or Family, for her refcue and 
 afliitance ; who fure may alfo, notwithflanding this abfolute Defpotick Power 
 you place in their Father, or Mafter, refcue her from his Rage and Malice, whe- 
 ther he will or not : Nay they arc bound to do it^ unjpfs they wjH.,be Acceffaries 
 to her Murther. -x^ ^.V,.. .-,;;-! ■ , .".>;:., 
 
 M. Thefe are doubtful Cafes at befl, an3 do very feldom happen j and a Huf* 
 band can fcarce ever be fuppqfed to be fo, wicked, as 50 hate, and defiroy his own 
 Flcfh ; and therefore we need not make Laws on purpofe for Cafes that fo rarely 
 happen. . , _ • : ,' .^ .1 .• ,! 
 
 F. Rarely happen! I fee you are not very converfajnt at the Qld Baily, nor at 
 our Country Aflizes; where, if you pl^afp to come, you may often' hear of Cafes 
 of this nature ; and I wonder you that are a Civilian, and have fo many Matri" 
 monial Catfcs in your Spiritual Courts, brought by Wives for Separation, prop- 
 ter Savitiam, &c. fhould doubt whetiier Husbands do often ufe tlieir Wives fo ill, 
 that it is not to be endured. But if the Wife have thefe Privileges, pray tell 
 me, why the Children fl:all not have the fame, according to your own Maxim 
 of Parttdifequitur Vennem, fince the Subjeftion of Children muft be according to 
 your own Principles, of the fame nature witii that of tlie Mother ; and then 
 pray what becomes of tliis abfolute and perpetual Subjection you talk of? 
 
 M. Yet I hope you will not affirm, but that Ciiildren are under higher obliga- 
 tions of Duty and Obedience to their Fatlier, than a Wife is to her Husband, 
 with whom perhaps flie may in fome Cafes be upon equal Ternas ; but Children 
 can never be fo in refpeft of their Father, to whom they are always inferior, and 
 ought to be abfolutely fubjcft in the State of Nature, (that is) before Civil Laws 
 have rellrained Paternal Power. 
 
 F. I thank you, Sir, for bringing me fo naturally to the other Head I was 
 coming to, and I agree with you in your other Maxim, oi Qitkquid ex me & «x- 
 ore mea mfcitur in pote/iate tr.ea ejl, yet not in your Scnfc : I'or if I fliould grant, 
 that the Father's Power over the Cliild commences from his Power over the 
 Mother, by her becoming his Wife, and fubmitting herfclf, and confequently all 
 
 F the
 
 54 BiBLIOTHECApOLITICA. 
 
 the Ifliic that fiioukl be begotten of her, to her Husband's Power ; yet as I have 
 prov'd akeady in cafe of the Wife, fo I think I may affirm the fame in that of the 
 Children, that they are not delivered by God fo abfolutely to the Father's Will, 
 or Difpofal, as that they have no Right, when they attain to Years of difcretion, 
 to feek their own Happinefs and Prefervation in another place, in cafe the Fatlier 
 ufes them as Slaves, or elfe goes about to take away their Lives without any juft 
 caufe ; fince when Children are at thofe Years, I think they arc by the Laws of 
 Nature, fuiiicient Judges of their own Happinefs, or Mifery, that is, whether 
 they are well, or ill ufed j and whether their Lives are in danger, or not, by 
 their Father's Cruelty. 
 
 For tho' I grant that Children, confidered as fuch, are always inferior to their Pa-* 
 rents j yet I muft likewife affirm, that in another refpeft, as they are Men, and 
 make a part of that great aggregate Body of Mankind, they are in all Points 
 equal to them j that is, as the Parents have a right to Life, Happinefs, and 
 Self-prcfervation, fo have they likewife j and confequently to all neceflary means 
 thereunto, fuch as Food, Cloatlis, Liberty, (I mean from being ufed as Slaves) 
 which Principles, if true, will likewife ferve for a farther Proof againft that ab- 
 folute Property, and Dominion, you fuppofed to be conferred on Z4dam over the 
 Earth, and all things therein, exclufive to that of his Wife and Children. For 
 if they had a Right to a Being and Self-prefcrvation, whether he would or not, 
 fo had they likewife to all the means neceflary thereunto ; and he was not only 
 obliged to provide Food and Raiment for his Children, whilff they were unable to 
 do it for themfelves, but alfo when diey grew up to years of difcretion, they might 
 take it without his Aflignmenr, and this by virtue of that Grant in Genejis I be- 
 fore quoted ; And Godfaid, Gen. i. ('viz,, to the Man and the Woman, and in them 
 to all Mankind, then in their Loins) Behold, I have given you every Herb bearing Seed, 
 ■which is upon the face of the Earth, &c. Behold, to you it Jhall be for Meat. So that 
 fure you were too rafli, in affirming with Sir R. F. that a Son, a Slave, and a Ser- 
 vant, were all one at the firft : For I hope I have proved, the Father doth, hoc 
 acquire any abfolute Property in the Perfon of the Son, either by his begettihg 
 him, or bringing him up ,■ for then I grant, a Son and a Slave would be ail one. 
 But if you pleafe better to confider it, you will find, that Fathers were ne\'eif 
 ordained by God for perpetnal Lords and Mafters ovfer their Children, but rather 
 as Tutors and Guardians, till they are of Years of difcretion, and able to fhift 
 for themfelves; God having defigned the Father to beget and bring up his Child, 
 not for his own interefl: or advantage only, but rather for the ChM's happinefs 
 and prefervation, which by the Laws of God and Nature he is bound to pro- 
 cure : For as it is the Son's Duty never to do any Aftion, that may make his Fa- 
 ther repent his begetting, or bringing him up ; fo on the other Irde, tiie Father 
 ought not to treat his Son fo feverely, as to make him weary of his Family, 
 much lefs of his Life. It is the Apoftle's Precept, Ephef. 6. 4. Parents provoke not 
 your Children to -wrath ; which certainly he knew they were apt to do, or elfe that 
 Precept had been needlefs. Now pray tell me, if Adatn had ufed one of his 
 Sons (whom he loved worfe than the reft) fo cruelly, as to make him a Slave inftead 
 of a Son, and when grown a Man, fhould have put him to all the fcrvile and hard 
 Labour imaginable,withfcarceVi(3:uals enough to live tipon,orCloarhs to cover him; 
 what muft this Son have done ? born all patiently ? Or elfe do you think it had been 
 a damnable Sin, if he had fled into the Land of Ned, to Cain his elder Brother? ■ 
 B. P. P. M. To anfwer your queftion, I think in the firft place it had ; for Idb'tiot 
 
 C.I. Seft.p. only take Cain to have been the firft Murderer, but Rebel too : And in thfe Mxt 
 place this Queftion is needlefs j for it can fcarce be fuppofed, that ever Ada?ft;'Or: 
 any Father can be fo wicked and ill-natured, as to ufe a Son thus cruelly, wltli- 
 out fome juft occafion ,• but if he had, 1 think he ought to have endured any tiling 
 from his Father, rather than have left him without his ]ea\'e, fince I can/iot fee 
 how Children can ever fet themfelves free from their Fatlier's Powet, whether 
 they will or no. ■■ . .0 ■■ 
 
 F. If that be the condition of Children, they are then, inftead of Sons,, as 
 abfolute Slaves as any in Turkey, whenever their Father pleafes. But yoQ have 
 already granted, that Fathers ought not to ufe their Children like Slaves, fi6t''tcy 
 fell them for fuch to others i and tho' I have no great kindnefs for Crt?«, yet I 
 k-now not what warrant you have to call him Rebel; lam fure neither the 
 Scripture, nor Jofephm, mention his going to the Land of ^od, as an offence 
 
 com-
 
 Dialogue the Firfl, 5*^ 
 
 committed againil his King and Father, Adam ; but rather as a piece of Com- 
 pliance or Obedience to God's Sentence, wlio had made it pare of his Curffc 
 io to do. 
 
 M- I fliall not much trouble my felf whether Cain was a Rebel "or not ; I only 
 tell you what feme Learned Men have thought of his quitting his Country ; but 
 as for other Children, tho' I grant their Fathers ought not to ufe them hke Slaves, 
 yet if they fliould happen to do fo, I think fuch Children ought to bear it as a 
 Judgment inflicted by God for their Sins, and fhould not by any means fet them- 
 felves free, tho' their Fathers ufe them never fo fevcrely ; iince it is God's Will 
 they fhould be born, and continue under the Power of fuch fevere Fathers. 
 
 F- But pray. Sir, tell me : What if this Son had fallen into the power of a 
 Stranger who would thus make a Slave of him, was he likewife bound to bear 
 this as a Punifhment from God'for his Sins, and might he by no means fet hira- 
 felf free ? fince this could not happen witliout God's permiffive Providence at 
 leaft ; and I think you will fcarce prove it more in the Cafe of the Fathef, unlefs 
 you will allow God to be the Author of Tyranny and Oppreffion. 
 
 M. I grant, that a Man that is made a Slave to a Stranger by force, without 
 juft caufe given by him, may fet himfelf free by what means he can j but I deny 
 he hath the fame Liberty in refpeft of his Father, fince the Father's Power over 
 him is from God, and fo is not the Stranger's. 
 
 F. What Power of the Father do you mean ? that of making his Son a Slav^,' 
 or of ufing him as a Father ought to ufe a Son ? The latter of thefe I very well 
 underftand to be from God, but not the former : And if the Father hath no fuch 
 Power from God, I cannot fee how it can be any Aft of Difobedience in a Son 
 to look to his own Liberty and Prefervation ; fince Cruelty and Tyranny can 
 never be Prerogatives of Paternal Power, as you your felf confefe. 
 
 M. I grant, indeed, a Father hath no fuch Power from God to treat his Son 
 thus cruelly ; but if he does, I fay again, that God havihg ordained the Son to 
 be abfolutely fubjeft to his Father, he muft endure it, let the confecjuence of it 
 be what it will : And I fuppofe you will not deny, but that in cafe of ncceflity, 
 as when a Father hath not wherewithal'to nourifh and breed up his Children, he 
 may fell or affign his Interelt in them to any Perfon, who will undertake to pro- 
 vide for their Nourifhment and Education ; and that the Children fo fold, or 
 afTigned, do thereby become abfolute Servants to the Perfon to whom they were 
 thus afligned as long as they lived ,• and why this fliould be their Condition in 
 refpeft of a Stranger, and not fo to their Father, I can fee no reafon, fince their 
 Father would have been at as much trouble and charge for their Education as the 
 Stranger. 
 
 F- I fo far go along with you, that in cafe of fuch necefllty as you mention, a 
 Father may fell or aflRgn the prefcnt Intereft in his Child to a Stranger : yet I can- 
 not fee any reafon that this Sale, or Affignment, fliould confer fo abfolute a Pro- 
 perty in the Perfon of this Child, as that therefore he fliould be a Slave to this 
 Mailer, or Foflertr, as long as he lived : Since admitting that the Father, ot 
 other Perfon who takes upon him that Care, may perhaps juflly claim a Right in 
 the Service or Labour of the Child, to fatisfy them for their trouble and charge 
 in bringing him up ; yet it doth not therefore follow, that this Service is due as 
 long as the Child lives, but rather until fuch time as they can make their Labour 
 fatisfy them for their charge and trouble '\\\ keeping him, which may \ try well be 
 by that time the Child attains to twenty five Years of Age at farthelt : And there 
 are thofe that have offered to breed up and maintain all the Foundlings andBaftard 
 Children in England^ if they may be bound to ferve them imtil about that Age. 
 So that I fee no reafon why a few Years of Education fliould give any Man a Right 
 over another's Perfon as long as he hved. 
 
 But if you urge, that the Child owed his Life to his Father, or Fofterer, fince 
 without his afTilUncc he mufl have perifticd, and therefore the Service of the 
 Child's whole Life is but little enough to recompence it : To this I anfwer, That 
 the Parents are under an abfolute Obligation, by the Laws of God and Nature, to 
 breed up their Child, and they fin, if they do not perform it as they ought ; the 
 end of a Father being chiefly for the breeding up and prefervation of the Child % 
 and therefore there is no reafon he fliould acquire fuch a Property in him, merely 
 becaufe he did his Duty : And the Duty of a Father being to better the Condition 
 oi his Son, and not to nuke it worfe, 'l doubt whether an abfohiteatid perpetual 
 
 F 3 Servi-
 
 ■3 
 
 6 BiBLioTH EGA Politic A. 
 
 Servitude, or Death it felf, were thebetter bai-gain. And it" this Right will not 
 hold for the Father himfelf, much lei's will it tor a Fqltercr, (ince he islikewifc 
 obliged by the Laws of Nature and common Humanity, as well as by his Con- 
 trad with tb.c Father, to breed up this Child fu atfigned him ; and not to let hira 
 perifh, if he be able to breed him up. Nor ought this Father's or Fofterer's tem- 
 poral Advantage, which he may make of this Child, to be tlie principal end of his 
 Undertaking ; but the doing good to Mankind, and the Advantage he may reap 
 tl{ere"by, is to be confidered only as an Encouragement, and not as the only Motive 
 to this Duty, finee he is obliged to do the fame thing, the' he were fure the Child 
 would either die or be taken away from him, before he could be with him half 
 long enough to fatisfy him for his Cliarge. 
 
 Neither doth this Reafon hold true, even according to the Scripture Rules of 
 Gratitude, that a Man hath a Right to exaft, bf one to whom he hath done a 
 Courtefy, or bellowed a Benefit, a Return as great as the Benefit bellowed ; lince 
 this were not Beneficence, but meet Bartering or Exchange ,• and a Man who had 
 his Life faved by another's affiflance (fuppofe by pulling him out of ttie Water) 
 muft be obliged by this Principle to fubmit his Life to hisdifpofal ever after. And 
 therefore I defire you would give me fome better Reafons, why fuch a Son ought 
 to be fo abfolutely fubjeft to his Father's Pov/er, as iliat it is not lawful for him^ 
 upon any account whatfoever, to free himfelf from it, kt his Father ufe him nevet 
 fo cruelly or feveirely. 
 
 M. Well, Sir, fince you defire it, I will give you the beft Reafons I have, why 
 God cannot permit fo unreafonable a Liberty as this would give to all Children, in 
 ca^ they fhould make ufe of it whenever they thougiit fit ; and therefore God 
 hath ordained it thus, to take away all thofe Pretences of Undutifulnefs and Dif- 
 obedience, which Children might make, fhould they be permitted to be their own 
 Judges, when they might quit their Father's Family without his leave ; which Pre- 
 tence of cruel Ufage they would be fure to make ufe of, thereby to leave their 
 Parents upon every flight occafion, faying, that their Fathers were fo cruel and 
 fevere, that there was no living with them any longer ; when indeed it was nod 
 foj but on the contrary, no juft Caufe of Complaint againft them, more than bare 
 correfting them for their Faults : And fo the Father might be berett of fome, nay 
 all his Children, who fhould be helpful and ferviceable to him in his old Age, 
 which would breed great Confufion and Inconveniences in Families, efpecially in 
 the State of Nature ,• as in the Cafe you have put concerning AdMns Sons, they 
 being the only Servants he could have to make ufe of on all Occafions. 
 
 F. I defire you in the firft place to take notice, that I put this Cafe concerning 
 'Adam by way of Suppofition only ; not but that I have a better Opinion of our 
 lirft Parent (notwithftanding his Fall) than to believe him fo ill-natur'd, or that 
 he was ever fo cruel as to ufe liis Children thus hardly. But in this depraved 
 State of Nature fuch unnatural Rigors and Cruelties in Fathers, as well as Difo- 
 bedience in Children, is but too frequent; which no Man needs to doubt of, that 
 will but confult the Cufiom of divers Nations in Africa, and other Countries, at 
 this day; where they fell their Sons for Slaves, and exercife this Fatherly Power 
 with the greateft Tyranny a*nd Rigor, ufing them as Slaves, or felling them to others 
 for fuch things as they want- And if you think it againft the Law of Nature for 
 fuch Children, when they fee themfelves ready to be fold to work in the Mines in 
 Peru, or Sugar-works at Barbadoesy to run away into another Country to avoid 
 fuch a Condition, which is as bad or worfe than Death, you may enjoy your 
 own Opinion ; but I am fure you'll have but few Profelytes, but fuch as arc of 
 the like arbitrary Principles. And as for your Pretence, that if Children fhould 
 be allowed to judge when their Fathers treated them too feverejy, or like Slaves, 
 they would all run away ; that is but a Subterfuge : For firft, it is a needlcfs. 
 Caution, Children being, when young, not apt to leave their Parents who haVe 
 bred them up, upon whom they depend for their Subfiftence, and to whom, if 
 they are treated like Children, tliey feldom fail to bear. a natural Duty and Aftec- 
 tion ; and if well ufcd, they will, wjicn of Years of Difcretion, be likewife wil- 
 ling to ftay with them, and look after them when (ick or old ; not only for Duty, 
 but alfo for their own advantage, and in hopes of having a fhare in what Goods 
 or Eftatcsthey may leave behind them when they die. But if, when they come 
 to Years of difcretion, tlicy can better their condition by marryirig, and leaving 
 dieir Father's Family, their Parents are bound in confcicnCv" to let them go ; fincc 
 
 it
 
 Dialogue the Pirfl, 57 
 
 it is thtir Duty to better the Condition of their Cliildrcn, and not to make it 
 worfe T Always provided that fiich .Children cithci" take care of their Parents 
 thcmfclves, or elfc hire others ro do it for them, in cafe rliey v/arit their AfTiflance 
 by x^Aiy\ of their old Age, Poverty, or Sicknfcfs. But if Children may not quit 
 their Father's Families, tho'they are never fo hardly or fcx crely dealt with, tlic 
 confcqitcncc will be, that Fathers may keep their Children as Slaves as long as 
 they lire, tho'it were to* a hundred Years, or elfe may fell them to others, to be 
 i:lcd UTtrfc, if pofTible ,• the Abfiirdicy of which Allertions, an'd how contrary 
 to the common Good of Mankind, I might leave to any iildilierent Perfcn to 
 judge ot. , , , 
 
 Therefore, I think, I may very x^^cll (according W'fflc Lfcafil^dGro^V/.f) diviciei 
 the Li\-ts of Children into thfc'e Pevkdi of Ages. The fiyjj is the Period of Infancy 
 or impcrfed Judgmtnr, bddre the Child 'cOmes to be able to Cxercife his Reafon.' 
 The jpTO/rf is- the Period of pcrfc'ft Judgiildnt or Difcrerion, yet whilft the Child 
 contitnifc*^ ilill part of his Father's Family. The third is, after he hath left His 
 Father's,- 'and cr.tctM ' into nnt)ther Family, or fets up a F.'.mily hiirifelf In tKe 
 /■/// •PcYiti, all th^ A'ftions of Oi'ildren are under the abfoklte Government of thef^ 
 ParentsT Forltrr'ce tbcy have not the Ufe of Reafon, nor are able to judge what 
 is gooV? cirbad for 'themfeltes, theycblild not grow- ap nor be preferv'd, unlefi 
 their Parents jittlged- for theiif what fnfeiins iDell; ■ conduced to this end ; yet thi<l 
 Power is ftiH tobcdiredted to the principal End, wi. the Good and Prelervatiofi 
 of the Child; .111 thte femid Period, When they are of mature Judgment, yet con- 
 tinne parr of thcfr' Father's Fariifly, ^iheyai'd flill under their Father'is Command, 
 and ought to be tibedient to it in ail Atiions Which tend to the Good of their 
 Father's Family arid Concerns; 'And in both rhefe Ages I allow the Father has a 
 Right to rtakc his Children work, as well to enable them to get their own Living, 
 as alfo to recomfiencd himfelf for the pains, and care !ie has taken, aiid the charge 
 he may have been it in their JEducation, and alfo to 'dotrc£t them, in cafe they 
 refufc to work or obey his Commands. But in other Anions the Children have a 
 PoWei-dfa(itrng- freely, yet ffill with a 'ttfyect of gratifying and pleaiing theii: 
 Fanehts, to whom tliey are Oblfged for their Being and Education ; flnce without 
 their care they c'ciild not have :ittain'd to thkt Age. But this Duty being not by 
 force of aiiy abfolnte Subjedio'n, but 'bhiy"6|f Piety, Gratitude and Obfervance^ 
 it does not make <-ofd any Aft; tho' doiie^cdhtrary to their Duty. The t/jird and 
 i/ifi Period is, when the Sen, 'being of Years of difcretion, either by Marriage oi: 
 otherwifo is fepai'atM frotn hi^ Father's Family : In which cafe he is in all Adtibns 
 free, arid at his own difpofa:l, tho' ftill With refpcd to thofe Duties of Piety and 
 Obfer\-ance, which fuch a Son miift always owe his Father, the Caufe thereof 
 being perpetual. '"'^'l,' 
 
 AI. I mull; beg yonr pardon if I cannot come over to your Opinion, notwilfi-F. O.G.;-.2i. 
 {landing all yoti have faid in this long Difco'urfe ; fince I cannot conceive how in 
 any cafe Children can naturally have a Po\Vct or moral Faculty of doing what llhe^ 
 •^ili without thei^ Parents Leave, fince they are always bound to fiudy to pl^afe 
 them : And tho', by the Laws of fomc Nations, Children when they attain 'to 
 Years of Dift'retion have a Power and LibcrtyinmAny Adions; yet this Liberty 
 is granted them bypolitivc and humane Laws only. Which are made by thcSii- 
 preaml'atherly Power of Printes, who can regulate, liniit, or affume rhcAuthoritjr 
 of inferior Fathers, for the publick Benefit of tiie Commonwealth.. So that natu- 
 rally the Power of Parents over their ChiMren never ceafes by any Separations) 
 tho', by the permiffion of die tranfeendent Fatherly Power of the SajM-eam Princ^, 
 Children may be difpcns''d with or privileged in fohic cafes from Obedience td 
 flibordinarc Parents. 
 
 F. And I muft beg your pardon. Sir, if I cannot alter my Opinion in this 
 matter, for all that you have now faid, firice you can give me no better ReafohS 
 than what yon did at firft : And tho' you fay, you cannot conceive how Children 
 can ever in any cafe have a Power or moral Faculty of doing what they will with- 
 out their Pai^(^its Leave, yet they may have fuch Power in many cjifes, whcthcir 
 yoil can concdve it or no. For tlio' I do grant, that Cihildren, are always bound P. ». If- io, 
 to ftudy ro pled'c their Parents, yet doth not tliis Duty of Gratitude or Compla-^i" 
 cehcy include a full and perfect Dominion of Fathers, in the State of Nature, over 
 the perfons of their Children, and an abfolute Power over theih in all co^cs wlu't- 
 foc\'cr/fo' rhat the Cllildrcfi cAn have nO Right toCohfuit their own Good or Pre- 
 
 fervation,
 
 ^8 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTlCA. 
 
 fervation, however it may be endangered by their Father's Paflion or ill Nature : 
 Since a Wife is always obliged to this Duty of Complacency to her Husband ,■ yet 
 is not this fo abfolute, but that in the State of Nature fhe may quit his Family in 
 thofe Cafes I have already mentioned, and againft which you had nothing to object. 
 And 1 deny your Pcfition, that Children, when they attain to Years of Difcretion, 
 derive that Power and Liberty they ufe in many Aftions from pofitive Humane 
 Laws only ; or that the Power which Parents naturally have over their Children 
 can never ceafe by any Separation, but only by the permiflion of the Father. 
 
 For as for Boilm, and divers others that have written on this Subjeft, they do 
 no more than follow others, who have aflerted this abfolute Power of Fathers 
 upon no better grounds than the Civil or Roman Municipal Laws, without ever 
 troubling themfelves to look into the true Original of Paternal Authority or Filial 
 Subjeftion, according to the Laws of Reafon or Nature. And molt Treatifes of 
 this Subjctfl being commonly writ by Fathers, no wonder if they have been very 
 exaft in fetting forth their own Power over their Children, but have faid little or 
 nothing of the Rights of Children in the State of Nature; and therefore I fliall 
 farther let you fee* that this Duty of Children, even of plealing or obeying their 
 Parents, can only extend to fuch things as they may reafonably or lawfully com- 
 mand. For fuppofe that Adam had commanded fome of his Sons or Daughters 
 never to marry, you cannot deny but this Command had been void (that being 
 the only means then appointed to propagate Mankind :) For when tliere then lay 
 a higher Obligation upon them to increafe and multiply than there is now, they 
 might then certainly have chofen Wives for themfelves, when they were of Years 
 of difcretion, and capable of Marriage. 
 
 And farther to {hew you, that Children may in Tome Cafes feparate themfelves 
 from their Father's Family and Subjeftion, without their Father's Confent, is ap- 
 parent as to the Daughters, who if they were at firft obliged by this Precept to 
 marry, might likewife do it whether he would or not, and were to be obedient 
 to their Husbands when they were married, the Obedience which they before 
 owed to their Father being now transferred to their Husband ,• or elfe they muft 
 ferve two Matters, which is againft our Saviour's Rule- By which it appears, 
 that the Subjeftion of Daughters in the State of Nature is not perpetual : And to 
 prove that Sons have a like Right to feparate from their Tather's Family, let us 
 fuppofe that Adam had been fo cruel and unnatural as fome Fathers are ,• that 
 being only fenfible of the Profit he received from his Sons Labours, he would 
 never have permitted them to leave his Family, nor to enjoy any thing of their 
 own, but would have kept them like Slaves as long as they lived : If you afErm, 
 that he might have done fo if he had pleafed, and that the Sons had no lawful 
 means to help themfelves, fince he only was Judge whether ever he thought fit to 
 fet them free or not ; you your fclf have already granted the contrary, when you 
 affirmed, that a Father had no Right to fell his Child as a Slave ; and then fure 
 lie can have as little Right to ufe him fo himfelf. 
 
 But as for what you fay againft that natural Equality of Ciiildren to their 
 Parents, confideredasMen, you might eafily have underftood it, if your Thoughts 
 were not fo wholly taken up with this tranfcendent imaginary Empire of Fathers 
 in the State of Nature, as if they were fomewhat more than Men : For pray tell 
 me, are they not equal, who have the fame Right from God to the fame things ? 
 For if Fathers have a Right to live and be preferved, fo likewife have the Chil- 
 dren ; and if they have a Right to the End, they have likewife the fame to the 
 Means neceflary thereunto, fuch as are Food, Raiment, Freedom from Slavery, 
 &c. And if they are thus equal, they muft likewife, when they attain to Years 
 of difcretion, be endued with a Power of judging for themfelves, concerning what 
 things are neceflary to their Happinefs and Prefervation, and what tends to their 
 Mifery or Deftruftion ; and confequently may very well judge whether their Fathers 
 treat them kindly or cruelly : For if the Father in the State of Nature is the fole 
 Judge of the Means that conduce to his Son's Happinefs and Prefervation, with- 
 out his Confent he may determine, that Poverty, Slavery, and Torment, fliall be 
 fit Means, and conducing to this End, which is againft Senfe and Reafon. And 
 tho' I grant, that Sons may fometimes be miftaken in the true Means that may 
 lead to thefe great Ends of Lite ; yet doth not this take away their Right of 
 judging for themfelves, any more than it doth the fame Right from their Fathers, 
 who as Men are alfo liable to the like Miftakes. Neither did any Slave orSubjeft 
 
 ever
 
 Dialogue the Firfl. 3P 
 
 ever give up his Will {o totally to his Maftcr or Monarch, as abfokitcly to renounce 
 all Right to Happinefs and SeU-prefcrvation, or to the Means that may conduce 
 thereunto. But I think we have fu/ficicntly debated this great Point of the natural 
 Pov^cr of Fathers over their Children : And therefore 
 
 Let us in the next place con/ider, wlicther Children may not upon thefe Prin- 
 ciples in fome cafes make ufe alfo of S_-!f-defence, even againfl: their Fathers, if 
 they cannot otiierwife avoid certain Ruin and Deflruftion : Therefore I will firfl 
 ask yon what you think of this Cafe ? A Son in the State of Nature being fcpa- 
 rated from his Father's Family, and having Children and Houfe of his own, what 
 {hall he do in cafe his Fatlier, by the evil Suggeftions of a Stepfnother, or other 
 wicked Perfons, be fo far incenfed againfl his Son, as to fend Men to burn his 
 Houfe, plunder him of his Goods, and deftroy his Plantation ? 
 
 M. If the Son be abfolutely fet free from his Fatlier's Family and Power with 
 his confent, I do not deny but that fuch a Son may refifl thofe Perfons his Father 
 fends to ruin him and his Family, and may repel their Violence by force ; but I 
 do not allow the Son the fame Power to rclill the Perfon of the Father, if he 
 ihould come himfclf thus to deftroy him. 
 
 F. Why fo ? Do you think a Father, by being fo, hath any greater Right to 
 dcflroy his Son and ruin his Family than a Stranger ? 
 
 M. No ; but becaufe the Perfon of a Father ought always to be efleemed by 
 the Son as facred as his natural Prince ; and if he fhould have a Right to refill 
 his Father by force, he might happen to kill him in the Scuffle, which would be a 
 Sin againfl Nature. 
 
 F. Well, fuppofe the word, would this me more a Sin againfl Nature, than to 
 fuftcr himfclf, Wife, and innocent Children, to be turned out of all they have, and 
 left to pcrifh by Hunger and Cold ? St. Vaiil fays, 'that he that doth not provide for 
 his Family is ivorfe than an Infidel ; and, I think, fo would the Son be, if, for fear of 
 hurting his Father's Perfon, he fliould permit all his Family to be expofcd to cer- 
 tain Beggary and Ruin. 
 
 M. This Precept of St. Paul obliges only, when a Man may provide for his 
 Family by lawful means, but not when it cannot be procured but by doing what 
 is unlawful, as I take this Refiflance of the Perfon of the Father to be. 
 
 F. I grant indeed tiiat a Father, adting as fuch, is not to be refifled, even 
 when he corrects his Son ; but I fuppofe you will not fay, that in the cafe I put 
 he a£ls as a Father, but an Enemy, when he goeth about without any jufl Occa- 
 fion to kill or ruin him ; unlefs you can fuppofe, that the Will to preferve and 
 dellroy can confifl together in the fame Subjeft : Neither can you afErm, that 
 the Father hath any Right to deal thus wickedly and violently towards his Son 
 and his innocent Family. By what Law then mufl the Son be obliged to facrifice 
 his own Life, and that of Wife and Children, and all that he hath, to this iitia-" 
 ginary Duty > 
 
 M. There feertis to mc two good Reafons for it : The firfl is that Gratitude 
 which the Son mufl always owe his Father for his Being and Education ; afid 
 therefore if he give up his Wife, Children, and all that he hath to his Will, it 
 would fcarcc be a fufficient Requital for all the Benefits he hath received from 
 hitti. The fecond is, becaufe no Circumflances whatfoever can take off or oblif 
 rerate this Relation : And tho'ris true your Father, whilfl afting thus, doth fi6c 
 deal with you as a Father, but an Enemy ; yet he is flill your Father, and you 
 are and will be always his Son, do what you can, and fo confequently you Will 
 flill owe him Subjcftiott. For it is a Maxim not only of the Civil Law, butt!. at B. '".'". ^ ij, 
 of Nature too, and this mofl of all in the State of Nature, that is, before Civil 
 Laws had reflrained the Paternal Power, ^urafunguinis mtllo deli^o dirimi poJfunt.i^ 
 ind laflly from the fourth Commandment of. Honour thy Father, &c. Now tt6' 
 Man can render Honour to him vvliom he goeth about to refifl, and fo may alio 
 deftrby. ' ' ;; /; 
 
 F. I colli A you have urged this Argument as home as the thing will bfiai:'; 
 but yet I rli'nk I can fhew you, vhat the Son is fo far from adting againfl the La\^ 
 of isatutc i'l tk' s refikir.g his Father, that I think he would rather tranfgrcfs it, 
 if he aftu ; otherwife. But firfl to anfwer ■/our Arguments, I deny that either 
 Gencrat; or Education do confer fo great a Benefit, that a Man is obliged to 
 taCtilliit; hiSnfclt, hij W'ifw*, andCliildrcn, and all that he hath, in return for it, 
 
 Firft
 
 40 BiBLioTHECA Politic A. 
 
 Firft for Generation : I fuppofe you will not much infift on that, fince you muft 
 grant that a Father doth not aft in that matter as a voluntary, but natural Agent ; 
 neither is it in his power to hinder the Child that he gets from being conceived or 
 born ; neither did he get him fo much to propagate his Species, as to gratify his 
 own prefent natural Appetite. 
 
 Then for Education, which I grant is much the greater Obligation, fince by 
 the former I am only born an irrational helplefs Creature, but by the other I am 
 made a reafonable Man, able to help and provide for my felf, and knc^wing my 
 Duty to God and other Men ; yet even thcle Obligations arc not great enough to 
 make me facriht;e my felf and all that I have to his Fury or Humour. I grant in- 
 deed, that if it were to fave a kind Father's Life, a Son may be obliged to venture, 
 nay lay down his Life to perform it ; but I deny, that even for fuch a Father he 
 hath a Right to give up the Lives of others, which are not at his difpofal (as 
 thofe of his Wife and Children are not) in this cafe. For this were not only to 
 return more than was firlt given, but alfo to pay Debts with that which is not 
 my own ; and to give up their Lives, and let my Father take them away, is all 
 ione, if I can hinder it : Qiii non probibet, facit. Then as for the Relation of a Fa- 
 ther, which you fay no Fault of his can obliterate or dcftroy, you muft grant that 
 it may be fufpended for a time : As, when a Man binds or refifts his mad or 
 drunken Father, who would kill him or his Wife or Children, he doth not do it 
 to the Father, but to the mad Man or Drunkard ; and fo likewife in this cafe, he 
 doth not refift his Father, but a furious unreafonable Creature, who is fo far from 
 behaving himfelf as becomes a Father, that he doth not aft like a Man. . Nor 
 doth your Maxim hold true in all Cales, and therefore is no Law of Nature ; for 
 yura fauguinis aliquo delicio dirimi pcjfunt, or elfe a Father could never put his Son 
 to death for any Crime whatever, which you have affirmed he may : But certainly 
 when he afts thus, it is not as a Father, nor doth he deftroy him as a Son, but an 
 Enemy orMalefador. 
 
 Now I defire you or any indifferent Man to confider, fince the common Good 
 of Mankind is the Sum of all the Laws of Nature, and the great Rule by which 
 they are to be tried, which Rule is to be preferred, and conduces more thereunto, 
 when they cannot confift at once or together : That a Father, who by your own 
 confeffion comes to do an unlawful wicked Aftion, viz,, to ruin and deftroy his 
 Son, with his Wife and Children, fhould be refifted, and confequently one Man's 
 Life put in hazard ,• than that many innocent Perfons fhould be ruined, and per- 
 haps ftarved to death for want of Food and Shelter. And as for the fifth Com- 
 mandment, that extends no more to the Father than to the Mother ; tho' you are 
 pleafed to leave her out, becaufe it makes againfl your Opinion : And therefore 
 if by honour is meant, Ihoufialt not rejift • then no Man fhould refift his Mother 
 any more than his Father, if fhe went about to kill him ; and yet not the Mother, 
 but the Father, is by your Hypothefis the natural Monarch, that hath this Power 
 of Life and Death over the Son. But let us purfue this Point no farther ; if you 
 will not be convinced, I cannot help it. 
 
 But pray tell me now, what a Son muft do, if his Father, tranfported by Fury 
 and Malice, fhould go about to kill him with a Sword or other Weapon, and that 
 he hath no other way left to fave his Life, neither by Intreaty nor Flight (which I 
 grant ought to be done if polTible) whether he may'^refift his Father with whac 
 next comes to hand, or fufier himfelf to be killed ? 
 
 ,/ M. I am much better fatisfied in this cafe than in the other, that he ought 
 rather to let his Father take away his Life than refift him, fince here is but one 
 Life to be loft ; whereas, I confefs, the other Cafe was harder, becaufe there 
 were more Lives concerned than the Son's ; and I am of this opinion partly Tor 
 the fame Reafons as before, and partly becaufe 'tis more fuitable both to Reafon 
 and the Law of Nature, as alfo to Holy Scripture, Precepts and Examples : For 
 if St. Peter command Seyvaiitt to be fubjecl to their Mcijiers, 8ic. not only to the 
 Good and Gentle, but alfo to the Froward; and if Servants, much more Sons, who 
 owe their Fathers a higher Duty and Obedience than Servants can owe their Mal^ 
 ters } and Ifaac was fo far convinced that his Father Abraham had Power over his 
 Life, that tho' he was a lufty young Man, and could carry Wood enough to confume 
 a Burnt-offering, yet do we not find that he offered in the leaft to refift his Father, 
 \Vhen he was about to bind him to be facrificed : For he very well knew, that his 
 Father cowld not be refifted without endangering his Life, if not taking it away 
 
 in
 
 Dialogue the Flrfl. 41 
 
 in the Scuffle. Ai'-d fiire you will grant, that a Son ought rather of the two to let 
 his Father kill him, than he take away his Life, by whofe means he received his 
 own ; efpecia'ly Cmcc Jl/r^ham was the Maftcr of a great Family, and in whofe 
 Life and Well-being nor only his Motlier, but all the Family, had an Intcreft, as 
 necertary for their Well-being and Happi!:efs. Nor can I think, that Ab.-ahatri 
 would have fo readily aflented to God's Command for the doing of it, had he 
 not been already fatisfied, tiiat he had an unaccountable Power of Life and Death 
 over his Son by the Laws of God and Nature. 
 
 F. In the fiift place to anfwer your Aiithciitics from Scripture; as for that 
 Place oi'St. Peter you have cited, it is not a Precept given by the Apoftle to Sons, . 
 but to Servants or Slaves, whofe Lives and all that they had were at their Mafters 
 abfelute difpofal, being thofe v/l,om the Apoftle Paul calls, Sovanti umlo the Yoke; 
 and-iiiilcfs you will make a Slave and a Sen to be- all one (which yon have already 
 denied) this Precept doth not at all concern them. And as for the Example of 
 J^aac, that will make as little for }'our advantage j for firft, as to Abiabam, he 
 cbiild not but know, that to kid liis Son witliout any juft Caufe, was as much 
 Murder in him as in any other Man. Now what could beajuftcrora highcrCaufe 
 than God's particular Command ? So that as this Aft of Abraham is not to be 
 taken as an E.^ample by other Fathers, fo neither doth the Example of Ifaac oblige 
 orherSons to the like Subraiifion ; therefore it is moft reafonabic to fuppofe, that 
 Jjaac being then (as Chronologers make him to be) about nineteen or twenty T.'n.M.^.i;. 
 Years of age, and of Years of difcrction to ask, where was the Lamb for the 
 Biirnt-oftering, was alfo inftrufted by his Father, before he came to be offered, 
 of the realon of his dealing thus with him j and then' the Submiffion was not 
 payed to his Father's, but to God's Will, from whom he miracuioufly received 
 his Being. But if any Man doubt whether Reliltance in fuch a cafe were lawful, 
 I leave it to his own Confcience to confider, whether, if his Father had him alone 
 in a Place where he could neither run away, nor yet call for Help, he would fufler his 
 Father to cut his Throat without any Reliflance, only becaufe he pretended Divine 
 Revelation for it. Not but that I fa far agree with you likewife, as to limit fuch i 
 
 a Refinance only to the holding his Father's Hands, orvvarding offhisBlOwS, but 
 not to the taking away his Lite j but of the two, rather to lofe his own than to 
 kill him, for the Reafons you have given, and which L will not dchy : But yet if 
 the Father be mad, I doubt whether the Son \s bound to let him kill him rather 
 than take away his Life, fince fuch a Father's Life is no way ufeful to the Good 
 of the Family. So that tho' I fhould grant that Paternal Power is from God, and 
 confequently irrelillible, yet doth it not follow, that all the unjuft Force or Violence, 
 which a Father as a Man may ufe againft his Son's Life or Fortune, is fuch part 
 of a Paternal Power, as God hath commanded us not to refift ; fince you your felf 
 muft grant, that he doth not thus adt (in going about to kill his Son) as a Fatlier, 
 but a violent and wicked Man : So that where tlie Father hath no Right to take 
 away his Son's Life, I think in all fuch Cafes the Right of the Son to refift him 
 doth take place. And if a Man may refift or bind his Father, wlienhe is mad or 
 drunk, and in iiich Fits goeth about to kill him, I can lee notliing to the contrary 
 why he may not do tiie fame thing, when his Father is tranfported by a fuddca 
 Rage or unreafonable Malice \ fince both of them do take away the Ufe of natu- 
 ral Reafon, as mucli the one as the other, according to that Saying of the Poet, 
 hafurorbrcviseH, Anger is but a fhortMadnefs : Fury and Malice being alike fatal 
 and deftrucfcive to the Son's Life and Safety with Dnmkennefs and Madnefs; nor 
 dotii fuch a Son rtfift his Paternal Power, but only his brutifli Force and Violence. 
 So that if Sons (when grown ttf Yearsof difcretion) have not a Right to dciend their 
 Lives, in the State of Nattn-c, againft all Perfons whatfoevcr, who go about to 
 take it away without any juft Caufe ; every Son ought to fufter his Father to kill 
 him, whenever, being tranfported by Machicfs, Drunkennefs, or fudden Paflion, 
 he hatii a Will fo to do : Wliich how it can confift with that great Law of Na- 
 ture, of propagating and prefjrving the Species of Mankind, if a Father fhould 
 have fuch an unreafonable unlimited Power, I'll leave to your fcif or any other 
 reafonable Man to confider. Nor doth it follow, that becaule a Son can in no wife 
 be fuperior to his Father, he ought not therefore to refift liim j fince tho' 1 grant 
 Punifhment is a Right of Superiors over their Inferiors, yet fb is not Refiliancc ; p.r.A/. 
 iinee every one knows that Refiftance is excrcilcd between Equals, as I liavc 
 already proved Sons are to their Fathers, in all the Rights of Life and Sclf- 
 
 G prefcrvation ;
 
 42 BiBLioTHECA Politic A. 
 
 prcfervatfon ; and confequently to judge when their Lives and Efiates are unjtift- 
 ly invaded. 
 
 M. I mull confefs I am in a great doubt which will moll conduce to that great 
 Law you mention (which I grant to be the Sum of all the Laws of Nature) viz.. 
 of preferving or profeciiting the common Good of Mankind j that Fathers fliould 
 have an abfolute irreliftible Power over the Lives and Fortunes of their Children, 
 let them ufe it Jiow they will ; or elfc that Children ftould have a Right to refift 
 them, in fome cafes, when they go about to take away either of them without 
 any juft Caufe : For tho' I own, that (if tlie former Principle be true) Parents 
 may be fometimes tempted to take away their Children's Lives or Eftates without 
 any jwil Caufe ,• fo on tlic other fide, if Children fhall aflume fuch a Power to them- 
 felves of judging when their Fathers do thus go about to invade either their Lives 
 or Eflates, it will (I doubt) lay a Foundation for horrid Confufions and Divifions 
 in Families ; fincc, if Children are under a conftant Subjeftion to their Fathers, 
 they ought then to be abfolutely fubjeft to them in the State of Nature, and there- 
 fore ouglit never to be reliftcd : For if all Fathers, and Mailers of Families, are 
 trufted by God with an abfolute Power of Life and Death over the Wife, Chil- 
 dren, and Servants of the Family, as your fclf cannot deny ; then no Refiftance 
 of this abfolute Power can fublift with the Peace and Tranquility of that Family, 
 without tlie Diminution or total Deftruftion of that abfolute Power, with which 
 they are entrufted. 
 
 And tho' I admit that Parents ought neither to ufe nor fell their Children for 
 Slaves, nor to take away either their Lives or Goods, without great and fufficient 
 Caufe ; yet of thefe Caufes Fathers, in the State of Nature, mult be the only and 
 uncontroulable Judges : Since, if Children (whom I ftill confider as Subjeds, tho' 
 not as Slaves, in this State, as long as they continue Members of their Fathers 
 Family) (liould once have a Riglit to refift, when they thought their Lives or 
 Eflates were unjuflly invaded ; they might alfo oftentimes, through Undutifulnefs 
 or falfe Suggellions, pretend or fuppofe that their Fathers were mad, drunk, or 
 in a Pallion, and went about to take away their Lives, when really they intend 
 no fuch thing, but only to give them due Correftion : Which would give Chil- 
 dren an unnatural Power of refilling, or perhaps of killing their Fathers, upoa 
 falfe Surmifes or flight Occafions. 
 
 And as this would introduce great Mifchief and Confufion in private Families, 
 fo would it likewife prove a Foundation of Rebellion againll all Civil Powers 
 whatfoever ,• if Subjefts, who are the fame thing in a Kingdom that Children are 
 in a Family (in the State of Nature) fhould take upon them to refift their Prince 
 whenever they think he goeth about to invade either their Lives or Fortunes, 
 • which would likewife ferve to juflify all the moft horrid Rebellions in the World ; 
 fince all Rebels whatfoever may or do pretend, that their Lives, Liberties and 
 Fortunes arc unjuftly invaded, when indeed they are not ; and likewife upon the 
 leaft Hardfhip or Injuftice in this kind inflifted upon any private Subjeft, either 
 by the Prince or his Minifters (which Abufes and Violences do often happen even 
 under the beft Governments) any fuch private Perfon, who fliall think himfelf 
 thus injured, may upon this Principle take up Arms, and endeavour to right or de- 
 fend himfelf againft fuch Violence; by which means, under pretence of fecuring 
 a few Men in their Lives or Eftates, whole Kingdoms (if fuch Perfons can find 
 Followers enough) may be caft into all the Mifchiefs and Confufions of a Civil • 
 War, till the Prince and Government be quite deftroyed. 
 
 F. I muft confefs, the Arguments you now bring are the beft you have yet pro- 
 duced, fince they are drawn from that great and certain Law of procuring the 
 common Good and Peace of Mankind. But I hope I fhall make it plain to you, 
 that no fuch terrible Confequenccs-will follow from tl:e Principles I have already 
 laid down ,• and therefore I muft firft take notice, that you have in your Anfwer 
 confounded two Powers together, which ought to be diitinguiflied in the State of 
 Nature, viz.. the Power wiiich Fathers, as Mafters or Heads of Families, may 
 exercife over the Lives of their Children or Servants, whilft they remain Members 
 of their Family, and that Reverence and Duty which Children muft always owe 
 tlieir Fathers as long as they live, even after they become Fathers or Mafters of 
 Families of their own. In the firft State, I have already allowed, that fucli Fa- 
 thers, as Mafters of Families, may lawfully exercife a far greater Power over 
 their Children, whilft they are Members of their Family, tiian- they can when 
 
 * ' they
 
 Dialogue the Firft. 4-5 
 
 they are fcparatcd from it, yet is not this Power in all Cafes abfolute or irrefifli- 
 blc, as I liarc already proved ; and therefore I do in the firil place reftrain this 
 Right of felf defence only to fuch Cafes where a Father M-or.ld ta!;e away a 
 Son's Life in a fit of Drunkennefs, Madnefs, or fudden Paflion, witliout any 
 crime committed, or jiift caufe given : Which I alio limit to a bare felf defence, 
 without injuring or taking away the Life of the Father if it can pofiibly be 
 avoided ,• and in tin's Cafe, if the Son, wlio \% like to fuftcr this violence, may 
 not judge when his Life is really in danger to be deftroyed, becaufe he may pre- 
 tend fo when really it is not. This is no juft reafon to overthrow fo great a 
 Right as felf prefervation ; fincc if this were a fufficient Objection, it would have 
 the fame force againfl all felf defence whatfoever : For it doch often happen 
 that wicked and unreafonable Men will pretend that they were forced to take 
 awtiy the Lives of others, only to prcfcrve their own, v/hen indeed it was alto- 
 gether falfe and needlefs, and they only killed them to fatisfy tlieir own Malice 
 or PaiTion. And therefore, as there is no reafon that the abufe of this natural 
 Right fhould be ufcd as an Argument againfl the ufe of all felf defence, by any 
 Man whatfoc\er ; fo likewifc neither ought the like abufe thereof by fome wick- 
 ed Children to be brought as an Argufnent againfl its being made ufe of at all 
 by others, who are never lb unjuflly aflaulted, and in danger of their Lives from 
 their Fathers violence. 'If the hrfl Principle be true, (on wliich this is founded) 
 that a Son may exercife this Right of felf defence in fuch Cafes, without any 
 intrenchment upon his Father's Paternal Authority, or that Filial duty and re- 
 fpeft which he muft always owe him whenever he returns to himfelf, and will 
 behave himfelf towards him as becomes a Father, and not like an Enemy or 
 Cut-throat. 
 
 And as for the Qiiarrcls and Confufions, which you al'ledge may happen in 
 Families between Fathers and Children, in cafe fuch a liberty fliould be allow- 
 ed, thofe inconveniences will prove very inconfiderable, if you pleafe to take 
 Notice : That, firft, I do not allow this Riglit of Refillance to be exercifed by 
 any Children before they attain to years of difcretion. Secondly, that after they 
 have attained to thefe Years, no Refillance ouglit to be made againft a Father, 
 whilft they remain part of their Father's Family, but only in defence of their own, 
 their Mothers, Wives, and Children s, Lives i fince I grant, that a Son as long 
 as he continues a Member of his Father's Family, ought to beftow all his pwn 
 labour for his Father's profit, and cannot acquire any Property either in Lands or 
 Goods without his Father's confent : And fincc you conceive this Right of felf de- 
 fence, if allowed to Children, would be the caufe of fo great raifchiefs in Families, 
 if Children fliould liave any Right to judge when their Fathers abufed their Power 
 over them ; let us a h'rrle confider on which fide this abufe is moll likely to hap- 
 pen; for if you pleafe but to look into the World, and furvcy the Nature of Fa- 
 thers and Children, and fet the faults of the one againft the other, you will find, 
 that (as I confcfs) it is the Nature of many Children to contradift and difobey 
 their Fathers Commands, and that moft young People hate reftraint, and love 
 too much liberty, and may oftentimes think their Fathers too harfo or fevere to 
 them, when they rc.Tlly arc not; yet doth fuch falfe Surmifes and difobedient 
 Aftions feldom end, cither in abfolute Refiftancc, or taking away their Fathers 
 Lives by force ; or if they do fo, it is really done for their own defence, or whilft 
 they are aflaulted by them in their own Lives, or thofe of their Children ; but 
 is commonly aftcd privately, to fatisfy their own revenge dr malice, which I 
 hold to be utterly unlawful : So likewife let us confider on the other fide, thofe ^- "• ^' 
 temptations that Fathers lie under of injuring their Children, or taking away ^' '*'' 
 their Lives, or ufing them like Slaves, without any juft Caufe ; you'll find that 
 they, by reafon of their Age, natural Temper or Infirmities, may be cafily tran- 
 fported to that degree of Paffion, that not confidering the Follies of Youth, they 
 may oftentimes, in their Paflion, cither beat them fo cruelly, as utterly to difabic 
 or maim them, or clfe take away their Lives for little or no Caufe. And be- 
 fides. Fathers being often covetous and ill natured, (which arc the Vices of old 
 Age) may (where there is no Power over them to reftrain them from it) either 
 keep them as Slaves themfelves, or clfe fell them to others for that purpofe', (as^ 
 I have already given you an Example of the Negroes in Africa) and wnich of 
 thefe two inconveniences are moft likely to happen between Children and Parents 
 in the State of Nature, I fhould leave to any indiftcrcnt Man to judge between 
 
 G % 
 
 us.
 
 ^ BiBLiOTHECA Politic A. 
 
 us. And therefore I think, it more conduces to the good and peace of Families, 
 and confcqucncly the happinefs and prefervation of Mankind, (which are the end 
 of all Laws) chat Children fliould be allowed thefe Rights (I have already laid 
 down) of afleriing their natural Liberty from Slavery; and defending their Lives, 
 and thofc of their Wives and Children, from the unjuft Violence of their Fathers, 
 than that they fhould be left wholly at their Difpofal to be maimed, killed or 
 riiined, whenever their Covetoufnefs, Paffion or Malice may prompt them, to it : 
 Since if all Fathers were fatisfied that their Children have a Right thus to de- 
 fend themfelves in thefe Cafes againft their unjuft Violence, it would be a means 
 to make them ad more cautioully, and to behave themfelves with greater Ten- 
 derncfs and Moderation towards them. 
 
 So that to conclude : I utterly deny that thefe Principles, I have here laid down, 
 do at all tend to countenance Rebellion, or railing Difturbances in Ci\il Go- 
 vernments; fince I cannot allow you have proved Parciits to be Princes or Mo- 
 narchs in the State of Nature, or that Families, and Kingdoms or Common- 
 wealths are all one : Or if I fhould grant them to be fo, yet would it not there- 
 fore follow, that every private Subjeft in a Civil State hath the fame Right to 
 defend his Life, or that of his Wife and Cliildren, againft the Violence or In- 
 juftice of the Supream Powers, as a Son may have in the State of Nature to de- 
 fend his Life, &c. againft his Father's Rage or Violence ; fince I grant no par- 
 ticular Subjeft, on his own private Account, can contradift or refift the Supream 
 Power of the lawful Magiftrate (however unjuftly exercifed) by Force, with- 
 out dirtiirbing, or at leaft endangering the Qiiiet and Happinefs of the whole 
 Community, and perhaps the Dillblution of the Government itfelf, which is 
 againft the Duty, not only of a good Subjeft, but alfo of an honeil moral Man, 
 who will not difturb the publick Tranquility for his own private fccurity or re- 
 venge. But in private Families the Cafe is otherwife, and Children may refifl: 
 their Father in the Cafes already put, without introducing cither Anarchy or 
 Civil War in the Family ; fince it can fcarce be prefumed, that either their Mo- 
 ther, Brothers or Sifters, will take part with a Son or Brother, againft their HuP 
 band and Father, unlefs it were that they might thereby hinder liim from com- 
 mitting Murder, by defending their Son or Brother's Life, when thus violently and 
 without caufe aflaulted ; and if it fliould fometimes happen otherwife, yet this 
 would be a much lefs mifchief, than that, out of tiiis fear, the Lives and Liber- 
 ties of an innocent Wife and Children Ihould fuffer, without caufe, by his Drun-. 
 kennefs or Paflion. 
 
 But as for the Refiftaiice which Sons may make in the State of Nature, and 
 when feparated from their Father's Families, it is of a much larger extent, fince 
 they may then not only defend their own Lives, but alfo thole of their Wives, 
 Children, and their Eftates, againft their Father's unjuft violence. Though I do 
 here likewife reftrain this felf defence only to cafes of adual Invafion or Aflault 
 of fuch Fathers upon the Lives and Eftates of their Children, in which Cafes, I 
 alfo abfolutely condemn all Anions and Proceedings, done by way of prevention, 
 before fuch violence or ailault is aftually begun to be made upon them ; mi-ch 
 lefs do I allow of any revenge or return of Evil for Evil by fuch Children, when 
 the danger is over; fince however fuch revenge may be lawful between Perfons 
 in the State of Nature, no ways related or obliged to each other; yet do 1 by 
 no means allow the fame privilege to Children againft their Parents, fince I look 
 upon the Obligation they have to them, to be of fo high a Nature, that it can 
 never totally be cancelled, tlio' in thofe Cafes of felf prefcrvation and defence 
 they may be fufpended for a time. As if I owed my Life, and all that I have 
 to fome great Perfon, who hath either faved the one, or bcftowed the other dp- 
 on me, though I iliould be very undutiful and ungrateful too, if upon his be- 
 coming my Enemy, though without any juft caufe, I fhould go about to return his 
 injuries in the fame kind ; yet were 1 not therefore obliged to give up tliat Life 
 and Eftate he had before beftowed upon me, whenever he thougiit fit, uichout 
 any juft occafion to take them away ; and I am confident that Refiftance in thefe 
 Cafes, and with thefe Reftriftions, doth nckher derogate from that Gratitude 
 and Piety, which Children always ought to pay their Fathers, nor yet can tend 
 to encourage either Anarchy or Rebellion ; lince fuch Sons, when once married, 
 and are become Mafters or Heads of Families themfelves, then ceafc to be 
 under their Fathers Subjedion as they were before, though I confcfs they are 
 
 always
 
 Diaio^o^iie the Firfli 45^ 
 
 always to honour and reverence him according to God's command In all Cafes, 
 when they will tlcal with them as lathers, and not as Enemies. 
 
 M. I fhall no longer difpute this Right of Re/iftaixc in Cliildrcn in the Cafes 
 you have pur, fincc I fee it is to little purpofo to argue longer with jou abour 
 it ; but this much I tliink is ftill true, that all Supream Powers whatever cannot 
 without Rebellion and abfolute Dillolution of tlie Government be refilled by the 
 Subjeft; fo that if the Government of lathers or Heads of Families be Su- 
 pream, as you fccm to grant, that cannot be relilkd neitiier^ without bringing 
 ail things therein to Ar.archy and Coi.fufion. 
 
 F- Pray give me leave, Sir, to interrupt }ou a little j I dcfire you to remember 
 that 1 do not allow the Power of Fathers or Maflers of Famih'cs to be ai:y 
 more t!icn Occonomical, and r.ct Civil Power; and I liave already fnewed you, 
 how Relifiance of fuch ^ Power, v/licn violently and unjuftly exercifed, may be 
 rcfiffcd without any Anarchy or Conhifion in the Family : But as for Refiflance 
 of Civil Powers in fome Cafes, it is not the Subjed of this D;fcourfj ; and 
 therefore I delire you would i ow mind, the Subjed in hand, and nyt pafs oft to 
 any other, till we have dilpatch'd this, fo that i would rather, if you any frefh 
 Objcttions to make, that you woiild now do it, becai-fe ir groweth late. 
 
 M. 1 mult coiifefs ir.gcnuoiilly, youp Arguments have much fiaggered me, 
 fincc 1 fee great inconveniences may happen on cither fide. For if the Fachev or 
 Mailer may be the fole Judge, when and how he may exercife this abfolute 
 Power, 1 grant all thofe Mifchicfs may fbnietimes fall out, which you have here 
 fct forth : Scv on the other lide, ii the Children may be Judges in their own Cafe, 
 thofe Evils may often happen, which I have already alledged. And therefore 
 pray pardon me, if I am ix)t too haily in altering my Opinion in this Point, 
 without better confideration. But methinks you have not yet fully anfwered one of 
 my main Arguments, to prove the Power of Life and Death to proceed from 
 God alone, ana therefore mull have been eont-errcd at firfl on Admn, fince no Man 
 hath a Power over his own Life, (as I faid before) and therefore cannot have it 
 over that of others. 
 
 F. 1 tiiotight I had already as good as anfwered this doughty Objeftion, 
 when I had yielded to you, that neither private Men, nor Mafctrs of Families, 
 have any Right to defend their own Lives, much lefs to take away thofe of 
 others j but as it is granted them' by God in the Law of Nature, in order to 
 the procuring the great end of it, viz.. the happinefi and fropagatiou of ]\lankind, 
 which 1 own could not, in this lapfed and depraved State of Nature wc now 
 are in, long fubfift without fuch a Power. Yet I think I have already fuflicient- 
 ly proved, that we have no need to recur to I know not what Divine Charter 
 granted by God to Adatn or Nvah, and from them derived to all Civil Magi(- 
 trates, that ever have been or (hall be in the World, the Coiifequencc of which 
 would bj, that no Sentence of Death could be juflly gi\'en againft any Maii, but 
 in fuch Kingdoms or Commonwealths, who own this'Authority as conferred on 
 them by God in Adam or Noab, from which they mufl derive their Title to it. 
 Now I delire you would fhew me how many Kingdoms or Commonwea!ti)3 
 there are in the World, who ever heard of, much lefs owned this Divine Char- 
 ter, this fine Notion, yea fcarce reaching farther than fome few Divines and iiigh 
 Royalifls of our own Illand. 
 
 But be it as it will, the Antecedent or firfl Propofition is not true, that no 
 Man in any cafe whatfoevcr hath Power over his own Life, and therefore nei- 
 ther is your Conf.:quence ; for 1 fuppofe, that for the fune end for which tlie 
 Civil Powers may take away another Man's Life, vi%. in order to the greater 
 good of Mankind, (of which my Religion or Country is a part) I an: like wife 
 Mailer of my own, and may lay it down or expofe it, wlien I think it can con- 
 dviCe to a greater good than my iingle Life can amount to. And tucrtfore, ti-ie 
 Example of Cvdrm the Athenian King is highly celebrated by all ancient Au- 
 thors, and is not condemned by any Chriflian Writer that I know of, lot ex- 
 poling himfclf to certain Deatii to gain his Citizens the Vidtory, the lofs of 
 which would have been the ruin of that State. And in rlie firit Book of Macca- 
 bees, Chap. 6. 43. (which though it be not Canonical Scripture, yet is allowed 
 to be read in our Churches, as coiitaining Lxampks ot good Manrevs) you 
 may read that Eleax-er, the younger Brotlicr of "Judcn Maccabeus, is there highly 
 commended for his Valour in killing the Elephant, on which the fuppcfed King 
 
 Aiitiochus
 
 46 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITlCA, 
 
 Antmhiis was mounted, that he might thereby deftroy him likewife, diough he 
 might be allured of liis own Death, by the Elephants falling upon him : And 
 the Zeal for the Chriftian Religion amongft the Primitive Chriflians was fo great, 
 that we may read in 'TertuUian, and divers Ecclefiaftical Hiftorians, of whole 
 Troops of Martyrs, who, though unaccufed, yet oiiered up their Lives at the 
 Enfeh. 1. S. Heathen Tribunals to a voluntary Martyrdom. And farther, Euftbius himfelf 
 CO}. 12. Joth not condemn, but rather commends fome Primitive Chnllians, that being 
 like to be taken by their Heathen Perfecutors, call themfelves down headlong 
 from the top of tlieir Houfes, efteeming (as he there tells us) a certain Death cu an 
 advantage, bccaufe they thereiy avoided the crttehy and malice of their Perfecntors. I 
 could liUewife give you (if it were not too tedious) fevcra! other Examples of An- 
 cient Martyrs, who have given up themfelves to certain Death, to fave the 
 Lives of fome of their Friends, or eife of Chriftian Bilhops, whom they lookc 
 upon as more ufeful to the Church than themfehes, and which St. Paul himfelf 
 does likewife fuppofe to be Lawful, when he tells the Rvmam, "That though fcarce^ 
 Rom.<i. 'J. ,, ^y. JQy ^ yjghteous Alan ivould cue die i yet peradvemure for a gocd Man fome 'xotild even 
 dare to die, that is, a Man highly beneficial to others. And the fame Apoftle, 
 in the laft Chapter of this Epiftle, returns thanks to Prfcilla and Aquila, not only 
 on his own behalf, but alfo for all the Churches of the Gentiles, lecaufe they had 
 for his Life laid doion their own Necks; that is, hazarded their Lives to fave his, 
 and where ever they might have thus expofed them, furely they might have lofi 
 them too. And therefore I think, I may with reafon affirm, that in moft Cafes, 
 where a Prince or Commonwealth may command a Man to expofe his Life to 
 certain Deflruftion for the publick good of his Religion or Country, he hath 
 Power likewife to do it of his own accord, without any fuch command, the Ob- 
 ligation proceeding not only from the Orders of his Superior, but from that Zeal 
 and Affeftion, which by the Laws of God and Nature he ought to have for his 
 Religion and Country, even beyond the prefervation of his own Life. 
 
 M. Well, I confels, that this that you have now faid, carries fome colour of 
 reafon with it, and is more than I had confidered before. But pray refolve me 
 one difficulty more, which ftill lies upon my Mind. By what Authority, lefs 
 than a Divine Commiifion from God himfcif revealed in Scripture, do Supream 
 Powers take upon them to make Laws > And that under no lefs Pc;nalty than 
 Death itfelf, againft fuch Offences, as by the Laws of Nature do no ways de- 
 ferve Death, fuch as Theft, Counterfeiting the publick Coin, with divers other 
 Offences, needlefs iiere to be reckoned up. And if a Father (as you will not al- 
 low him) hath no Right over the Lives or Perfons of his Wife and Children, I 
 cannot fee how a Mafter of a feparate Family can have any fuch Power, more 
 than his Wife, or any other of the Family ; and the Scripture feems to counte- 
 nance this Power of punifhing for Murder, to be in any that will take it upon 
 them; and therefore you fee Cain faid, whoever meets me, will /lay me. And God 
 tells Noah, whoever fieddeth Man s Blood, by Man Jlmll his Blood be Jhedy without re- 
 ftraining it to any Man particularly who is to do it. 
 
 F. This Objeftion is eafily anfsvered, if you pleafe to confider, what you 
 yourfelf did a good while fince urge to me, that God endowed Adam with fo 
 much Authority, as fliould enable him» to govern his own Family and Children 
 as long as he lived; which I readily granted you, and I only differed in the 
 manner of its derivation, you affirming it to proceed from a Divine Charter or 
 Grant by Revelation conferred upon him by God; and I maintaining, that both 
 he, and every other Mafter of a feparate Family, derive it only from God's na- 
 tural, and not revealed Law, which if it be well proved, fuch Mafters of Fa- 
 milies, as alfo all Civil Powers (whom I fuppofe to be endued with the Power 
 of all fuch Mafters of Families or Freemen taken together) may for the fame 
 end, (viz..) the good Government and Peace of their Families and Common- 
 wealths, make Laws under no lefs a Penalty than Death it felf, againft fuch Ot^ 
 fences as by the Law of Nature do not defervc it ; fince without fuch a Power 
 (the wickednefs of Man being come to this height it is) no Family or Common- 
 wealth could be long preferved in Peace or Safety. And therefore, I fuppofe 
 you will not affirm, but that fuch a Mafter of a Family may very well inflict 
 any Punifhment lefs than Death for fuch Offences, which if they find too gentle 
 to amend thofe Crimes, they m.ay likewife for the fame reafon increafe the Pu- 
 nifhments ordained for it. And therefore I yield, that tho' Theft doth not in its 
 
 own
 
 Dialogue the Firfl, 47 
 
 own Nature dcTcri-e Death, yet it the Maftcr of fucli a feparatc Family fhaU 
 find his Children or Servants to be fo addided to this Vice, as not to be amend- 
 ed by ary Jefs Pimifhmenrs than Death, he may, for the quiet of his Family, 
 make a general Law, that whofocver for the future fliall commit Theft, fhall 
 fufler Death ; and I doubt not but fuch a Law, when promiilgcd, may be law- 
 fully executed ,• fince this Mafter of a Family is intrufted by God with the folc 
 Power of judging, not only what arc Grimes, but alfo what are fit Punifhments 
 for them, lince both are alike necelTary for the happinefs and prcfervation of the 
 Family. And I fo far a^ree with you, that fuch Maftsrs of Families ha-je ac 
 much Pox:er over the Lives of iktir Child)^ and Seyvams, cu the mvfl abf\iline Alonarcbs 
 have over their Subjeiis, that is, for their common good, and no farther. And up- 
 on the fame Principles do all Kings a;:d Commonwealths inflift capital Punifh- 
 ments for the Tranfgrellion of ail fuch Laws, as do any way entrench upon the 
 common Interell and Safety of their People ; and upon this ground, they may 
 jultly inflift no lefs Punifhments than Death, for Coining of falfe Money, which 
 is but a fort of 'Theft from the publick Treafure of the Commonwealth. And 
 the fame may be faid for all capital Punifhments ordained againft other Oftences 
 of the /amc Nature. ; 
 
 iVZ It Fathers or Maflers of Families are endued by God, (as you your felf 
 now own) not only with this Power of Life and Death, for enormous Crimes 
 againft tiie Laws of Nature, but alfo to make new Laws, or ordain what Pu- 
 nifhments they plcafe for fuch OtfeiKes, as they fhall judge deftruftivc to the 
 quiet and happinefs of their Families, I fee no difference (notwithflanding what F. P. r. i. 
 you have hitherto faid to the contrary) between Oeconomical and Civil Power. ^'^^^ ''=• 
 For if we compare the natural RightS of a Father or Mafler with thofe of a 
 King or Monarch, we fhall find them all one without any difference at all, but 
 only in the latitude or extent of them. For as the Father or Mafter over one 
 Family in tire State of Nature ,• fo a King, as a Father or Mafter over many Fa- 
 milies, extends his care to preferve, feed, cloath, inftruft, and defend the whole 
 Commonwealth ,• his War, his Peace, his Courts of Ji:ftice, and all his Afts of 
 Sovereignty, tend only to preferve and diftribute to every Subordinate, and Infe- 
 rior Father and his Children, their Rights and Privileges. Hath a Monarch 
 Power to make new Laws, and appoint what Punifhments he will to enforce 
 their Obfervarion ? So alfo hath a Father of a Family. Hath an abfolute Prince 
 Power to command or difpofe of the Goods and Eftates of his Subjefts, for 
 their common Quiet and Security ? So alfo hath a Father or Mafter of a Fami- 
 ly. So that all the Duties of a King are fummcd up in this univerfal Fatherly 
 care of his People,- and if the Sovereignty be the fame, I cannot fee any Rea- 
 fon, why the Rights and Prerogatives of it fliould not be fo too. And therefore, 
 if Nonrc/iftance againft their Authority be an unfeparable Prerogative of Sove- 
 reign Power; then if a Father or Mafter of a Family be endued with it, he 
 ought no more to be refifted, than the moft abfolute Monarch. 
 
 F. I perceive your Head is very full of this Notion of the Identity of Natu- 
 ral and Civil Power, or clfe you would never inflft fo long upon it as you do, af- 
 ter what I have proved to the contrary. And therefore, fince I fee you look up- 
 on this as your topping Argument; I fliall do my endeavour to flicw you more 
 plainly the difference between them. For though I grant, that ftich Fatiicrs or 
 Mafters of Families, (as we here treat of) are endued by God with divers 
 Powers, which, are analogous, or perhaps the fame with thofe of a King or 
 Monarch, that is, of defending their Families, as far as they are able, from Fo- 
 reign force, and Domeftick injuries, and of revenging and punifhing all Offences 
 that may prove prejudicial or dcftruftive to the peace and happinefs of their P'a- 
 milics ; yet doth it not therefore follow, that the Government of private Fa- 
 milies and Kingdoms are all one, fince they differ verv much, not only in tlicir 
 Inftitution, but alfo in tlieir End. For firft, the Fatherly Power by the Law of 
 Nature is ordained only for the Generation and Education of the Children, till 
 they come to be grown up ; and his Authority, as a Father, is ordained by God 
 only for thofe ends ; and therefore this Relation of a F'ather is fo inherent in him, 
 that it can ne\cr be patted with, or aiTigned over to any other, fo as to 
 make the Child or Son fo alTigncd, to ov/e the fame duty to lum, as he 
 did to his Father. 
 
 There
 
 48 BibliothecaPolitica. 
 
 There is alfo, befides the Power of a. Father, that of a Mafler or Head of a 
 Family over his Children and ServantSj whilft they continue Members or Sub- 
 jects of it, which Power I grant may be aifigned, or made over to one, or more 
 Pcrfons, whenever fuch Mailer Ihall think ht to inftitute a Kingdom or Com- 
 monwealth : Yet, as Dr. SarJerfon very well cblerves, this Power of a Mailer 
 ditfers very much from that of the Civil Powers of a Kingdom or Common- 
 wealth, as wdl in the Objeft, as End of this Power. For />_/?, the Power of a 
 Father is only over one lingle Family ; whereas that of a Commonwealth is 
 over divers Families, united under one Civil Head- Secondly, In refpeft of the 
 End, the Power of the Malter is chiefly ordained for his own Interefl and advan- 
 tao-c ; but that of the Civil Power chieily refpects the good of the whole Peo- 
 ple or Community. Laftly, the Power of the Mafler of the Family is only 
 for the maintaining his own natural Property in thofe things which he hath ac- 
 quired in tlie State of Nature ; whereas one great End of Civil Government, is 
 to introduce and eflablifli Civil Property in things, according to the Laws of 
 the Commonwealth, and alfo to maintain it when fo conftituted. To conclude. 
 Fathers beget their Children, and Mafters acquire to themfelves Slaves and Ser- 
 vants, but it is from the confent of fever al Fathers or Mafler a of feparate Families, that 
 any fort of Civil Government commenced at firfi ; fo that the People atfirfl made Kings, and 
 not Kings the People : And further, it is the duty of Fathers and Mailers to pro- 
 vide for their Children and Servants, but the People ought to provide for their 
 Kings, not only for their Neceflities, but for their Magnificence and Grandeur ; 
 fo that the Power of Fathers and Maflers is Natural, whereas that of Kings and 
 Republicks is Political and Artificial, as proceeding from Compads or the Con- 
 fents of divers Heads of Families cr other Free-men. And as Kingdoms and 
 Families diftcr in the manner of their Inftitution, fo do they likewife in their 
 Ends, which is of a far larger extent in the latter, than in the former ; the main 
 defign of inflituting Kingdoms and Commonwealths, being not only to defend 
 their Subjefts from fixh injuries or violence that they may do each other j but 
 chiefly, by their united Forces, to guard them from the violence and invafion of 
 Foreign Enemies. 
 
 For though I grant, it may fometimes happen, that a Family may confift of fo 
 great a number of Children, Senants or Slaves, as may make a little Army, 
 fiich as Abraham's was, when he made War againft the four Kings ; yet is this 
 purely accidental, and not at all eflential to the being of a Family, wliich is 
 as perfeft in all its conllituted parts, if it confifts of three or four Pcrfons, as of 
 three or four hundred. Whereas a Kingdom or Commonwealth cannot Tubfiif, 
 unlcfs it can either by its own Power, or united Forces, defend its Members 
 from Foreign force and invafions : So alfo in private Families, in the State of 
 Nature, there can be no Property acquired in Lands or Goods by any Mem- 
 ber of it, without the Mailer's exprefs will or permiffion. But in all Civil Go- 
 vernments, the very inftitution and prefervation of Civil Property was one of 
 its chiefeil Ends, which may eafily be proved by experience : Since in all Na- 
 tions, where there is any Property either in Lands or Goods, there is a neceffity 
 of i'ome Civil Government to maintain it. Whereas in divers parts of Africa 
 and Atnerica, where there is no diftinft Property in Land, and where there are 
 no other Riches, than every Man's fmall Cottage and Garden, with their Hunt- 
 ing and Fifhing Inftruments, there is no need of any Common or Civil Power 
 over them, higher than that of Maflers or Fathers of Families, who own no 
 Superiority among themfelves, unlefs it be when they go to War, and then they 
 chufe out of their own Numbers, for their Captains or Leaders, thofe whom they 
 know to be floutefl and moll; experienced, whofe Power determines as foon as the 
 War ceafes. 
 
 But to make an end of this long Difcourfe, fuppofe I fhould grant all you 
 can defire, that Oeconomical and Civil Government do not differ in kind, but 
 in largencfs or extent ; yet will it not follow, that therefore it mufl be in all 
 Cafes irrefiflible, fince I think I am able to prove, that no Power whatever (ex- 
 cept tliat of God himfelf ) can be endued with this Prerogative, if once it goes 
 about to fruflrate, and deflroy all the main Ends of Government, (viz..) the hap- 
 pinefs and fiifety of the Subjefts, either by downright dcflroying of them, or 
 elfe by reducing them to a condition of Slavery and Mifery. But to let you 
 fee, I would deal fairly with you, I will difcourfe tins Point of Adatns Sove- 
 
 * reignty
 
 Dialogue the Firjl. 
 
 -y no farther, but will at picicnt take it as the Lawyers fay, de bene ejfe, or 
 ,.:i g::ir.:cit , and I d.iirc }ou would fhcw me in the next place, when Adam died 
 by, what L\v, either Divine or Natural, Cain or Seth (chiifc which you willj 
 could command over all the reit ot his Brethren, and their DL"fcendants. And 
 then a^a.n, if you could do this, what benefit this Dodtrinc would )icld to all 
 Princes and States at this day, or how you intend to deduce a Title for them 
 from Adiim or Noah, or any of their Sons, to their refpec^ive Kingdoms, and 
 confequeiuly to an abfoUite Subjection of their Subjedis, without which all your 
 Hypothclis will iignity nothing. 
 
 M. I muft return you thanks. Sir, for your candid dealing, and for the great 
 pains you Iiave taken to enligh.tcn my Underftanding in tliis important Qucliion. 
 And though I doubt, you have laid down Principles not fo fuitable to God's Will 
 revealed in the Holy Scripture, )ct I v/ill not impute it to any want of iincerity 
 in yourfelf, who, I hope, are fatisricd of the Truth of what you have maintained; 
 fo on the other tide, I defira you nor to take it ill, if I cannot leave my own 
 Opinion, which •! Iia\e always hitherto lookt upon, as moft fuitable to the Doc- 
 trine of the Church of England, to tiie Pradice of the Primitive Church,. and 
 to the Laws of the Land, and muil continue therein, till I am convinced I am 
 in ah Error. Bat fince Idefire to have a further Converfation with you upon 
 this important , Subjei5ti pray let me know when we fhall meet again, that I 
 may prove to you from, the Holy Scripture, as well as thofe Authors I have pe- 
 rufed, that tliere is a Dhiiie Right of Blood mflituted by God for the Stiaefjtmi of 
 K'ligdomi, which cannot without a kind of Sacrilege, or the higheft Injuftice, 
 be taken aw.iy from the Right Heir. 
 
 ■ K I kindly accept your proifer, and, if you plcafe, {hall difcourfe this impor- 
 tant Qiieflion with you to Morrow in the Evening, if your Occafions will give 
 you leave. 
 
 M. I expeft you between feven and eight, and in the mean time am your Set* 
 vant. 
 
 49 
 
 u 
 
 %mic'
 
 7° 
 
 
 ijO( 1. 
 
 mmmtt^ ^olitita. 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 Whether there can he made out from the Na- 
 , .turalj or Repealed havj of God, any Site- 
 cejfion to Crov)ns by Dhine Right ? 
 
 M.^^.M,,^:,,^,,^:,'^ O U are, I fee, Sir, ji punftual Man to your Hour : Pray 
 
 <\ ^^<^^ i* do me the favour to fit down by the Fire, I will but make 
 
 *^ ^^^*^<S;9 :^ an end of what I am writing, and wait on you prefently. 
 ''^§^^ ^§^^ P- Your Servant, Sir, take your own time i but pray 
 
 ^i %^M^fj%i^ remember the point yon arc now to fatisfie me in. 
 
 <ff 5S)S^tS!»ar.^J-|> M. Now, Sir, I have donc'i and if I remember right, I 
 
 '^"^'^- '%' "%' "^"^ am to derive a Title to all the Kings and Monarchs that 
 have ever been, or fhall be in the World, from that fupream fatherly Power 
 conferred by God on Ada7n. As for Commonwcalrhs, which I muft own to be 
 of meer Humane Invention ; tlio' I will not fay that they are abfolutely unlaw- 
 ful, yet I think they are not the Powers ordained by God in Scripture, 
 
 F. Well, Sir, we will difcourfc farther oi that anon ,• and therefore I do af- 
 fure you, I do not delire any more ot you now tlian that you fiiould prove the 
 Divine Inftitution of Monarchy, and I think tlut task fufEcient if it can be made 
 out in one or two Meetings. 
 
 M. It may feem indeed ibmcwhat abfurd to maintain, that all Kings arc now 
 T. P. Ch- I. the Fathers of their People, lincc you'll fay Experience fliews the contrary. It 
 $ 8. is true all Kings are not now the natural Parents of their Subjecls, yet they all 
 
 either are, or are to be reputed the next Heirs to thofe Primogenitors, who 
 were at the firll the natural Parents of the whole People, and do in their Right 
 fucceed to the Exercife of the Supream Jnrifdiftion ; and fuch Heirs are not on- 
 ly Lords of their own Children, but alfo ot tiicir Brethren, and all others that 
 were fubjeft to their Fathers : and therefore, I fuppofe, that God, when he con- 
 ferred this Supream Power on Adatn, did not intend it fhould die with liim, 
 but defcend to his Heirs after his dcccaie. 
 
 F. Well, I fhall at prefent grant you all tin's likcwife, though it might be 
 Ibid. queftioncd. But pray, who were thofc Heirs ? many, or but one Perfon ? 
 
 M. I fuppofe you will alfo grant me at prcfenr, what we before difputed, that 
 the Power of Fathers over their Children, being the Fountain of all Regal Au- 
 thority, by the Ordination of God himfelf, it follows that Civil Power not 
 only in general is by Divine Inftitution, but even the Aflignment of it fpecifi- 
 cally to the cldeft Parents. 
 
 F. Pray whom do you mean by cldcfl Parents ? our great Grand-mother Eve? 
 For li you mean by it one tliat lirft had Jiad Children, flie muft come in as next 
 Heir to Adam by rhefe Word*. 
 
 M. No, Sjr, you altogether mifapprehend me, I mean the eldeft Son oiAdain; 
 Eve was his Wife, and could have nothing to do to inherit in an Hereditary Mo- 
 narchy as this was. 
 
 F. I beg
 
 Dialogue the Second. 91 
 
 F. I beg your pardon, Sir, if I mifunderftood you, but }ou muft thank tlie 
 Loofnefs or Impropriety of your Expreflion for it ; for, I ftippo/b, you cannot 
 denv, but eldeit Parents commonly fignifie either the eldcil Men, or Women 
 that have Children, or thofe who have longcfc had Illlie ; and tlien in cither of 
 thefc Senfcs, our great Grand-morlier E%e flood faireft to be Heir of this Di- 
 vine Power of Adam : But this I am fure of. Parents can never iignifie Heirs- 
 Male or Female, much lefs a Child who may fomctimes (according to your Hy- 
 pothcfis) happen to be Heir. But llncc I am gotten into this Miftake, I fliall 
 not leave my hold, but fhall make bold a little to argue our great Grand-mother's 
 Title; for indeed I cannot fee any reafon why her eldcft Son (tor Example) ftiould 
 have any right to govern his Motiicr, and all his Brothers and Sifters, whilft ihc 
 was alive. 
 
 For firft, if your Argument from Generation muft be good, that every Man 
 that is born, becomes a Subjcft to him that begets him, this Argument will ferve 
 for Eve as well as AJav! ; iincc (as I have already proved) the Mother hath as 
 great (if not a greater) fliarc in the Generation of the Children, than the Father : 
 Or fecondly, i( you infift upon th'e Divine Grant, you Co much talked 
 of laft time, of AdiVas Dominion over the Creatures, in which his Cliildren 
 were included ; I then proved to you, that this Grant was made as well to Eve 
 as Adam ; and confequently, that either flie muft have thereby an equal right . 
 with him, or at leaft after his Deceafe, to this Dominion, as a Husband and 
 Wife, when joint Purchafers have to an Eftate at Common Law. And laftly, if 
 the Commandment ot^ Honour thy Father and thy Mother, were then in force by 
 the Law of Nature, or by exprefs Command fioni God, and that by Houou) iiig^ 
 obeying muft be meant (as moft Commentators agree) then it will follow, that 
 after Ad^ms Deceafe, all Eve's Sons and Defcendants, though never fo remote, 
 were to have obeyed, or been fubjcd to her, and not to her eldeft Son, unlefs 
 vou can fliew me that the Salique Law, agamlt the Succeflion of Women, was 
 made by Adam the hrft Monarch, which, 1 fuppofe, you will not undertake to 
 prove. 
 
 M. I muft confefs I did not confider this Difficulty ; for indeed it might never 
 have happened, fince Eve might have died before Adam ; or if fhe did outlive 
 him (which is uncertain) yet flie was then very old, and confequently (beiides 
 the natural weaknefs of iier Sex) uncapable or unfit for Government, and fo 
 might very well leave it to Seth; imccCaiii, the eldeft, hadby the Murder of his 
 Brother, and his flying away into another Country, forfeited his Birth-right, 
 and made himfelf uncapable of the Succeflion. 
 
 F. So then here is a Forfeiture, and an Abdication of this Divine Right of 
 Succeffion in the very firft Defcent ; whereas indeed I fuppofed, that this Di- 
 vine Right had been at leaft as unforfeitable as the Crown of England ; the 
 very Delcent of wliich, as our Lawyers tell us, purges all Defcds in the next 
 Heir, though lie had murdered his Father and elder Brother too. But I only 
 fliew you the Abfurdity of this Notion, and fiiall not longer infift upon it ; 
 therefore pray proceed. 
 
 M. I can't tell what might have been faid, if Cain had come to claim his 
 Birth-right : But this is certain, that he neither did, or could come to do it, £"• ^- P- 
 lince God condemned him to live in a ftrange Country far from his Brethren ; '^•-•Sea. 9- 
 and we read, "That Cain went out from the prefence of the Lord, and dwelt in the Land Ocr\. 4. i6, 
 of Nod, on the Eajl cf Eden;' and he built a City, and called the Name of it Enoch, i?. 
 after the Name oj his Son Enoch. And there are four Defcents ict down immedi- 
 ately of his Family, which could be no .other than the Princes of that City of 
 Cain's Race. So that )'ou fee, even in Cain's Line, the Principality defccnded 
 to the eldeft Son. 
 
 F. I confefs Cai)is Children and Grand-children arc particularly fet down in 
 Scripture ; but that they were Princes or Monarclis over their Poftcrity,or which 
 way this City was governed after C</;/ii's Death, whctlier by one, or by all the 
 Sons ot Cain, is iio where mentioned : But 1 fee fome Men can find e\en abfo- 
 lute Monarchy in a Text, where the Scripture mentions no fuch thing ; and no 
 wonder, for the AUhymi/is liaye found out likewife the Invention of their Elixir, 
 or Philofophers Stone, in fuch Texts as you and I can fee no fuch thing. B.,E 
 to be mote feiiotis : 
 
 Hi That
 
 ^Z B I B L 1 O T H E C A P O L I T I C A. 
 
 That a Father fliould be Lord over his Children and Pofterity, 1 confefs there 
 may be fome colour of Reafon, though none cogent enough to make it out : But 
 that an elder Brother hath any Natural or Divine Right to be Lord over all the- 
 reftof his Brethren, lean find no ground for in Reafon, even upon your own 
 Principles ; for if every Man by his Birth becomes the Subjeft of him that be- 
 gets, him, it will neceflarily follow, that a Man b? his Birtli cannot become a 
 Subjeft to his Brother, wlio (fure) did not beget him. 
 
 Therefore, I fuppofe, you will ftill iiiUrt upon that place in the fourth of Ge- 
 nefjSy which you cited at our lafl Meeting, when God told Cain, fpeaking (as you 
 fuppofe) of his Brother y^^?/. His dtfire Jhc.U k- ful>jefi tmto thee, mid thou Jhah rule 
 over him. From which Words I then told \ou, I thought an ablblute Subjeftion 
 of Ak'lj and of all younger Brothers whatfoever, could not reafonably be in- 
 ferred : For you may remember I flicwed } ou, that this Promife by God to 
 Cain, concerning Abel, might be only pcrfonal, and relate to Abel only, and not 
 to the reft of his Brethren, much Ids all other younger Brothers, that {hould be 
 in the World. And in the next Place, this Ruling might only have been by Ad- 
 vice and Perfuafion, and not by any Authority or Right of commanding him. 
 So that if this be the Place (as I fuppofe it is) from whence you would deduce 
 your Divine Right of elder Brothers being Monarchs over the younger in all 
 • Hereditary Monarchies, I muft freely tell you, I think it a very bold Underta- 
 king to found a Divine Right upon fuch doubtful Expreffions, as thefe of God 
 to Cain. 
 
 M. I confefs, I was now about again to urge this Place to you j for as I was 
 not then well fatisfied with your Explanation of it, which you now again re- 
 peat, fo upon fecond Thoughts I am much more unfatisfied witli your Paraphrafe 
 B Tf ^64. "r°" them. For you feem to me plainly to pervert the Senfe of the Words, and 
 ' '" ' make them fignihe juft nothing. For fure when God fpake the fame Words to 
 E'-je concerning Adnm, as he did to Cain concerning Abel, can you conceive they 
 were meant perfonally to Eve only, and concerned no other Wife that fliould 
 be after her ? Or can you affign any Reafon why thefe Words fhould be rather 
 meant perfonally in the laft, and not in the firft cafe ^ unlefs you will do it out 
 of pure love to Anarchy and Confuficn. And if you fay thefe Words do not 
 fignifie any defpotick Power, but a ruling or governing by fair means or Per- 
 fuafion, this feemeth meer trifling with God's Word, who fays expreliy, T'hy 
 Bather's defne jhall be fuhje[i to thee, that is, (fay you) as far as he thinks fit; 
 and thou pah rule over him, that is, if thou haft the knack to wheedle or pcr- 
 IbUlc.z. 4-.fuade him. Would not this have been a mighty Matter for God Almighty to 
 ' *" 'have appeared to Cain about, and an excellent Argument to com.fort him, and 
 to appeafe his Wrath againft his Brother ? So thar it feems apparent, by this 
 Law given by God to Cain and Abel, that this Regal and Paternal Authority 
 was not to die with him, nor to be equally divided amongft all his Children at 
 his Death ; or that from thenceforth no Man fhould have a Right, by Birth, of 
 commanding another ; for this Command to Abel could not be fuppofed to take 
 Place in the Life of Adam, for then Adam was Lord over all his Children, and 
 fo none of them without his PermifTion could rule over the reft ; and if it were 
 otherwife by Adam's Appointment, then Adam was the Sovereign ftill, and the 
 Son or Grandfon, fo exercifing this Power, was but his Deputy : But after 
 Adam's Deccafe, then it became a real Sovereignty in his eldeft Son, as having 
 none but God fuperiour to it. 
 
 F. I hope you wjll judge more charitably of me, than to believe that the Senfe 
 that I h:ive put upon thefe Words, though different from yours, is out of any 
 love of Anarchy or Confufion, much Icfs our of afty defign to pervert or wreft 
 this place of Scripture: And if I fhould be fo fevere as you are, perhaps J 
 might with more reafon lay this Charge at your Door. For, in the firft place, I 
 am not fatisfied with your Argument, that thefe .Words could not be meant 
 perfonally. Or concerning Abel on\y ; becaufe the fame Words, when fpokenof 
 Eve, do likcwifc concern her Pofterity ; and therefore, when fpoken concerning 
 Abel,thcy muft likewife relate to all younger Brothers in Hereditary Monarchies; 
 which confcqucnce I may with very good reafon deny, for whatfoever Subjec- 
 tion may be due, by vertuc of the like Words, from Eve and her Pofterity, to 
 Ada?n and all other Husbands, is to be fuppofed to have been enjoined, becaufe all 
 Women are defcended from Eve^ and fo were reprefented by her as their firft 
 
 Parent.
 
 Dialogue the Second. ^^ 
 
 Parent. Tims St. Pml fuppofcs all Men to be in a State of Sin and Death, as 
 reprcfcnted by Adam, their Ameflm; by tcbofe Difckdience all have fimisd. But no Ro.-m^. j:. 
 Man will affirm, that all the elder Brothers or Monarchs in the World were re- 
 prcfcnted by Ctiin, and all } oiingcr Brothers by AM ; no Man at this day being 
 (as appears in Scripture) defcendcd from either of tliem : And I cannot but take 
 notice, that the better to flrengthen your Notion, you again fbift in out of the 
 Margin of our Englijh Bible, H:s Defive Jliall be fubjcft to thee; wJicrcas in the He- 
 trrjj it is no more than. His, or its Defi,e jlmU be to thee. 
 
 And that the Words rtile over are to be interpreted according to the Subjcft, 
 and do not always mean a mliyig by force, or ccmmand, appears b)' the fame Htbre-jj 
 Words made ufe of in the firll o'i Genefis, concerning the tvjo great Lights that GodVer. i-,, iS, 
 fet it! the Firmament, to gjve Light upon the Earth, to rule vi'er the Day and ever the 
 Night; which cannot fignify a ruling by force or command, but only by a natural 
 influence or preheminence of the Sun aixl Moon above the Stars or Planets. And 
 tho' ) ou are pleafed to ridicule this Explanation of mine, yet I think I may with as 
 much reafon treat yours with the like Contempt- For fince 3'our fclf grunt, that 
 this Po-j^er of Cain over Abel was not to commence till after the Death of Ada?n, 
 and that this Murder oi Abel was committed above a hundred Years s.h^x Adam's 
 Creation, appears by the time of the Birth oi Seth (who was born fometime af- Gen. 5. 3. 
 ter Abel's Death) would not this thing have been a mighty Comfort to Cain, 
 when he was in his dogged Humour, if God had bid him chear up ; for the time 
 Ihould come, that, if he behaved himfelf well, about eight hundred Years hence, 
 when his Father Adam fhould die, he fliould then lord it over his Brother, and be 
 revenged of hira for the Affront he had received in having his Sacrifice preferred 
 before his own ? So that this Interpretation of yours is (o abfurd, that I do much 
 rather agree with divers learned Commentators, as well Jexus as Chriftians, who 
 make not only a quite different Interpretation, but alfo a different Verlion of thefe 
 Words from the Hebre-jj Text : And if you have the Learned Jefuit Memchinis 
 Notes upon the Bible, I pray let me fee them. Here pray obferve what he fays 
 upon this place : Sedfub te erit appetitus ejm. In Hvbrxo & apud LXX ej}. Ad te con- 
 njerfto ejus. Senfus efl : Peccatnm cjufqiie appetitus & conctipifcentia te follicitabit ad con- 
 feiifum ; fed ita, tit ad te coiivelti, & a te ccnfenfum petere & impetrare debeat. Id ncfier 
 interpret adfcnfimt clare vertit. Sub te erit appetitf:i ejm. By all which he means no 
 more, than that Sin fhould tempt or follicit him to offend, but that he fhould rule 
 over ir, that is, iiad a Power fo to do, if he would vSz it as he ought. So like- 
 wife Mr. Ainfwonb upon this PuTce (as }'0u may fee in Pool's Criticks) puts a like 
 Senfe upon the following Words, referring the whole Sentence to the Sin, in thefe 
 Words : Peccatnm fcnitur pro pxna peccati ; juxta Hebraos ita aaipittir. Gen. 15?. ly. 
 Le\'. 20. 2. I Reg. 7. p. Senfus efl : Prope te picnitio peccati, & ad te de/lderium ejm ; 
 i.e. ciipit te pxnh peccati tui, v.t j'olet pcfl peccatum admij]ttm ; fedtu, ftvis, dominaberis 
 ilti, i. e. potes dt'cfiiiare pcccatum. Q_. d. Pana hxc Jicut cant's efl, qui ad (ftium cubat, 
 cupicns ingredi ; fed ih pctcftate Domini efl vel claudere oflium lie ingrediatur, vel aperire 
 Ut tnlret, Prcbantr hie fenfus i. Prim membmm de praimio loquitur, reportabisfcil. pr:c- 
 ifiitim ; ergo poflerius loquitur de pana, peccatum jam inerat ipfi, ptinitio vero nondum, 
 fed lid^ fores erat. So tijat, according to thefe learned Commentators, this Place 
 is to be thus twncd out of Hebrr^v : If thou dofl not xt^ell. Sin lieth at the door, and to 
 tlMe i; itf defire ; bin thou ?narfl or fait rule over it. Which feems to me to be a much 
 more gcnuihc and rational Interpretation than that of our Englijh or Latin BibJcs. 
 So that I think I may juflly except againfl the Authority of fo doubtful and obfcure 
 a place, as fidHcicnt to found }Our Monarchical Power of elder Brothers in the 
 State of Nature. 
 
 At \V'ell, Sir, fincc you are no better fatisficd with this Teftimony out oi Ge- 
 wfis, for the Divine Right of Primogeniture, I will no longer iniifl upon it ; tho' I 
 am not yet convinced, but riut my Interpretation of this Place is truer than yours, 
 fince I have likeWife great Authorities on my fide, both antient and modem, be- 
 fidcs our common Verfions, to authorize it ; and therefore fince I have many other 
 Examples out of Scripture of this kind, I fhall the lefs infifl: upon it, but will now 
 proceed to the Examples before the Flood. Firll therefore, it fccms highly pro- 
 bable, ii not certain, that whatever Civil Government there was m the World 
 before that Period of Time (as it is very rational to believe there neccffarily mufl 
 be fome in fo long a Space as near 200 Years) it was chiefly adminiflred by tiiofe 
 firfl Patriarciis, whof;; Names you'll find particularly recited \x\ the fifth of Genefis : 
 
 And
 
 54 BiBLIOTHECA P O L I T I C A. 
 
 B.P.F. i 5i' And fure that long Chain \vc there have ot them, by whofe Lives the Chrono- 
 logy ot the World is only reckoned 'rill the Flood, were in their fevcral Gene-" 
 rations confiderable Perfons, nay Princes over their own Families, whicli could 
 not but be very numerous : And indeed the very counting the Age of the World 
 by the Years of their Lives, is to me an Argument, that they were no obfcure, 
 unregarded Men, but that they were cither Monarchs or Princes of all Man-, 
 kind, or at leaft over that part of the World in which they lived : And yofephm 
 is likewife of my Opinion, in the firfl Bock of the Jeivifi Antiquities, where 
 (as you may fee) cap. 3. he exprefly tells us thus : Seth auum centefimo (^ qiiinto 
 anno genuit Enos. Qui dam qninque CJ ncvgemos z'niijfet annos, rr/U7» ainnn tradidit 
 filiojuo Caina : And immediately after proceeds thus, La/nechum autem filnnn ge- 
 nuit MathufelcUy Emcho mtus, cum annos ifje baberet a:tatis CLXXXVIL Imperiam 
 -veto Lamecho eidan tradidit parens, quod jam tenuerat ipfe annos DCCCCLXIX. La.-' 
 inechus pariter Principatum rthquit Nee filio, pcjlquam rcgnajjet amws BCCLXXVII, 
 Noe deniq; rerum ftptimam temiit amws mngentos & quinquaginta ; La7}iecho ar.nos 182, 
 atatis habenti gmitus. And Noah, the lall: of the ten Patriarchs, and the furviving 
 Patriarch of all Mankind, was declared by God the univerfal Monarch of the. 
 V. i. -. World, as foon as he came out of the Ark \ to whom he granted the Domi- 
 J. O.G./'.47. nion over all things, as appears by thofe Words of God to Noah, Gen. g. where- 
 A I. f. 4. jjy I conceive, that though it hath been thence concluded by Mr. iielden in his 
 Ma,re Claiifim, that there was a general Community between Noah and his Sons, 
 yet the Text doth not clearly warrant it. For although the Sons are there join- 
 ed with Noah in the Biefling, yet it may beft be underftood with a Subordi- 
 nation, or a Benedifiion in Succefllon ; and the Biefling might truly be fulfilled, 
 if the Sons, either under, or after their Father, enjoyned a private Dominion : 
 Nor is it probable, that the private Dominion, which God gave to Adam, and 
 by his Donation, Affignation or Cellion to his Children, was abrogated, and a 
 Community of all things inftituted between Noah and his Sons after the Flood. 
 Jf^^jh -f"*' And when Noah was left the fole Heir of the World, %^hy flioi.ld it be thought 
 {l'\^ (4.'" ^hat God would difinherit him of his Birth-right, and make him only Tenant in 
 Oxon Edit, common with his Children? And if the Blelling given to Adam, Gen. 1. 28. be 
 compared to that given to Noah and his Sons, Gen. p. 2. there will be found 3 
 confiderable difference between thefe two Texts. In the Benediftion of Adam 
 we find cxprefled a fubduing of the Earth, and a Dominion over the Creatures ; 
 neither of which are exprcfled in the Bleffing of Noah, nor the Earth there once 
 named: It is only faid, T'he Fear of you fiall be upon the Creatures, and into your 
 Hands are they deliiiered ; then immediately follows. Every moving thing JJ:all be 
 Meat for you, as the green Herb, &c. The firfl: Bleffing gave Adam Dominion over 
 the Earth, and all Creatures ,• the latter allows Noah Liberty to ufe the living 
 Creatures for Food : Here is no Alteration or Diminifliing of his Title to an ab- 
 folute Propriety of all tilings, but only an Enlargement of his Commons. 
 
 F. As for the Government of the World before the Flood, I have already ac- 
 knowledged, that the Scriptures being filent in it, no Man can affirm any thing 
 politively concerning it,wherher it was Regal, Ariflocratical, or Paternal : Neither 
 is it any Proof, that becaufe God thought fit, for our underflanding the Age of 
 the World, or the Genealogy of Noah, from whom all Mankind now takes its 
 Original, to fct down a Series of the Patriarchs from Father to Son ; or, that be- 
 caufe they were no obfcure, unregarded Men, that therefore they muft all be 
 abfolute Princes or Monarchs over their Families. This is, as a Father faid 
 long ago, Divinare magis quam fire- But I fee, when Prejudice once blinds our 
 Reafons, we ealily make good the old Saying, Facile credimus quod volumtn. But 
 as for your Quotation out oijofephtii, I grant indeed, that at the firft fight it 
 makes tor you : But fuppofe it doth, I cannot fee how a Man can lay any flrefs 
 upon it, fince the Scripture, being filent of any fuch Monarchy, or Principality 
 in thefe Patriarchs ; lince this Author writes his Hiftory above three thoufand 
 Years after tlie Time that thefe Patriarchs lived, which he there mentions ; and 
 that we arc fure there were no Authors then extant, that writ of the Anti-diluvian 
 Patriarchs, but Mfes only, Jifephm could fpcak no otherwife than by guefs, or 
 from fome uncertain Traditions preferved amongft the Pharifees, of which Scd 
 he was : To which Traditions, when not warranted by Scripture, how' little 
 credit is to be given, our Saviour himfelf teaches us ; and alfo the many futi- 
 lous Traditions of the Rabbins, at this Day, do fufficiently Ihew us. But, I 
 
 *' fuppofe.
 
 Dialogue the Second. ^^ 
 
 fiippofc, that by this Word «px»i, there ufed by 'Jofephju, (which is rcndred by the 
 Latin Vcriioii Primiputn) is not meant any Monarchical Power, bur only that 
 Principality or Eminency, or that Reverence and Refpcft whicli rhcir Polterity 
 paid them,' either in regard of their great Age and Experience, or of the Spirit 
 of God, with which they might be fuppofed to be endued, liiificicnt to make 
 them to be taken notice of, and reverenced above all other Men li\ ing in their 
 Time. 1 have likewifc, upon_ better Coniideration, two other Reafor.s to add, 
 why by the cumm rerum, mentioned in this place, cannot be meant a Regal 
 Power, becaufe Jofephtu mentions no fiich thing of Adam the firll Father, and, 
 as you fiippofc. Monarch of Mankind ; which fure he would have done, had he 
 believed him endued by God with fuch a Power. 
 
 The iiecoud Reafon is, that if ) ou plcafe to obferve, he afcribes to Alathufe- 
 Iqh, Latnech and Noah, as many Years cf Empire, as oi Life : So that either this 
 place of 'Juftfhus figniries nothing at all, or elfe will make nothing to your pur- 
 pofe to prove thefe ancient Patriarchs to have been fo many Monarchs. 
 
 I come now to the nc.\t Period of Time after the Flood, and whereof I grant 
 we may difeourfe with more certainty : But 1 could have wifhed you would have 
 repeated more particularly the, Words, whereby you fuppofe God granted to 
 Noah alone, an abfolute Dominion over the whole Earthj and all the Creatures , 
 therein contained. But I perceive you thought the Words not very favourable 
 for you, or elfe you would Inve repeated, or read them to me ; wliichiince you 
 omitted, I pray give me leave to do it for you, and then I will leave it to your' 
 felf to judge whether there can be any thing drawn from this Text to counte- 
 nance your Opinion : Tlie Words are thefe, And God blejfed Noah, and his Sons, Gen. 9. i, 2, 
 and f aid unto them. Be fruitful, and tnultiply, and replenijh the Earth. And the fear 'i- 
 of you, and the dread of yoiifliall be upon every Beaji 0} the Earth, and upon every Fowl, 
 of the Air, upon all that imveth upon the Earth, upon all the Fijhes of the Sea, into your , 
 hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that livetb jhall be Meat for you ; even as 
 the green Herb have I given you all things. Where you may plainly fee, thcLt Noah 
 hath no Preheminence in this Grant above his Children, who were (for as much 
 as I can fee) by this Text to be Tenants in common with him of the Earth, 
 and all its Creatures. Nor is there mucii difference between this Grant to Noab 
 and his Sons, and that made to Adam and Eve, which I proved extended alike 
 to all Mankind, more than that the Brute Animals are here e.xprclly granted to 
 Noah and his Sons for Food, which they were not before to Adain. 
 
 But I perceive you your felf are feniible, that this is the mofi plain, and ob- 
 vious Senfe of thefe Words, and therefore you have thought good to wreft them 
 fo as may bcft ferve your purpol'e ; and indeed you deal very cunningly to fay, 
 that this Grant may be belt undcritood with a Subordination in Succellion. 'Tis y; t.G. c. 4. 
 true indeed, it ferves belt for your purpofe that it fhould be fo underftcod ; but/. 41. 
 that will be beft underilood by any Body elfe, which bcft agrees with the plain 
 and obvious Senfe of the Words. Nor will your Reafon fignifie any tiling, that 
 the Blefling nugla be truly fulfilled if the Sons either under, or after their Fa- 
 ther, enjo)cd a pri\'ate Dominion : Since that were to fay, that a Grant wliofe 
 cxprefs Words give a joint Title in prefent, (for the Text faith. Into your Hands 
 they are delivered) may beft be undcrftood witli a Subordination, or in Succeffion ; 
 becaufe 'tis poffible that in Subordination, or Succdflion, it may be io enjoyed, 
 is all one as to fay, that a Grant of any thing in prefent Pofleffion may beft bo 
 undcrftood \v\ Revcrfion, becaufe 'tis pollible one may live fo to enjoy ir. And 
 as for the other parts of this Grant, they are fo c.xprefled that they muft needs 
 be undcrftood to belong to Nuah's Sons, not with a Subordination, or in Sue- 
 celTioii, but as full and equally as lo Noah himfelf: 'The fear of you, and the dread 
 of you (fays God) jh.ill be upon every Beaft, Sec. Can any Body in realbn fav, that 
 the Creatures were to fear, and ftand in awe of Nonh only, and not of his 
 Sons without his leave, or 'till after his Death ? And are the following V.'ords, 
 (Into your Hand\ they are delivered) to be undcrftood (as you fay) if >o;;. Father 
 pleafc, or they fhall be delivered into your Hands hereafter ? You do alfo as 
 wifely to fay, that if Aila?n had a private Dominion given him by God, t'lat 
 he would not now abrogate it : For I grant, that if he had given Ada7n any 
 fuch private Dominion, that there had been no reafon for iiiin now to have 
 changed it. But I think I have fufficienrly proved at our laft Meeting, that he 
 had no fuch private Dominion given liim any more than Eve, and thole Cliildicn 
 
 that
 
 ?$ 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 that were to proceed from them. So that this Siippofition being falfe, there 
 will be no fuch conlidcrable difference as you fiippole between thefe two Texts, 
 For certainly, (though it be not here txprefl'cd) Nvah's Sons had as much right 
 to fubdue or poflefs the Earth, as the Pofterity off Adam had before the Flood, 
 and likewife to enjoy, or eat the Products thereof j only here is granted to AKah' 
 Hid. p. 47. -jnd his Sons a Power to kill the Creatures tor Food, whicii was not granted to 
 Adam, or thofe that lived before the Flood : And tho' you will have this Grant 
 to be no diminifhing of Noah's Title to a fole Propriety in all things, but oiiiy 
 an Enlargement of his Commons ; yet methinks it is a confiderable Privilege not 
 only to himfclf, but his Sons likewife, who are hereby impowered to ufe the 
 Creatures for Food, as well as their Father, or elfe their Cafe had been very 
 hard, if when the Creatures were fufficiently multiplied, they might not have 
 killed fo much as a Hare, or a Partridge, without his leave. And if they had a' 
 right thus to ufe thefe Creatures, how this differs from an abfolute Pr6|)riety' 
 in them whenever they are taken, my dull Underftanding is net able to'com- 
 prehend. 
 
 A/. Well, fince you will not admit of this fole Dominion of Noah over all 
 things in the World ; I fhall not longer infift upon it, but will pafs over td thofe 
 other Authorities I have to produce out of Scripture. 
 
 F. I pray, Sir, do ; and to let you fee how fair an Adverfary I will be, I will 
 for the prefent admit, that Noah was a Prince or Monarch over all his Pofterity; 
 but then pray fhew me to whom this Power defcended after his Dcceafe ; for 
 I can fee nothing in Scripture that favours your Divine Right of Primogeniture, 
 but that every one of Noah's three Sons was a Prince alike over his own Fa- 
 mily, and had an equal fliare in the Earth, and all its Produfts, the one as much 
 as the other : So that here it is apparent that your fole Monarchy of the World 
 dwindles into a fort of Gavel-kind, where all the Sons inherit alike. '~' "."" 
 
 M. I cannot deny the Matter of Faft to be as you have laid down ; bht then' 
 there might be very good reafon for it, which might render the fole Principality 
 F. O.G. p. 49. of Noah's eldeft Sen to be not only unlawful, but unprafticable ; for, in the firft 
 /. I. r. 4. place, Mr. SeUen in his Mare Claufum (in the place aforecited) tells us, from 
 the ancient Tradition of the yev;ijh Rabbins, That Noah hi?nfelf, m Lord of all, 
 uas Author of the Diflribtttion oj the IVorld, and of private Dominion ; and that l/y the 
 Appointment of an Oracle from Gcd, he did confirm this Difhtl/uticn by his laf} IVtU and 
 Tefiament, -u-'hich at his Death Ik left in the Hands of his eldcfl Son Shem ; and alfo 
 •warned all his Sons, that none of them fl:ould invade any of their Brothers Dcminionf, or 
 infu;e one another, l/ecaufe from thence Difcord and Civil IVars "would necejfarily follow. 
 
 Nor do I fee any reafon why Noah might not emancipate his two younger 
 Sons from the Dominion of the elder, and likewife give them a feparate fhare of 
 the Earth, and alfo an independant Power over their own Family and Pofterity. 
 In the fecond place, it might be imprafticable for one Man to govern all Man- 
 kind, when in a little time it became fo multiplied and difperfed over the Face of 
 the Earth, and the Languages fo confounded by the Aft, or Will of God, that ic 
 was impoflible for the three elder Sons of thefe three great Patriarchs to govern 
 B. P. P. } 10. them. But during the Life of Noah, we do not read that any of his Children, 
 or Defcendants, withdrew th^mfelves from him without his leave, but rather the 
 Gen. II. 1,2. contrary ; for it isfaid. The -whole Earth "was of one Language, and of one Speech ; 
 and it came to pafs, as they journeyed from the Eaji, that they found a Plain in the 
 Land of Shinar, &c. By which Words it appears they kept well enough together; 
 and the very reai^N why they began to build the Tower, was, left (faid they) 
 IVeJljould be fcattered abroad upon the Face of the -whole Earth . So that there was no 
 Difunion amongft them, nor fo much as a defire of it whilft Noah lived. 
 
 F. I pray give me leave to anfwcr what you have faid concerning this Diftri- 
 bution of the Earth by Noah's laft Will, and alfo his making all his Sons Lords, or 
 Monarchs alike, both which favour fo ftrongly of the Rabbinical Liberty of In- 
 vention, that I wonder how any learned Man can believe fuch idle Stories, ef- 
 pecially when the Scripture, and the moft ancient Hiftories and Records that 
 are extant in the World, mention no fuch thing. And though ^'^/^-'WJ may, in 
 the place you have cited, fuppofe that every one of the Patriarchs he mentions 
 were Princes or Monarchs, yet he doth not fay any thing like it, concerning the 
 three Sons or Noah's being Monarchs, or of this Partition of the Earth between 
 them; but raaketh them to live together in thofe mountaioous Parts, 'till they 
 
 defcended
 
 Dialogue the Second. — ^y 
 
 dcfcCTided from thence into the Plain : So that it was impofliblefor Noah to make 
 aDinribiition of thofe Parts of the Earth, which were not yet difcovercd. And 
 it is apparent by the Scripture it felf, that a coniiderable time after Noah'sTicaxh 
 all Mankind lived together ; and therefore there was no Impoflibility (as you 
 fuppcfe) why Noah's eldeft Son could not have commanded his Brethren and 
 their Dcfcendants, they being not as yet difperfed, or feparated from each o'ther; 
 as you may fee by the firft Verfes of the nth of Genejis, which you cited but 
 now. So that if Noah's eldeft Son was difinheritcd of his Right of governing his 
 Brethren, and their Defcendants, tlut could not be the caufe of it, whicli you 
 affign : And if Primogeniture be a Divine Right, appointed by God himfelf, and 
 unalterable by Humane Laves, as you fuppofe, I cannot fee how the V/ill of a 
 Father, which is but a Humane Injlitiiticn, can ever alter it : For I remember you 
 laid it down as a Maxim, at our laft Meeting, T'hat the Divine Right of the rigin 
 Heir tiever dies, can L' Uji, or taken auay; fo that if there hath been any fuch thing 
 as a Divine Right of Primogeniture belonging to the eldeft Son of AW;, it is 
 not likely that he would have permitted his two Brothers to have ufurped it 
 from him. 
 
 AT. 1 fhall not infifl longer on this Tradition, concerning the Diflribution of 
 the Eafth amongft the Sons of Noah. But certainly it is not a thing to be made 
 fo fiiglit of as you do, fince Cedrenm, a modern Greek Hiftorian, is very particu- 
 lar in it ; befides, fo many other 'earned Men (and the great Selden among the 
 reft) have given countenance to it : And though I grant that Primogeniture is 
 of Di\ine Right, yet that might very well be altered by Noah's Will, cfpecially 
 /ii.ce hi<; Children might be fansfied that he being a Prophet, and Preacher of 
 Rightcoufncfs, made this Divifion of his Paternal Power by a Divine Com- 
 iharid. ^ 
 
 But I fhall not dwell longer upon this, but proceed to the next Period of 
 Time ; QvIt..) that of the Confulion, and D'fpcrlion of Tongues, in which there 
 are more evident Footfleps of this Right of Primogeniture, as alfo of the Pa- 
 triarchal Power I maintain : And therefore pray turn to the loth oi Genefis, 
 and there you will find (after the Recital of the Genealogy of every one 'of the 
 Sons of Noah, whofe Dcfcendants are there particularly fet down) thefe Words 
 in' the fifth Verfe ; By thefe -were the Ifles of the Gentiles divided in their Lands; every r. P. s 4. 
 pne after his Tongue, after their Families, in their Nations. And likewife in the 20th 
 Vetfe, T'/'f/^ are the Sons of Ham, after their Families, after their I'orgues, in their 
 'CmihtYies, and in their Nations. And in the laft Verfe, Thefe are the Families of 
 fh'e Sons of Noah, after their Generations, in their Nations ; and by thefe -were the Ntt- 
 ■tions divided in the Earth after the Flood. So that if we confider the firft Planta- 
 tipns.ofthe World, which were after the Building of Babel, and the Confufion 
 'or Tongues, we may find the Divifion of the Earth into diftinft Kingdoms, or 
 Nations, by fcveral Families and Languages, whereof the Sons, or Grand-children f. A. MM. 
 •of l<foah, were the Kings, or Governors, by a fatherly Right, And for the prcfet- /.' 275. 
 ^yation of this Power, and Right in thefe Fadiers, God was pleafed to beftow updn 
 fcycral Families a Language on each by it felf, the better to unite it iftto a Nation or 
 Kingdom. So that it becoming impoffible (as I faid before) for the-eldcr Sons dr 
 , Defendants of thefe three great Patriarchs to govern all Mankind, who, now no 
 'lohger underftood each others Language, it was abfolutely neceflary that the 
 Heads of the fevcral Families fliould take that care upon them, and their Chil- 
 dren fubmit to them ; wherein they had the Direftion of Ciod Almighty, who 
 had commanded them to obey their Parents ; and a'miraculous Declaration of 
 'his- Will for their Difperfion, by the confoiiiiding ofthtfir Language; and that fo 
 ordered by God loo, that the Defcendants of the fame Perfoii, and Family, 
 {poke one Tongue : Was nOt this a declaring thefe Fathers Princes of th6fe 
 fcveral Families, and Tongue^ by God himfelf, who by his Providence had thiis 
 confounded their Tongues, and difperfed them by Families, that they could no 
 longer be governed by three or four Patriarchs, but mlift have as many dilHiift 
 Co\ernments, as there were different Tongues, there ^eing no means at prefcnt 
 of any Intercourfe, or Correfpondcncc one with another, or wnh iheir former 
 .^Governors ? So that however in this Confufion of Tongues (by which, as Jc- 
 "fephm fuppofcs, there were fcvchty two diltinft Nations cre<5red)-yet were they 
 notconfufed Multitudes without Heads, or Governors, and at liberty to chulc 
 .what Governors, or Government they pleafed; but were fo many diftina Fa- 
 
 I milies
 
 ?8 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITlCA. 
 
 B. P.?, 5 lo-milles which had Fath-grs for Rulers over them of the fame Speech: Whereby it 
 is manifeft, that even in the Conkifion, God was carefid to preferve Fatherly 
 Authorityy and Monarchical Power entire^ by dillributing the Diverlity of Languages 
 according to the Diverfity of Families ; which fliews that God was ftill for Go- 
 weriimenty and that Paternal too ; iince it is evident that every People followed 
 their Ancellor, or Patriarch, as their Prince or Leader in this Difperfion, who 
 had a Patriarchal Authority over their Pofterity : For by what elfc can you fup- 
 pofe they could have made their Children and Defcendants to have followed 
 them as far as the utmoll liles of the Gentiles ? 
 
 F. I confcfs there are many Difficulties as well in the time, as manner of this 
 Difperfion, ;.ccording to our common Chronology ; for if you fuppofe, that the 
 Building of the Tower of £aLel fell out within two hundred Years after the 
 Flood ; as moil of our Chronologers, who follow the Hebrew Account, do ; then 
 it is certain, that Noah, and his Sons, were ftill alive, who lived 'till above four 
 hundred Years after the Flood; fo thafeither ATo^A, and his Sons, did not travel 
 with the reft of their Defcendants into the Plain of Shinar, where they built the 
 Tower of Babel, which yet feems contrary to the Text, which fays, All Man- 
 kind being of one Language, they travelled, &ic. And if thefe Children and Grand- 
 children left their Anceftors at home, what became of their Monarchical Au- 
 thority, when their Subjeds were gone ? And you your felf do affert, that none 
 of Noah's Pofterity divided trom him, as long as he lived. So on the other lide, 
 if you fuppofe that Noah and his Sons marched along with them in this Expe- 
 dition, you muft make them either to have quitted their Authority over their 
 Defcendants, or elfe to have joined with them in this wicked and foolifli Enter- 
 prize of building a Tower, whofe top fhould reach to Heaven ; which is very 
 hard to conceive of Noah, a Preacher of Righteoufnefs, or his Sons, whom 
 the Scripture no where mentions, or blames for having a hand in this At- 
 tempt. • • 
 
 1. 1, f- 4. But if you will lay the fault of building this Tower upon Nimrod, as Jofe^hm 
 doth, who makes him a great Tyrant, and a wicked Man, this will makeagainft 
 your own Hypothefis, which fuppofes no Rebellion, or Usurpation, to have been 
 during the Lite of Noah. So that to avoid thefe Abfurdities, and DifEculties 
 that will fellow by the placing the Building of the Tower of Babel within two 
 hundred Years after the Flood, (as you muft do, if you follow the prefent M- 
 brew Account) I think it were much better to embrace the Account of the 
 LXX, which by adding a hundred Years to the Lives of each Patriarch between 
 Noah and Abraham, makes the Confu/ion of Tongues to have happened hot 'till 
 about five hundred Years after the Flood ; which takes away thofe Abfurdities I 
 mentioned, of making Noah and his Sons to have had a hand in the building of 
 the Tower of Babel, or elfe that Nnnrod did it, whether they would or not ; 
 which is likewife as hard to fuppofe : All which Difficulties, according to this 
 Account, may very well be taken away; Iince then, Nah and his Sons were 
 dead, before ever tliis Tower began 10 be built. And for the further Proof of 
 this, I refer you to the learned Ifaac Vcjjim his Vindication of the Trandation 
 of the LXX, and his Chronology accommodated to that Account, as moft agree- 
 able to the ancient Hebrew Original : But this is only by the by. 
 
 M. I thank 3-ou, Sir, for your Solution of this great Difficulty, which I am 
 fatisfied cannot be better folved, than by this Account of the LXX Veriioil* 
 But I pray anfwer my Argument, which in my Opinion clearly makes out the 
 Divine Inftitution, as well as Neceffity of Patriarchal Power. 
 
 F. I was. juft coming to it; and therefore in the hrft place I muft tell you, 
 that I cannot imagine how you can prove from this Text concerning the Dilper- 
 lion of Nations, and their following certain Leaders of their own Family, and 
 Language, when otherwife they could not have converfed together ; that there- 
 fore God muft be careful in all this ,Tranfadtion to preferve } our imaginary Pa- 
 triarcnal Power entire ; of which the Scriptdre is altogether filcnt. And you might 
 
 T. TlG.f.ii.as well tell me, that becaufe in Hamubal's, or Darim's Army, there were whole 
 
 /. 177. Squadrons of different Languages, who were ranged under Caprains of their 
 
 own Language, or Country, that therefore Fathers, or Grand-fathers were 
 Leaders of each Squadron ; or that DariHi, or Hamibal, were careful to |)refervc 
 Pi^tcrnal Authority. 
 
 ■■.■A-> 
 
 .-;iif*i ■ But
 
 Dialogue the Second. ^^ 
 
 But Aippofc I graiit yci the iitmod yon can as!c, yet, fincc God thought /it at this 
 Confufion of Tongues, that all thofe of one Tribe fhould fpeak the fame Langiia'^c, 
 which was not iinderfiootl by any other, it \% likewife very rcafonable to fappofl-.that 
 they could not travel fo far as theutmofl: parts of ^/'^^ without chuling, and follow- 
 ing feme Captains or Leaders to be their Guides, and Commanders in fo Ion" a 
 Journey ; and whom could the People fooner chnfe to follow for this purpofe than 
 their Fathers, or Grand-fathers, to whofe natural Affection, WifJcm, and lon^ 
 Experience, they had from their very Infancy alwajs paid a great relptdt and fub- 
 miifion : Yet doth it not therefore follow, that fuch Fathers or Grand-fathers thus 
 led or commanded their Children and Pofierity (now grown up to be Men atid Wo- 
 men) by any r.atiiral or Divine Right, or that they followed them otherwjfe, than 
 2S an Army of Voli:nteers, or th;!ii as a Caravan in the Defarts of Arabia doth a 
 Captain of its own rluifing. Bi.t if you will fuppofe any thing beyond this, ycu 
 will find yourfelf involved in greater DifEculries and Abfurdities. For pray 
 tell me, what great care w:fs there to prefcri'e a Patriarchal Authority in this Con- 
 fulion and Difperfion, by breaking it into fo many Parts ? Indeed I am fo blind 
 I cannot fee it. For as I will not deny, but it was God's Will xo, contound the 
 Language, and difperfe the Families of Mankind, both for a Punifhment, and al- 
 fo for the better peopling of the World : So am I not convinced, that God, in 
 adting thus, was at all careful to preferve the Patriarchal Authority derived 
 from Adam. For you cannot deny, but that at the fame time he deltroyed the 
 true Supreme Fatherhood of the natural Monarch, or Heir of Adam, who could 
 be but one Perfon, as you yourfelf have already aflerted : Or, can it be any Rca- 
 fon to fay, that God, ior the prefervation of Paternal Authority, let fo many fe- 
 veral new Governments, with their Governors, flart up, who mull all erjo}- this 
 Authority ? And is it not more reafonable to fay, that God was careful to dellroy 
 this Paternal Authority, when he futfcred thofe of Noah's Sons or Defcendanvs, then 
 aftually in PollefTion of it, to have their Monarchy torn in pieces, and fhared by 
 fo many of their Subjefts? And would it not bean excellent Argument for Mo- 
 narchical Government to fay, when any Monarchy was Ihatrered to pieces, and 
 divided amongil many revolted Subjefts, that God was only careful to preferve 
 Monarchical Power, by rending a great fettled Empire into a Multitude of lit- 
 tle Governments. So that it is altogether irrational to conceive, that if any three 
 or more right Heirs of Nmh had Paternal Authority or Sovereignty by Right of 
 Fatherhood over Manlcind at Bald, that the next Moment, (afl they yet fiving) 
 Seventy mo others ff;ould have a like Sovereignty by Right of Fathcr!;Ood over the 
 fame People, divided into fo many diftinft (Governments : Either tlien thefe Seven- 
 ty two Fathers were actually Rulers juft before the Confufion, and then they were 
 rot one People, but an Arificcvatnal Co?m}icnv:eahh, and then where was your 
 Alunaichy? Or elfe thefe Smenty tuv Fathers had Paternal Authority, but knew it 
 r.or, which is hard to fuppofe. And if thefe Seventy two Grand-children of the 
 Sons of Noa/j had a Rigiit to di\'ide this Supreme Paternal Authority of Ada^n 
 into as many diftiiift Governments as there were Heads of Families, v/hy might 
 not their Sons have done fb in infinnian ? And then there could never be any com- 
 mon Prince or Mor.aich let over them all, hut hy Fvree or Ccnquejl, or elfe by 
 EkBion; euher of wiiich dellroys your Notion of the Divine Right vf Primogeni- 
 ture. 
 
 M. 'Tis a very plcafant Notion methinks this of yours, that the Poftcrity of B. ?. ?. 
 the h'rft Planters of the World fiiould follow their Ancellors, not as CliilJren or Sea. <Ja 
 Subjects, but as Volunteers, and from a P.everence (forfcoth) and Artedtion to 
 their Age, Wiidom, ar;d Experience, Indeed, I am thus far of your Mind, that 
 thefe Children followed their Fathers freely, and were not driven afore them, 
 nor dr:.gged after them with Chains: But to infer from hence, that they owed 
 their Father none of tliis Service or Attendance, but out of meet good Na- 
 ture and Gratitude, which are due to Strangers that have obliged us by being 
 our Bcnefadors, is a Notion that only becomes one, that ov/ns no Righ't to be 
 derived from Patriarchal or Paternal Power j and lincc there were none of thefe 
 Patriarclis, who were the Leaders of Mankind in this Difi^erllon, but might be 
 one or two hundred Years old, if not more ; can any thing in Nature look more 
 ridiculous, than for Children and Dcfccndanrs of thefe old Men, to cleft them 
 who begat tiiem, to be their Leaders and Governors, at a hundred Years o£ 
 Age? 
 
 I I And
 
 6o BiBLioTHECA Politic A. 
 
 lb. 65. And to give you an Anfwer why Governments might not upon my Principles 
 
 crumble into new oiies, m infiiitnm, I think it may be difficient to teil you, that, 
 Firft, God prevented it, and that for the moft part by Monarchs, ever lince the 
 Creation of the Worlds and although he was plcafcd to permit many Divifions 
 after this time ; yet he would never fuffer Mankind to be crumbled into fuch 
 fmall Divifions, as to make every diftinft Houflicld an Iixlependent Government. 
 Secondly, Thofe Monarchs prevented it, who would be iure to reduce to their 
 Subjection any Perfon that fliould attempt to divide himfelf or Family from the 
 reft, and fet up for an Independent State, without his leave and liking* Third- 
 ly, The ncccffity of Mankind prevented it, fucli fmall parcels of Men not being 
 able to preferve themfelves, but by uniting with the reft, for their Support and 
 Froteftion : So that i£ you could never fo clearly prove, that here was no Sub- 
 ordination to the eldeft Son or Heir of Noah, yet this fignificd nothing, for 
 God ordered it fo to be ; and if thefe Grand-fons of Noah were Independent Go- 
 vernors ot their own Families, without any Subordination to the eldeft Son's 
 iSon or Heir ot Noah ; yet were they ftill Sovereign Princes, and much lefs had 
 any dependence upon their own Children and Defcendants. So that hitherto the 
 Multitude were kept under Subjection, and could not fet up a Commonwealth, 
 without rebelling againft thofe Independent Governors. 
 
 Now if in this horrible Confufion of Tongues, the People, by the Will of 
 God, ftill fell under the Monarchical Government of thefe Fathers of Families ; 
 I defire to kiiow when they could obtain their Freedom, and in what Age it 
 began ? 
 
 F. I muft confefs you had fome rcafon to look upon my Notion of the De- 
 fcendants of the Sons of Nvah following their Anceftors in this Difperfion, 
 not as Children or Subjefts, but as Volunteers, to be as ridiculous as you 
 are pleafed to make it , could you have any way proved at our laft Meet- 
 ing, that the Power of Parents over their Children and Grand-children to all 
 Generations, is as abfolute and perpetual, as that of a Mafter over his Slaves, 
 and that a Son and a Servant were all one at the firft ; but fince you failed in that 
 Propofition,- which is the Groundwork of all the reft, I muft beg your pardon, if I 
 cannot found the Defcendants of Noah, following their Fathers or Anceftors in 
 the Difperfion, upon any higher ground, than meet Gratitude and Efteem : I mean 
 for all fuch of them, who were themfelves at that time Mafters or Heads of 
 feparate Families ; and I defire to know of you, by what other Motive or. Obli- 
 gation,, a great Grand-fon (for Example) was obliged to follow liis great 
 Grand-father to the World's end, as his Prince or Leader, when perhaps his 
 own Father thought fit to lead him another way ,'.and I defire you to fhew me 
 if they had (as they might very well have) commanded different things, which 
 was to be obeyed ? And how Difcbedience to a Man's own Father in this cafe 
 would have confifted with that Law of Nature, which you fo much infift upon, 
 of honouring a Man's Father ? But indeed all this miftakc proceeds from your 
 firft falfe Notion, which I fee you cannot yet be quit of, in ftill fuppofing the 
 Obedience and Subjeftion of Children to their Fathers to be abfolute and per- 
 petual : The contrary to which, I have already made out at our laft Meeting : 
 And therefore I muft tell you again, that this Notion of thefe Grand-children, 
 or Defcendants following their Fathers or Anceftors, not out of Duty, buC 
 Choice, is not fo ridiculous as you are pleafed to make it ; and though I do not 
 fuppofe, that they defied thefe Anceftors of theirs for their Leaders by a Ballot' 
 ing Box; yet this much I am fure of, that they might prefer, if they pleafed, the 
 ^^ following of their Father or Grand-father, rather than their great Grand-father, if 
 
 they perceived that he had doted through A ge, or elfe by Weaknefs or Infirmities was 
 imable to lead them ; or that his natural Temper was fo Imperious and Tyranni- 
 cal, that there was no living under his Government ? Neither doth the Scrip- 
 ture it fclf any where declare the contrary, only fays in general, that by thefe 
 Grand-fons of Noah, the Illes or Countries of the Gentiles were divided, ac- 
 cording to their F'amilies and Nations, without particularly telling us, who were 
 the Princes or Leaders of each Tribe or Family. And to inftance, if this Divi- 
 fion happened in the Time of Peleg or Phahg, as the Greek LXX makes it, then 
 rot A>ihaxad the great Grand-father, or Sdah tlie Grand-father, but Heber the 
 Grand-fon was the Pnnce or Leader of his Family at tliis Diviiion : Since it is 
 
 from
 
 'Dialogue the Second, 6i 
 
 from him that ^ fefhui fuppcfcs the Hdrews not or.Iy to have defcended, but t6L.i. ..tf. 
 have taLcn their Names. 
 
 Nor do you-any better anfwer the other Difficulty, how all thefe Seventy two 
 Patriarchs, or great Grand-fathers, could all ot them claim alike Regal Power . 
 
 from AJtim or Noa/j, whofe rij,'lit Heir could be but one Perfoii. Indeed you . 
 tell me, that God ordered it fo, by appointing every Nation a diftinct Language, 
 and to be led by the Anceflor of their Family. This is altogether ^)V7»> diciicm; 
 for tliough it be true, that the Scripture fays, that this Dlvi/ion of Tongiies was 
 made according to the difterent Tribes or Families of thefe Defcendants of No- 
 ah; yet doth it no where mention their being led or commanded by Sv.*venty tu-o 
 Grand-fathers Patriartiis ; and tiiere might be for ought that you or I know, not 
 only Seventy two, but fevcn fcore fuch Captains or Leaders of themj Nay^ 
 every diftind Fatiier of. a Family, when this Monarchical Power came to be 
 crumbled into fo many parts, might as well have claimed a fhare in this Regal 
 Power, tliey being by this Confufion wholly reduced again'into a Scare of Na- 
 ture . 
 
 Nor are your Reafons fufficient to convince me of the contrary. As for your 
 firft Reafon, that God hath not fuffered it to be lb, fignirtes little ; for either he 
 hath hindered it by Vin espiefs Command, or by the ordintiry Cmrfe of his Providence: 
 The former I am fure you can no where fhew me; and as for the latter, when- 
 ever any Nation or People fhall be prefled with the like Neceiltty of fcparating 
 tbemfelves from the Government under which they were born, as the feveral Fa- 
 milies of Mankind had at this Divifion of Tongues ; I fee no reafon why they 
 may not have a like Rigilt of quitting their Country, and becoraing Subjcds to 
 another Government; or elfe of fetting up one of their own if they can. 
 
 As for your fccond Rcr.fon, that Moharchs would be fure to reduce to their 
 Subjedion any Perfon that flsowld offer to divide himfelf and Family from tiie 
 rert, and fet up for an Independent State, without their good leave and liking. 
 This is a good Argument indeed, that they were not able to do it, but none at 
 all, that they ougiit not to do it if they could ; fince this were but to exercife 
 that Supreme Paternal Authority with which God hath inverted them, as much 
 as ever he did any of thofe Seventy two Defcendants oi' Noah, who fet up fo 
 many new Governments, \<^ithout thetonfent of Nvah's right Heir. 
 
 Your third Reafon, I confels, iS'-fcmewhat better; That the Neceffity of 
 Mankind prevented it. Biit this alfo makes quite againfl: you, and only proves, 
 that tlie Heads or Mailers of Families being feniible they could not preferve them- 
 feU'es, but by uniting with others tcr their mutual Safety and i^rotedion, were 
 feln to fubniit (thoigli by their own Confents) to fome Common Power, for their 
 own, as well as tlieir Families Prefervation. So that I cannot fee from any 
 thing you have faid, that God had ' tfeat great care you fuppofb of maintaining 
 youf Patriarelial Power, much Icfs this Divine Right df Primogeniture. 
 " M. 1 fee it is to no purpofe to difpute v.'ith you any farther about the Patri*. 
 akhal Power- of'thefe Sons of Nvah, and therefore I ilvdU proceed to the Times ^•P-<^- I•^S, 
 aftei- the Confufion of Tongues; in which, the 1-irft Inftance I Ihall gi\c you, is 
 that of yacef>, wlio when Ire had bought his Brothers Birth-right, Ipac blelled 
 hith thus ; Be Lourd over thy Brethren, and let the Sons of thy Mother kka drd.ii -before Gen, 27. 29. 
 thee. By which is plainly denoted a Regal Powet or Dominion over £/^« his 
 Brotiier, and the reft of his Brethren, if he had any. So likewiie wefind — ' ' , 
 
 F. I pray give me leave to interrupt you a little,- fori have a.gi'eat deal to fay 
 to this Inftance yo!< have •nO\<r brought of Jaccl; an'd EJan ; and therefore Idefire 
 I may fpeak it before you proceed any further. Aftd firft, by the way, 1 can- 
 not but obferve, that this Divine Right of Primoj^iture, which you fuppofc 
 here to be meant by tiie Word Birth-right, was capable of being fold for a Mefs 
 of Pottage, and all £Jau\ Heifsi diliiiherited of their Right, betmife their Father 
 preferred his Belly before his Honour and Intereft. But if your Principles are 
 true^ a Divine Right newr dierh, nor can be loft, or taken away. 
 
 Tiie fecond thing 1 mull take notice btj is your making T/^wr, p'rcfentiy after T.T.G.r.n, 
 this S.-i.L ol- tlic^ Birth-right, -and as it were in confirmation of k, to have given ^ i4J- 
 jfacnb h.s Blefling; whereas it is apparent by tJiis Story in Cc;?. 2 j. that many 
 Yeats p.;ls'd (j->cTh.-lps twenty or thirty) between JckoI/s buying of this Birth-right, 
 ahd IJaac's conferring of tlic Bteffi.ng upon him, as any one that v\'ill but read 
 the 2(5th of Geaejis may ealfUy 'fee. But if you had better obferved this Text, 
 
 you
 
 6% BiBLlOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 you would have found that this Blefiing was not intended for Jacolr, but Efau, foi* 
 whom Jfaac then miftook. him. But be it as it will, whether the Bleding was 
 given to Jacoi) or Efau, it matters not ; for from thefe Words I can by no means 
 gather, that any Government or Superiority was thereby conferred on Efau 
 over Jacclf, or jacol^ over Efau. For, firfl, as to Jaccb, this BleiTing was never 
 fulfilled, as to be Lord over Efau, who was Prince of Mount Seir m Jacvb\ Life- 
 time : And as for bowing, or any other Token of Superiority, we read indeed, 
 that Jacvb at his meeting his Brother Efau bowed feven limes towards him to 
 the Ground, though he had before fold his Birth-right to Jacob ; and therefore 
 this Birth-right cannot mean any ruling Power, or Lordfliip over his Brethren j 
 lb. p. 1^6. fincc it is manifeft from the Text, that Jacob had no more Brothers than Efau ; 
 nor had Jfaac any confideration of Jacob's having then bought this Birth-right ; 
 for when he thus blefl'ed him, he took him not to be Jacob, but Efau ; nor did 
 Efau underftand any connexion between the Birth-right, and the Bleffing ; for 
 fays he to his Father, He hath fupplanted me thefe two times, he took away my Birth- 
 right, and behold now he hath taken away my Bleffng. Whereas, had this Blejfng, tQ 
 be Lord over his Brethren, belonged to the Birth-right, Efau could not have com- 
 plained of this fecund AA as a Cheat, Jacob having got nothing, but what Efau 
 had fold him long before. 
 
 So that it is plain. Dominion was not then underftood to belong either to the 
 Birth-right or Bleffing. And therefore it is more rational to fuppofe, that this 
 Word Birth-right only relates to the Riglit of Priefthood, which the Jews fup- 
 pofed always to defcend to the eldell; Son, before the Law was given : And that 
 by Bleffing, is meant no more, than that double Portion of Goods, which by 
 the Jewijh Law was due to the Firft-born ; and that this is the true Senfe of 
 this place, I delire you to Icok in Gen. 21. 10. (if you pleafe to give me your 
 Bible, I will ihew you the place, and will read the Words to you) where Sarah 
 taking Ifaac to be Heir, fays, Cafl out this Bond-woman and her Son, for the Son of 
 this Bond-woman Jlall not be Heir with my Son : Whereby could be meant nothing, 
 but that he fiiould not have a Pretence to any equal fhare of his Father's Eftate 
 after his Death, but fliould have his Portion prefently, and be gone. And far- 
 
 5'.T.G.*.i47. ther we read, Gen. 25. 5, 6. That Abraham gave all that he had unto Ifaac; but 
 unto the Sons of the Concubines which Abraham had, Abraham gave Gilts, and 
 fent them away from Ifaac his Son, while he yet lived i that is, Abraham having 
 given Portions to all his other Sons, and fent them away, that which he had 
 referved, being the greatell part of his Subflancc, Ifaac as Heir poflefled after his 
 Death j but by being Heir he had no Right to be Lord over his Brethren : For if 
 he had, why fhould Sarah defire to rob him of one of his Subjeds or Slaves, by 
 deliring to have him fent away ? 
 
 So likewife, if you look into the firft of CIrron. chap. 5. -y. i. you will find a 
 
 Ib.p. 148. place, that plainly confirms this Interpretation, where it is faid; Reuben was the 
 firfl-born, but forafmuch as he defied his Fuhtt's Bed, his Birth-right tuij^/w» ««-i 
 to the Sons of Jofeph, the Son of Ihael i and the Genealogy is not to be reckoned after the 
 Birth-right. For Judah pr^ailed above his Brethren, and of him came the chief Ruler ; 
 but the Birth-right was Jofeph'f, though he was the youngeft Son. And that this 
 Birth-right was Jacob's Bleffing on Jofeph, Gen- 58. 22- tells us in thefe Words; 
 Moreover I have given thee one Portion above thy Bi ethren, which I took out of the Hand 
 of the Amorites with my Sword, and with 7ny Bow. Whereby it is not only plain, 
 
 ' that the Birth-right was nothing but a double Portion of Right due to the eldeft 
 
 Son; but the Text in Chronicles is exprclly againfl your Opinion, and (hews that 
 Dominion was no part of the Birth-right; for jt tells us, T'hat ]o(c^h. had the 
 Bnth-right, but Judah the Dominion. So that luilefs you were very fond of this 
 Word Birtlj-right, witliout conlidering in what Senfe it is to be taken, you would 
 never bring this Liftance of Jacob and Efau, to prove that Dominion belongs to 
 the eldeft Son over his Brethren : For if this Bleffing of Ifiac upo;, Jacob iigni- 
 fics any thing more than this, it could not relate to his own Pcrfon, who never 
 ruled over his Brother at all ; and therefore it is at moft no more, than a Pro- 
 phefy, fliewing that the Jews, as being defcended from Jacob, Ihould in after 
 Times rule over the Edomites, or Pofterity of Efau, according to what Rcbekah 
 had been foretold from God ; T^wo Nations are in thy IVomb, and two tnanner of Peo- 
 
 Gen.sj. ij. p/e Jlja/l be feparated fmn thy Bowels, and the one People Jhall be fronger than the other 
 People, and the Elder Jhall fe^ve the Tvtinger. And fo Jacob blcflcd Judah, and gave 
 
 him
 
 Dialogue the Second. 6^ 
 
 him (though i ot in his own Pcrfon, but in his Pofterity) the Scepter and Domi- 
 nion : From whence you might ha\e argued as well, that the Dominion belonged 
 to the third Son o\er his Brethren ; as well as from this Blcffing of Ifaac, that it 
 belonged to Jaab, they being both but Predi(5tions of what {hould long after hap- 
 pen to their FoAcrities, and not declaring any Hereditary Right of Dominion in 
 either Jaiob or "[Jiidah. 
 
 M. I will not rigoroufly infifl, that Primcgemure is fuch a Divine Right as can- 
 rot be altered by any Humane AEi or Conflmtuon; but yet I take it to be fuch a 
 Right, that u'lthout the Father orders it otherivifc- in his Lite-time, or that the elder ' ' •'•"^' 
 Brother doth of his own accord depart from his Right, he will have a good 
 Title to his Father's Government or Kingdom, and conicquently to command 
 over the reft; of his Brethren ; and therefore Grotim makes a great deal of diffe- 
 rence between Hereditary and Patrimonial Kingdoms, the former being to de- 
 fcend to the cideft Son only, but the latter are divifible amongft all the Sons, if 
 the Father pleafe : And hence I fuppofe it was, that as Mankind increafed, one 
 petty Kingdom grew out of another. Thus the Land oi Canaan, which was '"'''• ^- "• 
 peopled by fix Sons of Canaaiiy and Philiflim the Son of Miz,raiin, had eight or nine 
 Kings in the Time of Abraham, and above thirty Kings in Jojhua's Time ; which 
 could proceed from no other Caufe, but the Fathers dividing their Kingdoms in 
 their Life-rimes, or at their Deaths, amongft their Sons and Defcendants ; for 
 we hear not of one tittle of Popular E/elimn in thofe early Days. And I 
 have Proofs enough of this in Scripture. Since thus we find it to have been 
 among the Sons of Ijhmacl znd Efau, as appears by Gen. 2^ and 26. where it is F.P.r.i.f.i(f. 
 faid, 'J'hefe are the Sons o/Iflimael, and thefe are their Names by their Caftles and ''^^^'^'^' 
 "ToVuHs, &c. "Twelve Princes oj their Irik's and Families. And thefe are the Names of 
 the Dukes that came of Efau, according to their Families, and their Places by their Na- 
 tions. And hence it is, that in after Ages, Princes did often divide their King- 
 doms amongft their Children, of which you may fee divers Examples in Grvtius 
 De y.B. I. 2. cap. 7. which Diviiions, when made and fubmitted to by the eldcit SeS:. 12. 
 Son, I doubt not but were good. Yet I think it cannot be denied for all 
 this, that by the Law of Nature or Nations, where there is no Will of the Fa- 
 ther declared to the contrary, the.eldefl Son ought to inherit. And this is the 
 Judgment not -only of Chriftian, but Heathen VVriters. Thus Herodotus, the Herod. Poly m: 
 moft ancient Greek Hiftocian, lays it down for a general Cufiom of all People or 
 Nations, that the elde(i Son pwild enjoy the' Empire ; and the Romans were likewife of 
 this Opinion ; and therefore Livy, when he fpeaks of two Brothers of the Allo- 
 iroges contending for the Kingdom, fays,' The Tmnger 'dccu more flrong in Force 
 thtf-a Right. And in another place, he calls this Right of the eldeft Son, the Right of Jufiln. 1. 11. 
 ^geand Nature; zs alfo doth Trogns Pompeim in his Epitome of '^uftin, when he 
 tails it the Right of Nations ; and in another place, a Riglit of Nature, when he 
 fays, that Artibaz,anes, the eldeft Son of the King of Pqrfia, chiille/iged the Kingdom J"f'^' '• *• 
 himfelf, 'dhich tlie Order (f his Birth, and 'IS^atJtre iifelf appointed amongft Nations. I 
 could give you many other Authorities from more i^odern Authors, but I rather 
 chufe to give you thefe, becaufc yo,u. cannot except againil them, as Writers 
 prepofleft by either Jewifli or ChrifliiariPt-incipjcSj , So that if this Rigin of 
 Prim^eniture ^;RPt, itbfo}tt^v:ly_ ,J^iviiYj^/j^^^ Natural and Rea- 
 
 El lee you are convinced, that ttjis .D/ww Right of Primogeniture is not to 
 be proved out ^ of, Scripture, and therefore you aie, contested ;o fall a peg low- 
 er, an'd .fo.taKeup with the Right oi Eldeifliip bj' the Law of Nature or Na- 
 tion's, which |io\V'k)ever you are pleafed to confound them, arc for all rhat two 
 diftinft things.i.,for if tli^- Succelfion, of the eldeft- Sbn Ve re by the Law of 
 Nature, it were.no more: to be altered. by the \Vili of a Father, than the Law 
 of God itfelfi and therefore notwithftanding aH your "Qiiorations, your Right of 
 Primogeniture amounts to no more than riiis, that it hath been a common and re- 
 ceived Cuftom in many Kingdoms or Nations to obferve it; and therefore Hero- 
 dotus, whom you have now quoted, calls it very rightly a Cuftom of Nitiom, that 
 the eldeft 'Sonjhould enjoy the Empi,e: Which yet it is not true amongft all Nations 
 or People, by your own ConfeHioii : For then there would have been no difR-rence 
 between Hereditary and Patrimonial Kingdoms ; but the eldeft Son (hould have 
 inherited alone in the one, as well as in the other. Unlcfs )ou can fuppofe, (as 
 iUrc .you will not) that fome Kingdoms arc to be difpofi:d according to the 
 
 'to 
 
 Law
 
 64 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 Law of Nature, and others not. But if you would, have confidered Grctiusy 
 (whom yoa have now made ufe of) he would have inltrufted }'cu better. For in 
 the Chapter you have now cited, he makes the difference between them to de- 
 pend upon the manner of acquiring the Kingdoms he fpeaks ofj if you pleafe I 
 G.J.B.lih.'.. will fhcw you the Words, Sed in kegnomm Succefjione difiingui debent Regna qua: pkno 
 cap.-], f. 12. jijodv pijpdentui-, & in Patrimcniofum, ab his quiC modu7n babendi accipiunt ex fcpuli con" 
 fenfiiy de quo difcrimine egimusfufra. Priovis generis Regna dividi pcjfunt etiam inter Ala- 
 res, & Fcc7ninas, nt in ./Egjptd, & Britannia, olimfaSliiffi vidimus. 
 
 Nullo difcrimine Sexus, 
 
 Reginamfcitferre Pharos, 
 ah Lucanus ; de Britannis "Tacitus, Neque ekim Sexu?n in imperio difcernunt. But look 
 a little farther, and you will find the reafon of the difference between them : At 
 ')• 14- c.t Regna qua: populi libera confenfu faEla funt hereditaria, ex pr.tfumpta populivoluntate 
 
 dejeyunttir. Prafimitur autem populus id voluijfe quod mnxi?ne expedit. And of this 
 you may fee he giveth divers Examples, which we need not particularly recite : 
 But this much is apparent, that Pjfi/woa/i^/A'HTgrf'ww are divifible among all the 
 Children, becaufe they arc flippofcdto be wholly in the Father's Power, either by 
 Conquefi, or the Jir/l Plantation of them : Blit Heredirary ones, that defcend to the 
 eldcft Son, can only become fo by the free confent of the People, by whom they 
 were inflituted ; and therefore both Ijhmnel and Efau, whofe Territories were 
 wholly Patrimonial, might very well divide them alike, amojigft all their Son's ; 
 but then your natural Right oi. primogeniture is quite deflrojed. The like ma^ be 
 faid of other Kingdoms where this Cuffom took place : And therefore thofe 
 Pafiages you have cited out Csi the Greek and Roman Authors, for the Succeffion of 
 the eldelt Son to be by the Laio of Nature, is to beunderflood according to the 
 Senfe of thofe Authors, who often confounded xht Lara) of Niuure or Reafon, '^ro^' 
 perly fo called, with thofe commonly ufed, or received Cuftoms among civi.izici^ 
 People; which they called the Law of Nations, which yet were not Laws pro*' 
 perly fo called, fince they may, without any tranfgreffioft of the Lawof l^bure, 
 be praftifed different ways. . .. , , ' 
 
 And therefore, though I allow PritncgeUiture, as well in Families as Kingdoms,' 
 to have had a juft Preheminence by the praftice of many civilized Nations, and 
 look upon it as an excellent fort of natural Lot (where'the elder Brother is fit to 
 govern) that he fhbuld (ncct^A before th^ younger, to avoid Strife among fuch Re- 
 lations, and Civil Wars in Kingdoms : Yet that this is flill to be underftood ac- 
 cording to the Cuftom of the Country, or Will of the People, that inftituted the 
 Monarchy, I dcfire to go no farther, than that Example that you have but 
 now brought of Artabax^anes, who was the eldeft Son of Artaxerxes, but born' 
 before he was King, and Xer:^es\m yduhgcr Son, but born after his obtaining the 
 Crown ; the Matter being referi'ed to the People, they determined it in favour of 
 Xe-rxes; as }'ou will find in Herodotus and j'tflin, whom you have btit now quoted. 
 And though I grant, that when afterwards ih the fame Kingdom, the like Contro- 
 verfy was flarted between Cjrus 'and Arftcas {^\\o was afterwards called Artaxerxts 
 Memmn) it was judged juit the quitib cprit/ary way, whether by Right or Favour," 
 I will not determine ; yet this'^may f^t ■'j'oii plainly fee, that this Ancient and V^/ifc 
 Nation had no fettled Law, ■'eithern'a:tki«fl or mumcfpaJ, concernifig this Mattfet. 
 I could give you feveral other Liflances pf the fame kind, which ypu may con- 
 fult at your leifure in Grltins, and othfei' Authors; only this much may be cer- 
 tainly gathered from ivha't 3^(iurfelf ;l^'^,\^dl as I have faid cohc^irning it, ^hat 
 there is no certain Rule or L'aW^ eitHier of Natute'or Nations, concern iiig this 
 Matter : And therefore, jdiit Inflaiices of'the^ Sons of Efau and %hinael are fo 
 far from making out yoar Hypotheffs, that if their Fathers c'oiild divide their 
 Kingdoms into as many iPahis as they Had Sons, without any SLibjeftion to the 
 elder Brother, I can fee no teafon wliy every one of their Cliildren or Dcfccn- 
 dants might not have done the like if they had pleafed, till their'Principalitie? 
 had become as fmall, as thofe of the Dukes of Saxony are at this day ; fo that I 
 cannot fee, to what purpofe you have brought thefe laft Liftances out of Scripture, 
 unlefs it were to make againft yourfelfj and to prove that there were then, as 
 there are now in the World, a fort of Princes who may be lawfully fo, with- 
 out claiming any Title from Adam or Noah, much lefs by any Right of Primog^ 
 
 "''"'■'• ' ^ . . ,.on iir/iio^^
 
 Dialogue the Second. 65* 
 
 M. It is frf?;cicnt for my piirpof^ to be able toflicwyou, from thcfc Examples 
 of tlie Sons of Efau and //jw^.v/, that as well Hereditary as Tcllamentary King- 
 doms, did anrienrly commence according to the Lawor received Cuftom amongrt 
 Nations, without any Confenc of the People or Defccndants of thofe that were 
 to be gov^rr.ed by them : And as long as the Succcflion to fiich Kingdoms were 
 by any certain or l;nown Rule conftantly praftifed ariiong Mankind, the matter is 
 not much whether the eldefl Son fi.cceed to his Father alone, or that his Brethren 
 fharcd with him in the Inheritance. For fince it was God's Will to inititute Civil 
 Government amongfl Mai.kind, k muft be alfo his Will to make the Sitcceffion to 
 it clear and certain to all the Subjects that were to fubmit to it, as he hath done, 
 whether one Brother or many ftcceed; iince the Will of the Father is as certain 
 a Rule of Succellion, as ti^at by Inheritance ; and therefore what you have faid 
 in anfwer to my laft Inftances of the Sons oi'EJau and IJnnael fignifies not much. 
 
 F- I did not then deny, but grant at our laft Meeting, that Families might at 
 firrt grow up into Kingdoms ; but yet I do ftiil (as I did then) alfert that fuch 
 Govemments could nor be inftituted by any Father or Grandfather alone, witliout 
 the exprefs or tacit Confcnt of his Children and Defcendants, fuppofing them once 
 married and feparated from their Fathers or Anceftors Families. But it is need- 
 lefs to repeat what I then faid j only give me leave to mind you, that at the 
 beginning of this Difcourfe you maintain'd, that not only Kingly Power in gene- 
 ral, but alfo the Succeffion to it by the eldeftSon, or his next Brother, is of Divine 
 Right or Inftitution, or elfc all that you urged concerning the natural Right of Do- 
 minion oiCain over Abel was to no purpofe : But now you inlift,that Succeffion by 
 a Teftament or Will of the Father is alfo as much by the Law of Nature as the 
 other ; in which I think yoa are very much miftaken, Iince the Right of bequeath- 
 ing Kingdoms, or any thing elfe, by Teflament, is neither prefcribed by the Re- 
 vealed Will of God, nor the Laws cf Nature ; fince all fettled Property in Lands 
 or Goods, before the Liftitution of a Civil Government, proceeding only from Oc- 
 cupancy or Poffeflion, muft ccafein the State of Nature with the Liie. of the Oc- 
 cupant or Polfeflor. Therefore in that State a Teftament cannot take place by 
 the Teftator's Death ; fince, as foon as he dieth, his natural Right in the thing 
 bequeathed is quite loft and extinguifh'd : So that the Dead not having an Inte- 
 reft in any thing, the Legatee cannot fuftain the Perfon of the Teftatur, whofe 
 Right ceafes before that of the Legatee can take place ; and therefore the Tefta- 
 ment or Difpo(it;on of fuch things may then without any Crime be neglected or 
 altered by the Survivors, unlefs all thofe who pretend an Intereit in it do agree to 
 it, or fwear to fee it fulfilled during the Teftator's Life-time. And for this caufe 
 we find Abraham binding his Servant that ruled over his Moufe by an Oath, not Cen.24.1, ^ 
 to take a Wife for his Son of the Daughters of the Land ; and Jacob taking an Gen. 49. 19. 
 Oath oijifepb, not to bury him in Egypt ; becaufe they doubted wliether they 
 could oblige tf)cir Soiis or Servants to do it by their TeitanientS; "So that it ap- 
 pears evid-.-'i;t to me, that the Power of making Teftamcnts, and bequeathing 
 Lands or Goods, is but a Confcquence of that Propriety in Lands, Goods, or 
 Dominions, which arifcs from Compadt or common Confcnt in a Kingdom or 
 Commonv/ealth, after it is inftituted, as I think I am able to prove whenever you 
 pleafe to difcourfe with me farther about it. But as for the Right of bequeath- 
 ing Crowns or Kingdoms by Teftament, I will rot deny but that feme Kingdoms 
 may have been bequcathable by their original Confticucion, and others become fo , 
 
 by Crftom ; yet I cannot grant that this Right belonged to the Prince or Mo- 
 narch by the Laws cf God or Nature, but proceeded purely from the received 
 Law or continued Cuilom of that Kingdom : So that you muft either confefs,, 
 that there is no fuch thii.g as a Divine Right of Succeflion, or elfe it is fuch a one 
 as fignifies as much as nothing, fmce humane Laws orConftitutionscan alter it or 
 take it away. So that after all this pother about this Divine Right, it is not [o 
 good as an old Eftate Tail, which form.erly no Fine could bar. And I muft far- 
 ther tell you, that I cannot aflent to your Opinion, that Succeflion by a Will or 
 a Teftament is fo certain as that by Inheritance ; iince all fuch Teftaments muft 
 depei'd i4)on the Credit of the Wit'nell'es, whofe Credit may often be queftion'd 
 by the Siibjefts, and wlio may very well for their own ends make a younger Sou 
 to have the whole, or at Icaft a Sliare in the Kingdom, to whom his Father never 
 intended ;;ny ; and which was likewife more eafy to be done before fuch time as 
 
 K ■ ' written
 
 jS6 Bibliotheca Politic a. 
 
 written Wills or Tcftaments, folemnly publifhed according to Forms of Law, 
 came in ufe. 
 
 But becaufe you fuppofe that the natural Laws of Succefllon to Kingdoms are 
 fo plain and certain, that I may a iittle convince you of your Miftake in this mat- 
 ter, I (ball for the prefent fuppofe that the Succcffion of an elder Son or Brother 
 is fnflicicntly eafy to be known ; yet I doubt it will not prove fo in many other 
 Inflances : And therefore to let you fee I do not make this Scruple without caufe, 
 fuppofe y^/'t'/ (for example) to have left a Son or a Daughter behind him, when 
 his Brother murder'd him, pray tell me who was to fucceed after the Death of 
 Adam, this Son or Daughter of Alfcl, or Seth their Uncle ? 
 
 M. We do not read of any Children that AM had, and therefore I cannot tell 
 what to fay to it. 
 
 F. Well, but fince it is probable he might have had Children, pray tell me 
 (fuppofing he had) whether this Child, were it Son or Daughter, or Seth the 
 Uncle, was to fucceed ? 
 
 M. Since you will needs have me fpeak my Opinion in a thing fo uncertain, I 
 think this Child, were it Son or Daughter, ought to have fuccceded before the 
 Uncle. 
 
 F. Pray, Sir, tell me by what Law or Rule you thus judge ? whether by the 
 Law of God or Nature ? 
 
 M. I muft confefs, God hath prefcribed nothing exprefly concerning it, more 
 Ver. 8. than what he fays, Numb. 27. that ij a Man dies kavr,;g no Sons, ye Jball caufe his 
 
 Inheritance to pafs unto his Daughter ; with divers other Rules of SucceflTion to Inhe- 
 ritances there fpecified : And befides, it is more fuitable to the Laws of Nature, 
 that the Ciiildrcn of the elder Brother fhould inherit before their Uncle, there 
 bemg no reafon that they fhould be puniflied for their Misfortune, in having theit 
 Father die before he could fucceed to the Government. 
 
 F. I doubt the Place of Scripture you have cited doth not reach thisC^fe of 
 Kingdoms : For firft, this being a Municipal Law of the Jews, could only con- 
 cern that Commonwealth ; and fecondly, it only relates to private Inheritances : 
 And that this is fo may be proved from the next Verfe, where it is faid, that a 
 Man's Brethren flull be his Heirs ; that is, all oflhem were to be Heirs alike, 
 only the eldeft was to have a double Portion. And if this Law concerning Daugh- 
 ters were to reach the Succeffion of Kingdoms at this day, the Laws oi France 3L.nd 
 other Countries, where Women are barred from fucceeding to the Crown, would 
 be againft the Laws of God and Nature : And the like may alfo be faid concern- 
 ing the Succeffion of the Nephews before their Uncles, or of Uncles rather than 
 the Nephews, whofe Fathers never enjoy 'd the Crown ; divers Nations having 
 different Cufloms, and that with a like appearance of Reafon, concerning it. For 
 on the one hand, if the Son of Abel might have pleaded, that he was the Firft-bom 
 of the eldefl Son of Adam, and fo ought to reprefent his Father ; Seth the Uncle 
 might likewife with as good reafon urge, that he was more nearly related in Blood 
 to Adam, as being his Son, than the Son of Abel, who was but his Grandfon ; 
 and befides, being older than he, was endued with more Wifdom and Experience, 
 and confequently was fitter to govern. But if Abel left only one Daughter, or 
 more, I doubt not but the Qiieflion would have been harder to be decided j 
 fince, if Women are not permitted to govern in private Families, they will not 
 (efpecially amongft Warlike Nations) be admitted to govern Kingdoms, efpe- 
 cially fince it would be left in her power, not only to govern her felf, but by 
 marrying to chufe a King for her Subjcfts, whom they do not approve of And 
 therefore we read, that in divers of the antieut Kingdoms of the World Women 
 were excluded from the Succefllon, as they are iij Fance at this Day. 
 T.T.G. <-. 1 1. Nor are thefe the only Queftions that either might then, or elfe have in latter 
 ^ 157, 158. Ages been flarted concerning Succeffion in Kingdoms and Principalities, and have 
 been the caufe of great Difputes between Pretenders to Crowns, where a King 
 dies without lawful Ifliie : As, whether a Grandfon by a younger Daughter fhaU. 
 inherit before a Grand-daughter by an elder Daughter ? Whetiier the elder Son 
 by a Concubine before the younger Son by a Wife ? From whence alfo will 
 arife many Qiieftions concerning Legitimation, and what by the Laws of Natute 
 is the difference betwixt a Wife and a Concubine ? All which can no ways be 
 decided but by the municipal or pofitive Laws of thofe Kingdoms or Princi- 
 palities. It may further be enquired, whether the eldeft Son, being a Fool or 
 
 Mad-
 
 Dialogue the Second. ^7 
 
 Mad-man, fiiall inlieric this paternal Power before the younger, a wife Man ? 
 And what degree of Folly or Madnefs it mull: be that Ihall exclude him > and 
 who fhall be the Judges of it ? Alfo whether the Son of a Fool fo excluded for 
 his Folly ftall fiiccecd before the Son of his wifer Brother who laft reigned ? Who 
 Ihall have the Regal Power whilft a Widow Queen is with child by the deceafed 
 King, until (he be brought to bed ? Thefe and many more fuch Difficulties 
 might be propofcd about the Title of Siicceflion, and the Right of Inheritance to 
 Kingdoms, and that not as idle Speculations, but fuch as in Hillory we fliall 
 frequently find Examples otj not only in our own, but lilccwife other Kingdoms. 
 From ail which we may gather, that if tlie Laws of God or Nature had pre- 
 fcribed any fet Rules of SuccefTion, they would have gone farther than one or two 
 Cafes ; as concerning tlie Succeflion of elder Sons or Brotliers, where an elder Son 
 dies without Ill'uc ; and would alfo have gi\cn certain inf.ilUble Rules in all other 
 Cafes o'SiTCceffion befides thefe, and not have left it to the Will or particular 
 Laws of divers Nations to have cfiablifted the SucceiFions fo many feveral ways, 
 as I am able to fliew ha'.e been pradtifed in tlie World. 
 
 M. I muft confcfs you have taken a great deal of pains to perplex theSuccef- 
 fion to Adam, which feems dtfigned for nothing elfe, but to make me believe, 
 that ii Adam or any of his Sons were Kings or Princes, it muft have been by the 
 Conftm or Eletlion of their Children or Defcendants : Which is all one as to fay, 
 that thofc antient Princes derived tiieir Titles from the 'Judgmem or Ctvfem of the 
 People, the contrary to which is evident as well out oi^acrtd as Civil Hiflor)'. 
 
 F. Since you appeal to Hiftory, to Hillory you (hall go ; and to let you fee, 
 that I have not invented tliefe Doubts about Succe/Tion of my own head, and that 
 there might have very well been a real Difpute about the Succeffion to Adam in the 
 Cafes I have put, may appear by the many Difputes and Quarrels that have been 
 in feveral Nation.'? concerning the Right of Succeffion between the Uncle and the 
 Nephew ; of which Grotim is fo fcnfible, that he confeffcs, in the latter end of the G.J.T. 1. 1 1. 
 Chapter lalt cited, that where it could not be decided by the People's 'Judgment, it <=■'' 5'3°'3'' 
 was fain to be fo by Civil Wars, as well as private Combats ; and therefore he is 
 forced ingenuoufly to confefs, that this hath been pradifcd divers ways according 
 to the di&rent Laws and Cuftoms of Nations : And he gives us here a diIlin<ftioa 
 between a dired: Lineal S:!Ci;elIi"cn and a tranfverfed, and acknowledges, that 
 amongft the Geimant, as alfo tlie Gotljs and Viwdals, Nephews were not admitted 
 to the Succeflion of the Crown before their Uncles. The like maybe faid of the 
 Saxons and Normans ; and therefore we find in our antient Englijh Hiftory, that 
 before the Conqueftthe Uncle, if he were older, always enjoyed the Crown be- 
 fore the Nephew ; which I can more particularly (liew vou, if you think fit to , 
 qucllion it. The like manner of Succeffion was alfo amongft the Liji-Scctf for 
 above :oo Years after Fe>gus their firft King. The like Cuilom was alio obferv'd 
 among the Liji, as long as tliey had any Kings amongft them, and is called the 
 Law of- Tnnijlry. The fame was alfo obfervcd in the Kingdom of Cdjlille, where, 
 after the Death of Alphonfo the Fifth, the States of that Kingdom admitted his 
 younger Son ^ancho to be Kirg, putting by Ferditiayulde la Ce.da, the Grandfon to 
 the late King by his eldeft Son, tho' he had the Crown left him by his Grand- 
 father's Will. So likewife in Sicily, upon the Death of Charles the Second, who 
 lett a Grandfon behind liim by his eldeft Son, as alfo a younger Son named Rihert, 
 between whom a Difference ariling concerning theSucceffiion, it being referred to 
 Pope CUmem V. he gave Judgment for Rihe-rt, the )oungcr Son of Charlesy who 
 was thereupon crowned King oi Sicily. And for this rcafon it was tliat Earl j^oAw, 
 Brother to King Rtchmd the Firft, was declared King of E>iglaiid by the Eltates, 
 betbre Arthur Earl of Britain, Son of Geojfery the elder Brother : And Glanvil, who 
 was Lord Caief Jufticc under Hmvy the Second, in that little Treatife we have of 
 his, makes it a great qucftion who fliould be preferred to an Inheritance, the 
 Uncle or Nephew. 
 
 But as for Daughters, whether they (liall inherit at all or not, or at leaft be 
 preferred before their Uncles, i. much more doubtful ; fii.ce not o\\\y France, but 
 moft of the Kingdoms cf the Ei-.ft at this day, from I'urkey to Jtipu,t, do exclude 
 Women from the Throne : Ana it was likewife as much againft the grain of the 
 antient Northern Nations; andnence it is that we find no mention of any Queen 
 to ha\e reigned amongft the antient Germans or Irijh-Scots, and never but two 
 among tlie Engl/Jh-Saxons, and thofe by Murder or Ujhpation, and not, by Elsclion, 
 
 K a as
 
 68 BiBLioTHECA Politic A. 
 
 as they ought to have done. And upon this ground it was, that the Nobility and 
 People oi England put by Maud the Emprefs, and preferred Stephen Earl ot Bloii 
 to the Crown before her : For tho' he derived his Affinity to the Crown bv a 
 Woman, yet being a Man, he thought himfelf to be preferred before her. So 
 likewife in the Kingdom of Airagon, Mariana in his Hiftory tells us, that anticntly 
 the Brother of the King was to inherit before the Daughter. Examples may alfo 
 be given of di\ers of the other Inflances, but theie may fuffice. 
 
 M. I pray give me leave to interrupt you a little : For by thefe Examples you 
 would feem to infer, that thefe Laws about fettling the Succeilion of Crowns in 
 feveral Kingdoms depended upon the Will of the People ; whereas I may with 
 better reafon fuppofe, that if fnch Laws and Alterations have been in fuch Suc- 
 ceffions, they were made by the fole Will of the firft Princes, in wliich the Peo- 
 F. r. P. J 71. pie had no hand : For in the moll antient Monarchies there was a" Time, when 
 the People of all Countries were governed by the fole Wills of their Princes, which 
 by degrees came to be fo well known in Ibveral Inftances, that inferior Magif- 
 trates needed not refort to them in thofe cafes ,- and the People being for a con- 
 fiderable time accuftomed to fuch Ufages, they grew caly and familiar to them, 
 and fo were retained, tho' the Memory of thole Princes ivho hrft introduc'd tlicm 
 was loft ; and after Kings finding it better to continue what was fo received, 
 than to run the hazard and trouble of cnanging them, were, for their own cafe 
 and the good of their Subjefts, contented they Ihoiild be ftiU from Age to Age fo 
 continued. Whic'; Cuflom may hold as well in Laws about Succeffion as other 
 things ; and therefore we find that even in thofe Monarcliies, where the People 
 have nothing to do in making Laws, Women are excluded; which could proceed 
 at firft from nothing elfe but the declared Will or Law of the firft Monarchs. So 
 likewife the Original of the Salique Law is wholly afcribed to Pharamcnd, the 
 firft French King : And Mariana (whom you lately cited) tells us, that Alphnfo 
 King of Arragon made a Law, that where Heirs Male were wanting, the Sons of 
 a Daughter fliould be preferred before the Aunt ; which Law is wholly attri- 
 buted to the I^ng, for he adds prefently after : Sicfjcpe ad B.egum arbitrium jura 
 regnandi committamur. 
 
 F. Granting all this true that you have faid, you cannot but confefs, that the 
 Laws of God and Nature have eltabliftied nothing in this man:er, or elfe it could 
 not be in the power of Kings to make or alter Laws concerning the Succeflion, 
 as vour laft Qiiotation intimates they may : Yet e\ tn in the moll abfolute Mo- 
 narchies the Laivs about the Succeffion of the Crown muft wholly depend upon the 
 Confent of the People, who are to fee them obfcrved, or elfe every Monarchmight 
 alter thefe Laws of Succeflion at his pleafure ; and the Great Turk, or King of 
 France (now the Aflembly of the Eftates is loft) might leave the Crown to a 
 Daughter, if either of them pleafed, and dilinherit the next Heir Male. 
 
 But as for the Original of this Saltque Law in Frn:Ke, you'll find your felf much 
 
 miftaken, if you fuppofe, that that Law was made by the fole Authority of Pha.-^ 
 
 Vide ^Hoto- yamond ■ For the antient French Hiftories tell us, that the Body of Salique Laivf, 
 
 m.jt!. Fr.incc- ^rj^j^-^ are now extant, were made by tiie cotmnon Confent of the whole Nation of 
 
 i,ucaf.i. ^^^p.^yj^^^ ^^,j^Q committed the drawing of them up to three Judges or Commif- 
 
 fioners, and which Laws Pharamond did only confirm : And any one that will but 
 
 confult thofe Hiftories may fee, that Kings were fo far from having the fole Legif- 
 
 lative Power in their own hand, that they were frequently elected by the Eftates. 
 
 Nor is that truer which you cite from Mariana, that the Kings oi Arragon had 
 
 Poiuer alone to make Laws : It appears quite contrary from the Conftitutions of 
 
 that Kingdom, where the King could do nothing of this kind witliout the Con- 
 
 Jent of the Eftates, and was not admitted to the Crown without taking an Oath 
 
 to the Chief Jufticc in the Name of the People, that he would obferve the Laws 
 
 and Conftitutions of the Kingdom, othenvife that they would not be obliged to 
 
 obey him. 
 
 But at once to let you fee, that about the Succeflion of the Sons or Defcen- 
 dants by Daughters, the Cafes are much more nice and intricate ; and that when 
 P. N. M /. fuch Cafes happen in Innitcd' Monarchies, where there is an Ajjembly of Eftates, they 
 i^ are the fole Judges in fuch Diflerences, may appear by two famous Examples in 
 
 Vid. KeB. modern Hiftory .- The firft is in Scotland, about 400 Years ago, when after the 
 Beetl.L. DcSith oi' Kiv\g Alexander III. who died without Ifl'ue, when two or three feveral 
 Competicots claim'd a Right to the Crown, as defccnded from feveral Daughters 
 
 of 
 
 *.-
 
 * Dialogue the Second, '69 
 
 of Dai'id Earl of Huntington, great Uncle to the laft King, the chief of which being 
 7,/j;/ E.d:ol and Rcbert Bruce, tlic Ellates of the Kingdom not being able to decide 
 it, tlicy a£jrecd to refcr it to Edward I. King ot England, who adjiidgeli tlic 
 Crown to Balitl : Yet did not this put an end to this great Controverfy j'for nor 
 long after Baliol being dcpofed, Bruce revived his Title, and the States o( Scotland 
 declared him King, whole Pofterity enjoy it at this day. 
 
 A lil^c Cafe happened in the laft Age in Portugal, after the Death of King Henry, 
 firnamcd the Cardinal, without Illlie, when no lefs than four eminent Competitors 
 put in th'jir Claims; fomc claiming from the Daughters oi Don Duarte, joungcft ('/./. Mmam 
 Brother to the lail King Henrys but the King of Spain, and other Princes, as Sons ^/- ■^'^''• 
 to the Sifters of the faid King. Henry dying without UVuc, left ten Governors 
 over the Kingdom, to decide, togedicr with the Ellates, the Differences about 
 theSiiCceHion ; who qnarelling among themfch-cs, as alfo with the Eflatcs, before 
 it was decided, I-hilip II. King of Spain, railed an Army, and foon conquered Po- 
 ttigal : And yet we have fecn in his Grandfon's time, that tlie Eftares of Portugal 
 declared this Title void, and tiic Crown was fettled in the Pollcrity of the Duke 
 of Braganza, who ftill enjoy it. 
 
 And how much even Kings themfelves have attributed to the Authority of the ^- ^- ^^- ^^'' 
 Eftates in this matter, appears by the League made between Philip the Long, ^' '^' 
 King oi France, and David King oi Scot^, wherein this Condition was cxprefs'd : J' "'•'^* -<.'■•'>' 
 'That if there Jhould happen any Difference about the Succeifion tn either of thcje Realms, *"f V/,;/ j^'^" 
 he of the two Kings, which rema-.nid aliie, fiould not fuffer any to place himfelf on the l,„.„. 
 Throne, hut him "who fiould have the Judgment (f the Eilates on his fide ; and then he 
 jhould with all his Power oppofe him, who would after this contefl the Crown. To con- 
 clude, I cannot fee any means how, if fuch Differences as thefe had arifcn in the 
 firft Generation after Ada-m, I fay, how they could ever have been decided with- 
 out a Civil War, or elfj leaving the Judgment thereof to the Heads or Fathers of 
 Families, that were then in being : Which how much it would have differed from 
 the Judgment or Declaration of the States of a Kingdom at this day, I leave to 
 your felf to judge. 
 
 M. I ffiail not trouble my k\i to determine how far Princes may tie up their 
 own hands in this matter of tlie Succeffion, and leave it to the States of the King- 
 dom to limit or determine of it ; but from the Beginning it was not fo ; and 
 therefore give me leave to trace this Paternal Government a little farther : For F. P. 0. j 7. 
 tho" I grant, tliat when Jacob and his twelve Sons went into Egypt, together with 
 their Families, they exercifed a Supreme Patriarchal Jurifdicl:ion, which was in- 
 termitted, bccar.fe they were in fubjedion to a ftronger Prince ; yet after the 
 Return of thefe Ifaelites out of Bondage, God from a fpccial Care of them chofe 
 Mofes and Jofhua fucceffn ely to go\"ern as Priixes, in the place and flead of the 
 fuprcme Fathers ; and after them likewife for a time he raifed up Judges, to de- 
 fend his People in time of Peril. Yet that all thefe were endued witli Regal Au- 
 thority, may appear, in that Mafs is called in Deuteronoiny, a King in Jejhurun, Djtit. 55. f. 
 (that is, over Ifrael.) And when Mvfes faw that he was to die, he befought God, B-P-^- <> 55- 
 to fet a Man over the Congregation, that the Congregation of the Lord be not as Sheep which ^'""''- ^7- 
 have no Shepherd. And as for the Judges, it is apparent from the Book that bears ' ' ''' 
 their Name, that they had Power of making Peace and War, and of judging in 
 all Cafes of Appeal ; infomuch that whofocvcr would not hearken to the Prieft, d.:i,:. 17. h, 
 or to the Judge, even that Alanjhonld die. But when God gave the Ifraelitcs Kings— 1 :• 
 
 F. 1 pray give mc leave to interrupt you a little, for I have a great deal to fay 
 againft your Notion of the Government of the Ifaelites before they had Kings 
 actually nominated by God ; for notwitliAanding all you have faiii, it doth not 
 appear to mc, tliat either Mofes, Jojhiia, or the Judges, were any more than figu- 
 ratively or in a larger Scnle to be ffiled Kings : For as for Mujei's bemg called 
 King in Jejhurun, lie only calls himfelf fo Poetically, in that excellent Hjmn of 
 Blefling, which he bclloweth upon the twelve Tribes : For certainly God did not 
 fuppofe him to have been a King, when in Deut. 17. 14. he fpeaks of the Children 
 of Jfrael fctting a King over them, as a thing that was to happen many Years 
 alter, and there lays down Rules how he fliould govern iiim.llf, wliich liad been 
 ncedlefs, if they iiad had a King already. And tiuzALfs was not a King, J^fe- 
 phus himfelf fficws us in his Antiquities, lib. 4. where he makes Mofes to have in- 
 ftrufted the Children of Ifrael at the time of iiis Death to this purpofe : Arijiocracy 
 is the beft Form of Government, and the Life that is ltd under it tk- nwjl happy ; and 
 
 there-
 
 70' BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 therefore let mt the defiye of any other fo;t of GoverujiHr.t take pf:Jje[ficK of yon, oirning w- 
 other Mafter than the Laws, a>:d doing every thing according to it : For God is year Kingy 
 and that is fiifficient for you. Aiid ii Mtfes was no King, then certainly ^'o/^w^ was 
 none neitlKT. 
 
 M. Pray give me leave to anfwer what yon have now faid againft the Kingly 
 JB. f. P- Power of Mi/^j and ^'o/jK^ : For it you will pleafe to remember, that tho' the »S"<i«- 
 Sea. 36. ijcdrim had been conitituted before this time, yet Mofes eileemed them as Sheep 
 without a Shepherd, if a Man was not fetovcr them which might go out before 
 them, and which might lead them out, and bring them in ; and God approved 
 his Deiires, and appointed Jojlma to fucceed him, and the People recei\ed him' 
 Jolli. 1. 16, accordingly, and told him : All that thou commandefl m zee -will do, and uhitherfoe%-er 
 !?• thou fendejl us we 'vciU go : according cu ue hearkened unto Mofes in all things,, fo will we 
 
 hearken unto thee. If this were nor Kingly Power, then is there no fuch tiling. So 
 that this Difcourfe, which fofcphtK puts into Mofes's Mouth, feems direftly con- 
 trary to Alufes's Thoughts and Praftice. And w hereas he makes Mofes to have 
 oppofed Obedience to the Laws to Kingly Government, it is a pure Greek Notion : 
 For whilft the Grecians lived under Kings, they had tew or no Laws ; but when 
 they fet up Commonwealths, they then found the Neceffity of having Laws, and 
 then the Dominion of La-xs was oppofed to the GovenirKeut of Princes : But this 
 was contrary to the Practice of Jfrael ; for they were to live according to their 
 Laws, as well under Kings as without them, in all Eftates and Conditions; and 
 their Kings were bound to govern them by the l.azu, and not by xheit Wills con- 
 trary to the Lavj. So that in this fofphm clearly made the antient Cuftoms of 
 his Country to comply with a Greek Notion, that had no being for fome hundreds 
 of Years after Mofes was dead. 
 
 And as for the Time of the Judges, e.ven in the Intervals between them, when 
 every one did that wdiich w'as right in his own eyes, even then the Ifraelites were 
 under the Kingly Government of the Fathers of the particular Families, over 
 whom the Prince or Head of it had Ukewife a fupreme Power. 
 
 jF. But pray give me leave to fpeak a little farther : Let me ask you, what is 
 zxv Ariflocracy, if this be not } toz,, an Afl'embly of the Elders, or chief Fathers of 
 Families of each Tribe, meeting, confulting, and refolving of the publick Aftairs 
 of the Commonwealth, under their Head or Prefident, the Chief of the Tribe. 
 And this is the Government for which Jcfephm makes Samuel fo much afRidted, 
 when the People would quit it for a Monarchy. 
 
 M- I think you are much millaken in this point ; for it is no where declared, 
 that thefe Fathers of Families governed their own Families independently; for 
 E. P.P. f 31. then there would have been no publick Government at all : Nor yet is it faid, 
 that thefe Fathers governed by Majority of Voices chofen out of themfelvcs ; for 
 then, I grant, it would have been a Democracy .■ Nor yet doth it appear, that a 
 few of the better fort of Fathers of every Tribe governed it by a Council and Ma- 
 giftrates, or that there was fuch Council of the feveral Tribes ; but on the contrary, 
 every Tribe was governed by the Prince or Head of it ; and thefe Princes Mnfen 
 calls, the Heads of the Houfe of their Fathers, in Numb. 7. 2. and who were over 
 Ver. li. 18. thole that were numbered and made their Offerings. And Mcfe^ tells us particu- 
 larly what every Man's Name was ; as, Naflion the Son of Aminadab, of the Title 
 cf Judah ; and Nathaniel the Son of Zuar, Prince of Llachar, &c. Now if there 
 was in thofe days any Government at all in Ifrael, then were thefe Princes the 
 Governors of tlie feveral Tribes, and fo every Tribe vs-as under a Monarch, tho* 
 the whole State of Ifrael was not under any one Perfon, or conflant ftanding Coun- 
 cil, and confequently was aSyftem of little Monarcliies. 
 
 F. I am not at all better fatisfied with your laft Reply : For in the firft place 
 I have Jcfephm on my fide, who muft needs know w-hat the Government of his 
 Country had been, better than you or I ; and lie exprcfly calls it an Arifiocracyy 
 in which the Judge (when there was one) was only in the nature of a General 
 or Scadtholder, to whom the lall Appeal was to be made in all Caufes : And it is 
 alfo as plain, that neither Mofes, 'jojhua, nor the Judges, had ALnarchical Autho- 
 rity : For tho' it be true, tiie two Hrft could make 11 ar and Peace, yet this was 
 alfo with the Confent of the Princes of the Congregation, as plainly appears by the 
 Jofh. 9. Story of the Peace made with the Gibecnites, which the Princes of the Congregation 
 confirm d by anO.ith. Neither could they raife T'axes upon the People, or take any 
 I Sam. 1. 3. tiling fro"i t^'Cm without their Confem ; and therefore Samuel appeals to them, hew 
 
 little
 
 Dialogue the Second. 71 
 
 little he had opprefs'd them, IVhofeOx or u^hofe Jfs have I taken ? "whom hav? I de^ 
 frauded? ivhom have I npprefs'd^ Neither could they, nor the Judges their Siiccef- 
 fors, make any nev^La-xs for the People j God lumlelf being their King and Legif- 
 lator : And tiierefore what you urge as to the Regal Power cf Mja and 'Jhjkua, 
 after the Saiibedrim had been conltituted, amounts to no more, but that both of 
 them were Heads, or Captains of the People, to lead them out to War, and bring 
 them back again, which is exprefs'd by going in and out before them ; a:ui their 
 Obedience to their Military Orders, as alio to fuch things which God hath cx- 
 prelly commanded, is underftood by thefc Words : All that thou conmiandefi m, ue 
 •aiU do ; a;:d ~d;hitJ}e,fiezey thou fviidejt m, -xe will go : Yet {till this was with refpeft 
 to their obtaining the Land of Canaan ; for otherwife, if either Mofes or Jojhua 
 ftiouid have gone about of their own heads to have led them again into Egyft, I 
 fuppofe you will not lay, the Ifi-aelhes were bound either to have followed them, 
 or fubmitted to them ; but rather might have refilled them in fuch cafe. 
 
 And therefore Jnfephfn's Speech, which he makes Mifes to deliver, is net fo 
 ridiculous as you are pleafed to make it : For the Laws here mentioned by him, 
 and here fet in oppofition to Monarchy, were not fuch Laws as were made by 
 tiie Geeck Commonwealth, as you fuppofe, but the Law given from God by his 
 hand ; and thefe he might well think were fufficienr, with fuch Power as he and 
 yofhua^ enjoyed, without having any recourfe to a humane Monarchical Govern- 
 ment, fince God himfelf was their King : And as for the Judges that fucceeded 
 them, they had much lefs Power than either Mofes or Jojbua ; lince it is apparent 
 by the Story of Ddorah and Barak, Judges the 4th, who were the Princes or Ge- 
 nerals of the Tribes of ZeLulun and Naphtali, that they had no Power to force the 
 People to go out to fight againft the Omaanites, whether they would or no. And 
 therefore you will find in the npxt Chapter, in the Song of Vid:ory which they 
 fung, that many of the Tribes came not into their ailiftance ; therefore it is there 
 {aid. That /or the Druijions of Reuben there vcere great thoughts of heart ; and there- 
 fore they ask, H^hy abidefi thou ainong the Sheepfolds ? &cc. And preDntly after it is 
 faid, Gilead al>ode beyond Jordan : and n^hy did Dan remain in the Ships ? After con- 
 tixmed on the Sea-jhore, and abode in hrs Breaches. And fo they conclude v/ith, Curfe 
 ye Meroz, curfe ye bitterly the Inhabitants thereof, becauje they cAme not to the help of the 
 Lord againfl the -mighty. 
 
 : So that.I amperfuaded it was the want of this Power in the Judges of making 
 Laws, of impofing Tributes or Taxes, and of forcmg Men to ferve in the Wars 
 as^^inft their Enemies (which they did before only as Volunteers) that made the 
 ' ifraelttes the more defirous to have a King over them, likethofe of other Nations, 
 who were endued with thefe Prerogatives. And therefore the befl Commenta- 
 tors do interpret the Predidion cf Samuel concerning the manner of the King that i Sam. S. 11, 
 JhouJd reign over them, and uould take their Sons for his Chariots and Ins Hotfemen, and '*• 
 M he Captains over thoufandf, &c. to relate to his Royal Poiver of enrolling, and making 
 themjerue in his Army, either as Officers or Soldiers, and the taking of their Fields 
 and their Vineyards, and the Tenth of their Seeds, &c. to give his Officers and 
 Servants ; to iignify no more than his Power of impofing publick Tribute, and 
 Impoficions on the People, to maintain his Royal Splendor, and the NecefTities 
 of the State, as other neighbouring Kings were wont to do ; all which the^ not 
 being ufed to before, they ftould cry unto the Lord by reafon of them, as a 
 great OppreiTion : And that Saul, when he came to be King, ufed this Preroga- 
 tive, of forcing the People to come and ferve in the War, in a higher manner 
 than Samuel or the Judges had done before, appears by the nth Chapter of this 
 Book, wlien Nahafi the Ammontte came to make War againft fabefi : Saul took a 
 Take of Oxen, and heived them in pieces, and fent them throughout all ttie Coafls of Ifrad 
 by the hands of Meffengers, faying, IVhofoevcr cometh not f nth after Saul, and after Sa* 
 nxuei, fo Jhall it be. done unto his Oxen : And the Fear of the Lord fell on the People, dhi 
 they came out nith one Cunfent. 
 
 And it feems evident to me, tiut the Potaer, which Sa!nuel had before the Chil- 
 dren of Ifrael dclired a King, was not Monarchical, but mix'd of Anflocracy and 
 Monarchy together, in which Samuel is Judge had a Judicial Authority, and like- 
 wife a Supreme Military Power of leading them out to War againft the Phliflines 
 and other Enemies j and yet notwithftanding, the Supreme Povxr, in all other 
 things, remained wholly in the principal Head* or Fathers of the Tribes, which 
 whether they were choicn by the People, or enjoyed it by Right of Inheritance, 
 
 Icoa-
 
 72 BiBLioTHECA Politic A. 
 
 
 I confefs the Scriprure is filent ; and therefore I am not at all fatisfied with your 
 Notion, that the Government oF thefc People, when they had no Judges, con- 
 fided of twelve petty Monarchies, tinder the Heads or Princes of the Tribes; 
 for there is no Authority in Scripture to countenance any fuch Opinion, tlic place 
 you bring for it out of the firft and feventh of Numbers not at all proving it. 
 For, though I grant there were twelve Princes of the Tribes, whofe Names are 
 there fet down, and who are called Heads of the Houfes of their Fathers, yet 
 is it no where faid, that thefe were endued with Civil Power, or were chief 
 Rulers over the Tribes ; for it is apparent all Civil Power remained then in A/o/ti- 
 and the Sanhedrim, who under him decided all Controverlies : So that it is moft 
 natural to fuppofe, that thefe Heads of the Tribes were not Civil Magiftrates, 
 but the Military Leaders, or Captains of each Tribe, when they went out to 
 War, and are the fame, who, in this Chapter, are called the renowned of the 
 Congregation, &c. and Heads of the Thoufands of Jfrael. 
 
 Nor doth it follow, that becaufe there were fuch Officers in Mofes's Time, 
 that they muft continue the fame under the Judges, after fo many Slaveries and 
 Oppreflions that this People had undergone ; or that if they did flill continue, 
 that their Power was Monarchical ; or that they could do any thing without 
 the Confent of the Heads, or Fathers of Families of each Tribe, in whom I fup- 
 pofe the Supreme Authority was in the Intervals of the Judges : And therefore 
 we find in the ninth of Judges, that the Men of Shechem, and all the Hcufe of Milla 
 made Abimelech King ; that is, not over all the Tribes of Ifrael, but over Ephaim 
 and half Mamffes only, which is to be underftood hy Jfrael in this Chapter ; 
 •where it is faid, wr. i8. by Jotham the Son of Gidmi, fpeaking to the Men of 
 Shechem, 'That they had made Abimelech, the Son of a Alaid Servant, King over the Men 
 of Shechem, becaufe he is your Brother. 
 
 So likewife after Abimelech was dead, the Children of Ammon made War againfl 
 the Children of Ifrael, as appears by the tenth of Judges ; and they encamped in 
 Cilead, which was a Country on the other fide of Jordan, which was inhabited by 
 the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the other half of Manaffes, who by themfclves 
 confulted for their own Safety ; for it is faid in the laft Verfe of this Chapter, 
 And the People and Princes of Gi lead faid one to another. What Man is he that ix.iU he- 
 gin to fight againfl the Children of Ajnmon ? He fliall be Head cier all the Inhabitants of 
 Gilead. From which Aflembiy and Confultation it plainly appears, that they 
 looked upon themfeves to have a Right of fetting a Prince or Head over them, 
 diftinct from the reft of the Tribes of Ifrael : And in the next Chapter you will 
 find, that Jephthah was made Prince, or Judge by the Elders oi Gilead. And thb' 
 it is faid that Jephthah went with the Elders oi Gilead, and that the People made 
 him Head and Captain over them, yet that can't be meant of all Ifael, but only 
 of the two Tribes and a half, which inhabited the Land of Gilead ; for we find. 
 Chapter the 1 2th, the Men of Ephram making War upon Jephthah, becaufe he had 
 not called them out to fight againll the Ammonites ; and you will find, verfe the 
 4th, that Jephthah gathered tngcther the Men of Gilead, and fought with Ephraim, and 
 that the Men of Gilead fmote Ephraim. In all which Story it appears, there was 
 none concerned in this VV^ar but the Gileadnes only ; tliat is, thofe Tribes that 
 inhabited that Region. 
 
 I have likewife another Authority for this feparate Power of each Tribe, when 
 there was no common Judge over them j as may appear from the Story of the 
 Danites in the 1 8th Chapter, who wanting a Country to dwell in, it is there 
 faid the Children of Dan fent five Men of their Family to fpy out a Country for 
 them ; which thing could not be done without an Alicmbly of the Chief of the 
 whole Tribe : Neither is there any mention in all this Story of any fuch Chief, 
 or Prince of the Tribe, as you fuppofe, only that dx luindrcd Men went by com-^ 
 mon Confent, who made VVar, and conquered the City and Country of La:Jht . 
 which they called Dan. 
 
 But that all the Children of Ifrael, during the Intervals of the Judges, did 
 meet in one common Council or Alfembly, upon any great Accident or Emer- 
 gency, appears by the 20th Chapter of this Piook of JudgCi ; where, after the 
 Rape and Murder committed upon the Levite's Wife, it is faid in the two firft 
 Verfcs ; Then aU the Children of Ifrael vcent out, and the Congregation vuii gathe) ed tOr' 
 gether m one Man, from Dan even to Eeerjheba, with the Land of Gilead, umo the Loid 
 in Miz-peh. And the Chief of all the People, even of all the Trihs of Ifrael, prefented 
 
 them~
 
 Dialogue the Second. 75 
 
 themfehe.' in the JJfeu^bl) of the People of God, four hundred thvufand Footmen that d,ivi 
 S-wmd: Who being thus met, the Lmte, the Htuband of the Woman that v.ai flaWy 
 having to!d the:n tiis Scory, concludes chus ; Behold ye are all Children of Ifrael, giie 
 here your Ad-vice and Cvinifel ; and the Reiiilc is, Ali the Peoflearcfeai one Man, fay 
 ing, M'e wiH net a,iy of us go to his Tent, neither will u-e any of m turn into bis Houfe, &c. 
 Now if this were r.ot as Democratical an Airemb!}-, as you can any where meet 
 with in cither the Reman or Greek Hiftorics, I leave it to you your felf to judge; 
 though I grant the chief of the People, or Tribes of Ifrael,, might prcfide in it. 
 To cor.cl.'dc ; I think I may with very great Reafon maintain with Jvfplmi, 
 that the Government of the Tribes of Ifael was Ariftocratical before their 
 fetting a King over them : For had Samuel been endued with an abfolute Mo- 
 narchical Power (as you fuppofvj it had been a very needlefs Requeft of the 
 Children cf Ifael, to ask him lo mal.e them a King to judge them, as other 
 Nations. 
 
 M. You have made a very long (I had ahnoft faid a tedious) Difcourfe to 
 prove, that the Government of the Children of Ifad was not Monarchical 
 before the Time of &«/ : And though I cannot now well remember all the ^■^- ""•-•$ i* 
 Particulars of your Difcourfe, yet this m.uch I can garlier from it, that you are 
 fain to confefs, that during the Intervals of the Judges, avdii'hen there -ivai no King jai^c.zi. i6, 
 in Ifrael, but that every Man did that uhich zi-oi right in his own Eyes : Even then 
 the IJraelitet were under the Kingly Governtnent of the Fathers of particular 
 Families : For in the Confultation after the Benjamitical War, you mentioned, 
 for providing Wives for the B:njamites,wc find the Elders of the Congregation 
 bore the only fway : To them alfo were Ccmplaints to be made, as appears by 
 Verfe iz. And though mention be made of all the Children oj Ifael, all the Ccn- 
 gregaticn, aid all the People ; yet by the Term of all, the Scripture means only 
 all the Fathers, and not all the whole Multitude, as the Text plainly expounds 
 it felf, in the fccond of Chronicles, where Sokinon fpealis unto all IJyael, I'/z.. toVer. i. s. 
 the Captains, the Judges, and to every Governor, the Chief of the Fathers : So iX'/>/^.S.i2. 
 the Elders of Ifrael are expounded to be the Chief of the Fathers of the Chil- 2 Chroi:. 5. 2. 
 dren of Ifr.,el. 
 
 But I am lefs edified with your Notion, in making any of the Tribes to have 
 fet a Judge, or Captain over themfelvcs diflinft from the reft of the Tribes of 
 Ifrael. For the Example yoa quote of Abimelech makes direflly againil you ; it 
 being faid, Verfe 2 2d of that Chapter, that Abimelech reigned thee Tears ever 
 Ifrael; and in the next Chapter it is faid, there arofe to defend Ifrael, 'Tola the 
 Son of Puah ; and that he judged Ifrael, that is, all the twelve Tribes, twenty 
 Years : And if Gideon, the Father of Abimelech, was Judge over all Ifrael, as it 
 appears by the Story he was, it will likewife follow, that Abiyuekih jus Son fuc- 
 cceded (though by Force and Murder) into the fame Power. It is likewife as 
 plain, (r.otwithftanding wliat you have faid to the contrary) that the Elders ot 
 Gilead did not alone make Jcplnhuh their Head or Captain. For tiiough I grant 
 yephthah tells them, that it nc fought, and delivered them from the Ciiildren of 
 Ammon, that he would be their Head ; yet it is plain by the ixth Verfe of that 
 Chapter, tiiat fephthah 'dieiit with the Elders of Gilead, and it iias the People (viz,, of 
 all Jfrael) made him Head a,id Captain over them ; and it appears, that ^:phthah ut- 
 te-red all thcfe Words bejore the Lo,d in ALz,peh ; where it appears by the 17th 
 Vcrle of tlie former Chapter, the Children of Ifael v.'cre tlien air(.mbkd and in- 
 camped. 
 
 Nor am I yet fatisfied, but that though Cod, out cf a fpecial Love and Care 
 to the Floufe Ifael, did chuf. to be tlieir King himfelf, yet did he govern them 
 at that time by his Vice-Roy Sa/miel, and iiis Sons : And therefore God tells 
 Samuel, Ihcy have not rejef}ed thee, but me, that I fiould net reign over them. It feems 
 they did not like a King by Deputation, but delircd one by Succeflion, like all 
 tiie Nitio. s. All Nations belike had Kings then, and thofe by hbci-itance, not 
 by Ele^tcn ; for we don't find the Ifadites prayed that they themfelvcs might 
 chufc their own King: They dreamt of no facli Liberty, and yet they were the 
 Elders of Ifael gathered together. If other >-'ations had elected their own Kings, 
 no doubt but they would have been as defirous to have imitated other Nations, 
 as well in the cleiiiting, as in the having a King : And therefore I am fure there 
 is nothing to be found in Scripture that countenances vom Notion of tlie Peoples 
 having a right 10 elctl their own King. But this onlvbvthc by. 
 
 L ■ ' But
 
 "74 BiBLioTHECA Politic A. 
 
 r.p.i. 1. .-. Bat to profecute the Matter in hand : VV^heii God gave the If,aelites Kings, hef 
 rc-eflablifh'd the ancient, and prime Right ot Lineal Siiccc.Tion to Paternal Go- 
 vernment. And whenfoever he made choice of any fpecial Perfon to be King, he 
 intended that the Iflue alfo fhould have benefit thereof, as being comprehended 
 fuiiiciently in the Perfon of the Father, although tlie Father cnly was named 
 in the Grant. Which Lineal Right of Succellion continued in the Family of 
 Dirjid until fiich time as his SuccelVor<;, by their Idolatry, fo far provoked God's 
 Anger as to deliver them up to the King oi Bub)lcii, under whofe, and his Sue- 
 cefl'ors Power, they, and their Pollerity, continued Subjeds for many Ages. 
 
 F. I ftiall not difpute any farther with } ou (lince I fee 'tis to no purpofe) con- 
 cerning the Government of the Ifraelites, whether it was Monarciiical or Arifto- 
 cratical before the Reign of Saul ; nor yet ftall I poficivcly ailcrt, that Abime- 
 kihoT '^cphthah, and other of the Judges, were Rulers of feme pi-.rticular Tribes 
 Vi(f. Jjhan. Q,jiy_ Y(.f ygry learned Men are of this Opinion, lince they can find no other 
 ChnTc'ap. ^'^'^J'' ^"'- ^y ^ Synchronifm in the Times of the Judges, as alfo of the Years of 
 5c<F/ii.M9i,Reft, and Servitude, as may appear from Judges lo. ver. 6, 8. compared with 
 25)2, tic z()7,. Judge! 13. I, to reconcile that great Difference that will be found in the facred 
 Chronology, from the Time of the Children of lj,ael's coming out of Eg)pt, to 
 tlie fourth Year of Sokmm, in which the Temple was begun to be built, which 
 doth amount to four hundred and eighty Years ; whereas, ii yoa pleafe to take 
 I Kings 6. I. the pains to caft up the Years from the Children of Ifrael's coming out of Egypty 
 to the beginning of Saul's Reign, according to the common Account of the Years 
 of the Judges, reckoned with the Reigns oi Saul, s^nd David, to that time, &c. 
 it will amount to 600 Years, which is more by 120 Years than all the time from 
 the faid Epocha to the fourth Year of Solomon taken altogether. 
 
 Bat as tor the feveral Tribes alone confulting and ordering their own AiFairs, 
 it is fo plain, from the Examples of the People, and Princes of Gtlead, as alfo 
 from that of the Daijjtes, that you have nothing to objeft againft it. And fo 
 likewife in the Inftance of all the Children of Ifrael meeting and confulting whac 
 to do with the Beiijamttes ; where, lince you cannot deny the Alatter of Fact, you 
 have no way to evade it, but by fuppoiing I know not what Kingly Autho- 
 rity in the Fathers of particular Families, whom you do fuppofe to have then 
 bore the only fway ; becaufe it is faid, in that Chapter you quoted, that in the 
 Confultation af:er this War, the Elders of the Congregation propofed it to them, 
 faying. How Jhall ue do fa- IVivesfor the7n that remain, feeing the IVomen are dejiroyed 
 cut of Benjamin ? And then follows the Refult of the Congregation in the next 
 Verfe ; And they faid (luz.. all the Congregation agreed) that there mu/l be ait Itf 
 herttance for them that be efcaped out of Benjamin, &c. all which amounts to no more 
 than what I granted at firif, that the Heads, or Elders of the Tribes prefided in 
 this Aifembly, and put the Queftion to them : Which is foneceilary in all great 
 Aflemblies, that without fuch Officers they cannot come to any Reiblution ,• and 
 therefore you fliould do well to prove the Monarchical Power of thefe Elders 
 by feme better Authority than this Text. 
 
 But if the Judges had Monarchical Power, as you fuppofe, notwithftanding 
 all you have faid againft the Peoples electing them, it plainly appears, by the 
 Examples of Abimelech and Jephth.ih, that the People did often eleft a Judge, 
 or Captain over them, witliout any Nomination by, or Infpiration from 
 God. 
 
 But to return to that which is mofl material : Your fuppofed Reflauration of 
 Patriarchal Gc^jernment under Mcfes and JoJIjua, after the Ifraelites returned from 
 the Egyptian pondage, I cannot but here by the way take notice, that the Truth 
 will fometimes ihp from you before you are aware : For ii it be true wliat you 
 at firfl aflerted,' at our laft Meeting, T'hat a Servant, cr Slave, and a Subject, u'«e 
 all one at the fir ft ; and alfo that all Alonarchs are endued -with Fatherly Pouer ; then if 
 Pharaoh was a Monarch, the Children of Ij'rael were not, according to your 
 Principle, brought into Bondage by Pharaoh, but they were only adopted into another 
 Fatherly Power. But } ou fhould ha\'e done well to luA-e fhewn more clearly than 
 you have hitherto done, that tliis Patrianhal Jurildiclion was exercifed by Abra- 
 h.im, Ijaac or Jacob before the Defcent into Egypt, lince all the Inflances you have 
 yet given of fuch a Power, have proved very unlucky. For though I read- \xi 
 Acii -j. 9. St. Stephen s Speech in the AEls, that the Patriarchs moved with Envy fold J of eph into 
 Egypt ; yet is it no where mentioned, (nor I believe will you your felf afHrm) 
 
 that
 
 Dialogue the Secmtd. 75* 
 
 that thefe Patriarchs ever had z Monarchical Po-wer. For 'til] Jacodwint'into Eg)pt, 
 that Power was folcly in hjm, according to your Principles ; and after that in 
 Pharach as King of Egypt : So that thougli I can find the Word Pat.iarcb ("but 
 once) in Scripture, }er I can fee no ground for your Patriarchal Authority, or 
 ^imfditlion; and therctore that could futicr no LuermilTion, which ;Kverhadany 
 beginning in Nature. 
 
 liut after this you tell me, that God chofc M('fef, and J oflu a (uccz^ixdy to go- 
 vern as Princes, m the place or' thole Supreme Fathers, or Patriarchs ; ;vhich is 
 cafily, I coni-e(s, afiirmed, only it wants Proof : For thougii you endeavour to 
 to piove that all Paternal Ptmer was Regal, yet it inll remains unproved that all 
 Regal Poller is Patcri-.al. It is true, that God did appoint Mcfes and ^cjhia tO 
 be the Rulers of his People under him ; but that doth not at all make out that 
 they fucceeded in the itead of Supreme Fathers, much lefs that they fuccceded 
 as Heirs, or Succelforr, to tiie Patriarchal Povser of Adam. For Mofes and 'Jojhua 
 being chofcn by God to be Rulers of his People, will no more prove, that Go- T.T.G.y.oi. 
 vcrnment belonged to Adam's Heir, as to his Fatherhood, than God's chufing 
 Aarvn, of the Tribe ci Lrui, to be Prielf, will prove that the Prieflhood be- 
 longed to y?rt'rt7«'s Heir, or the prime Fathers, lince God could chufc Aaronxohc 
 Priefl, and MJa Ruler over Ifrael^ though neitlier of thofe Offices were ever fet- 
 tled on Adam's Heir, or the hrfl: Patriarchs. So liUewifc for what you lay con- 
 cerning God's railing up the Judges to defend his People, proves Fatherly Autho- 
 rity to be the Original of Government jull after the fame rate ; and tannot God 
 raife up fuch Men, unlcfs Paternal Poiier give a Title to their Government ? 
 
 But to come to your darling Inflance, the giving of the Ifraelnes Kings, where- 
 by you fuppofe God re-cRablilh'd the antient prime Right of Lineal Succedion 
 to Paternal Government. This I can by no means underftand 5 for il by Lineal 
 Succeflion, you mean to Adam, I defire to know how you will make it out, that 
 cither iiaul, or Duvid co\x\A be Heirs of Ada7ns Power ? or how the Power that 
 thofe Kings v/ere endued with by God, was the fiiine Power which Abraham, 
 Ifaacy 2iX\A. Jacd ei-joyed before. For if you pleafc to confider it, your Hypo- 
 thclis conlilts of two Propolitions : The firll is, that all Paternal Poxier is the fame 
 with Regal Poxier ; whicii if it be proved not to be true, the other convertible 
 Prbpolition, vtz.. that all Regal Pozier is Paternal, will lilcewife be as falfe. 
 Ivor is what you faid lall of all any truer than the reft, that whenfoever God 
 made choice of any Perfon to be King, he intended that the IlVue (I fuppofe you 
 mean his Ili'ue) Ihoald have the benefit thereof : For either Alifes, z.ndjojhua, and. 
 the Judges, were no Kings, (though you have aflerted the former to be fo) or 
 elk they had nor the benefit of this Grant. But certainly Saul was a King, and 
 yet his iliue never iliccceded. But you fpeak very warily to fuppofe this Grant 
 to be made to the Iifue in general, without fpecifying in particular who fhouUl 
 enjoy it ; becaufe I fuppofe you are fenlible, that Solomon, v^hom God exprefiy 
 appointed to be David's Sutctllbri and Jehoahaz, whom the People of the Land iClro/i.iS.i, 
 made King iu the room of Jojiab, were neither of them eideft Sons of the Kings 
 their Fathers. To conclude, I deiire you would flicw me what Relation or Title 
 all Kings, or Princes now a-days have, or can claim as Heirs to Adam, or Noah; 
 or how that Power with which God endued thofe Fathers of Mankind, is the 
 fame which you fay all Princes, or Monarchs, may now claim to be given them 
 by God : P"or, I confcfs, I can fee no Relation at all between them. 
 
 M. It may indeed fcem abfurd to maintain, that Kings now are the Fatliers 
 of their People, fince Expcriei;ce fhcws the contrary. It is true, all Kings are nor Y. P. ^ 8. 
 the natural Parents of their Subje(^ts, yet they all either are, or are to be reputed 
 the next Heirs to thofe firft Progenitors, who were at firft the natural Parents 
 of the whole People, and in their Right fucceed to the Kxercifc of Supreme 
 Jurifdidion ; and fuch Heirs are not only Lords of their own Children, but alfo 
 of their Brethren, and all others that were fijbjed to tlieir Fathers. And the' 
 1 have all along luppofed, that Patemnl Government was at Hrif Mor/archical, yet I 
 xnuil likewife gr.i'.r, that when the World was rcplcniflied with People, that this 
 Paternal Government by Succejjion ccafed, and a new kind of it ilarted up either r.D.O.f.f^?' 
 by Ekdion, Conrjitejl, or UJurpation; yet this was llill Paternal Power, which can 
 never be loft, or ccafe, thougli it may be transferred, or ufurpcd ; or it may 
 be ordained anew in a Perfon who otherwife had no Right to it before. Thus 
 
 L 2 God,
 
 7^ BiBLioTHECA Politic A. 
 
 . God, v.ho is the giver of all Power, may transfer it from the Father to the Son, 
 as he gave Saul a Fatherly Power over his Fatlier Krjk. 
 Ibid. p. 70. So that all Power on Earth is either derived or ufurped from the Fatherly Power, 
 there being no Original to be found of any otlier Power whatfocver ; for if there 
 ftould be granted two forts of Power without any Subordination of one to the 
 other, they would be in perpetual ftrife wliich fhould be Supreme, for two Su- 
 premes cannot agree ,• if the Fatherly Power be Supreme, tlien the Power cf the 
 People muft be Subordinate, and depend on it ; if the Power of the People be 
 Supreme, then the Fatherly Power muft fubmit to it, and cannot be exercifed 
 ■without the Licence of tlie People, which muft quite deftroy the frame and 
 courfe of Nature. 
 
 F. If this be all you have to fay for the Proof of fo weighty an Hypothefis, 
 I confefs I wonder how you, or any rational Man can lay fo great ftrefs upon it : 
 For though I fliould grant \ou, that fome Fathers of Families at lirft became, by' 
 the tacit or exprefs Con/eat of their Children and Dcfcendants, to be Kings or 
 Princes over tlicm ; doth it therefore follow, that all Kings govern by Right of 
 Fatherlmd at this Day. 
 
 'Tis true you tell me, tliat all Kings, though they are net now the natural Fathers 
 of their People, yet are ftiil to be ejieemed as fuch by than, as fuaeedmg either as HeirSy 
 or Succeffofrs to thofe that uere fo. I grant indeed, if any Kings now adays could 
 pro\e themfelves right Heirs to Adam or Noah, this were fomewhat to the pur- 
 pofe ; but to talk of a Paternal Power, proceeding from Election, Conqueft, or 
 Ufurpation, is perfed "Jaygm to me ; for pray tell me, can a Man become en- 
 dued with Paternal Power over me, by my Electing him to be my King.> Or can 
 a Man, by Conqueft or Ufurpation, oblige me to yield him a Filial Duty, and 
 Obedience ? For if this were {o, if a Father of a feparate Family (fuch as Abra- 
 ham was) fhould be conquered by the Head of another feparate Family, nay 
 though he were a Thief or a Robber, if once the true Father were killed or de- 
 ftroy ed, all the Children and Defendants of the Family muft pay the fame Du- 
 ty and Obedience to this unjuft Conqueror or Robber, as to their true Father: 
 And the fame may be faid in Ufurpations, in cafe after the Death of fuch a Fa- 
 ther of a Family, a younger Brother or Nephew fliould get Pofl'eflion of the 
 Houfe and Eftate, and force all his Brethren and Kinfmen to fubmit to him, 
 they muft then all own him to be ei.dued by God with the fame Paternal Power, 
 which their Father or Grand-father had ; and confequently muft Honour and 
 Obey him as their true Father : Both which Examples, being contrary to the 
 common Scnfe and Reafon of Mankind, may fiiew you, how.abfuxd this Hyf(y 
 thejis is ; whereas indeed, Fatherhood being a Relation of Blood, the Duty and 
 Refpeft we owe to our Father, proceeding from that Piety and Gratitude we 
 owe him, both for om Generation and Education, how can this Relation, or thefe 
 Obligations be ever transferred to, or ufurped by another ; fo that any other 
 Man can become my Father, or I owe him the like Filial Duty and Refpeft, as 
 to him tiiat begot me and brought me up ? 
 
 And though I grant that God may confer a Regal Poicer on whom he pleafes, 
 either by his exprefs Will, or the ordinary courfe of his Providence ; yet when 
 fuch a Perfon, who was not a King before, doth become fo, I utterly deny that 
 the Power he hath then conferred upon him, is a Paternal Poiier in relation to 
 his SuAjcfts ,• which is evident from j our own Inftance of Sard's becoming a 
 King over his Father Kifi. For thougli you fay, that God then conferred a Fatherly 
 forcer on Saul over his own Father, this is a great miftake : For then Saul would 
 have been immediately difcharged from all the Duties of Piety and Gratitude, 
 which he owed his Father ; and they were all transferred from Kijh to Saul; fo 
 that after he became King, he might have treated his Father with no more Re- 
 fped or Deference, than any other Subjed: ; which is contrary to God's Com- 
 mandment, that bids all Men Honour their Fathei- and Mother. And I know not 
 how Kings can be excepted out of this Precept. So that your miftake arifes from 
 this prepofterous confounding of Paternal Authority with Regal Povxr : And be- 
 caufe Adafn, Ncah, or any other Father of a feparate Family, may be a Prince 
 over it in tlie State of Nature, that therefore every Monarch in the World is alfo 
 endued with this' Paternal Pczcer : Which that they are diftindt, may farther ap- 
 pear from )our own fuppofed Monarchical Ponjxr of Adam, who though granting 
 him to have been a Prince over his Pofterity, yet did not this difcharge any of 
 
 his
 
 "Dialogue the Second. 77 
 
 his Dcfceridants from their Duty and Obedience to their own Father : And tliough 
 I confcfs you ta!l;cd at our la(t Meeting of a Fdtlmly Puwer to be exercifcd in 
 fubordination to the Supye??ie Futherly Pciu^r of Adam ; yet tliis is a meet Chme.a : 
 For Filial Honour and Okdwhce, being due by the Commandment only to a Man's 
 own natural Fatiier, can never be due to two different Perfons at once, fincethey 
 may command contradiftory Things ; and then the Commandment of Honour ■ 
 (that is, obey) thy Fathtr, cannot be obfcrvcd in rcfpcct of both of them ; and. 
 therefore granting Adam, or Neah, to ha\-eexercifed a Monarchical Puiier over theic 
 Children and Defcendants, it could not be as they were Fathers or Grand-fathers, 
 ■when their Sons or Grand-cliildren were feparatcd from them, and were Heads 
 of Families of their own, for the Reafons already given ; fo that if they were 
 Princes in their own Families, whiJft their Sons or Grand-children continued part 
 of them, it was only as Heads or Matters of tlicir own Families, but not by 
 any fuch Patriarchal or Paternal Authority as )'0u fuppofe. But as for the Con- 
 clufion of your Diicourfe, it being all built upon this falfe Foundation, that all 
 Power on Earth is derived or ufurped from the Fatherly Povjer; I need fay no 
 more to it : For it that be falle, all that you argue from thence, concerning the 
 fubordination of all other Powers to tliis, will fignify nothing. 
 
 M. I think I can yet make ou. my Hypothejis, notwithltanding all you have 
 (aid againft it : For though I giant the Paternal Relation itfelf can never be u.furp- 
 ed or transferred; yet you may remember, I at firll affirmed, that ^r/^w; was F. P. 
 not only a Father, but a King and Lord over his Family, and a Son, a Subjcft, a 
 Servant, or a Slave, were one and the fame thing at firft ; and the Father had 
 Power to difpofe of, (111, or alien his Children to any other ; whence we hnd the 
 Sale and Gift of Children to liave been much in ufe in the beginning of the 
 World, when Men had their Servants for a Polfefiion and an Inheritance, as well as 
 other Goods ,• whereupon we find the Power of Caftrating or making Eunuchs 
 much in ufe in old Times. And as the Power of the Father may be lawfully 
 transferred, or aliened ; fo it may be unjuftly ufurped. And though I confefs no 
 Father, or Matter of a Family, ought to ufe his Children thus cruelly and fevere- 
 ly, and that iie fins mortally it he doth fo; yet neither they, nor any Power un- 
 der Heaven can call fuch an Independent Father or Monarch to an account, or pu- 
 nifh him for ib doing. 
 
 F. I am glad at latt we are come to an Iflue of this doughty Controverfy. 
 And though I forced you at our latt Meeting to confefs, that Fatherly Power 
 was not defpotical, nor that Fathers upon any account -whutfoever were abfolute 
 Lords over their Children, and all their Defcendants, in the State of Nature; 
 yet now I fee, to preferve your firft Hyfothtfm, you are fain to recur to this Def- 
 potical Power of Fathers in the State of Nature : Becaufe without Tippofing it, 
 and that it may be transferred or ufurped. Princes at this Day (whom without 
 any Caufe you fuppofe to be endued with this Paternal, Defpotick Power) could 
 never claim any Title to their Subjefts Allegiance. And then much good may 
 do you with your, and Sir R- F's. excellent difcovery : For if, as you )'ourfelf 
 acknowledge, Princes are no longer related in Blood to their Subjcdts, any nearer 
 thaii as we all proceed from Adam our common Ancettor, that Relation being 
 now fo remote, fignih'es little or nothing, fo that the true Paternal Authority 
 being loft (as you confefs) the Defpotick Power of a Lord over his Servants, ox 
 his Slaves, only remains: Since therefore you make no difference in Nature be- 
 tween Subjefts and Slaves, then all Subjects lie at the Mercy of their Kings, to 
 be treated in all things like Slaves, whenever they pleafe; and they may exercife 
 an abfolute Defpotick Power over their Lives and Eftates, as they think fit: So 
 that I can fee nothing tiiat can hinder them from felling their Subjefts, or caf- 
 trating them, as tlie King of AUngrelia doth his Subjeds at this Day ; and as 
 the Great Turk and Per/Ian Monarchs do ufe thofe. Chriftian Children, whom they 
 take away from their Parents to make Eunuchs for their Seraglio's; and then I 
 think you have brought Manla'nd to a very fine pafs, to be all created for the 
 IVifl and Liijl of fo many fi/glc Men, which if it ever could be the Ordinance of 
 God, I leave to yourfclf to judge. 
 
 M I was prepared for this Objedion before, and therefore I think it will 
 make nothing againft this ahjolute Power, with which I fuppofe God to have en- 
 dued Adam, and all other Monarchs at the firft : So that I am fo far from thinking 
 that this Doftrine will teach Princes Cruelty towards their Subjeds, that on the B.C. P. >. 3. 
 
 con-
 
 •yS BiBLioTHECA Politic A. 
 
 contrary, nothing can better inculcate their Duty towards them : For as God is 
 the Author of a Paternal Mum, chy ; fo he is the Author ot" no other. He intro- 
 duced all but the firft Man into the World, under the Subjedtion of a Svprone Fa- 
 ther, and by fo doing, hath ihewn, that he never intended there fliould be any 
 other Power in the World, and whatever Authority fhall be extended beyond 
 this, is accountable to him alone j fo that Princes are bound to treat tlieir Sub- 
 jeds, as their Children, with Mercy and Lenity, as far as they are capable of it, 
 and not as their Brutes. And granting that Subjefts and Servants, or Slaves, 
 ■were at firft all one, yet I think even they ought to be treated only as younger 
 Children, yet as Children ftill : Nay even conquered People, that are in feme 
 Countries treated as Slaves, and but a little better than Brutes, have certamiy a 
 very good Appeal to the Tribunal of God againft their Princes, who will un- 
 doubtedly right them in another World, if they fufter patiently in this. If it be 
 the Character of a good Man, that he is Merciful to his Beaft, I doubt not but 
 the very Brutes have a Right to be governed with Mercy and Juftice, and that 
 God who is their Creator, as well as ours, will punifii cruel Men if they tyran- 
 nize over them ; and much more if any Man fliall exercife Cruelty on another 
 Man, who is of the fame, not only Nature, but Blood. 
 
 Whereas all other Hypothefes leave the Prince at Liberty to make his Bargain 
 with his Subjefts as well as he can ,• and if they be brought by Force, or Fraud, 
 to an entire Submiffion at Difcretion, they may then be treated accordingly, and 
 muft ftand to their Compaft, be the Terms never h unequal, and then the Cafe 
 of a Man, and a Brute, may differ very little j and if the Subjeft may refift, the 
 Prince may take care to prevent it, and the War may be juft on both fides, which 
 is impoffible. 
 
 I could likewife fhew you many other Benefits that would accrue both to 
 Princes, and Subjefts, were this Hyfothejis but once generally taught, and believ* 
 ed by both of them. 
 
 F. I pray. Sir, fpare the giving yourfelf that trouble, for I will not difpute 
 how honeftly this Hypothtjls may be deiigned, or what mighty Feats it might do, 
 were it once univerfally received. But this neither you, nor I, can ever expeft 
 will come to pafs, becaufe neither Princes, nor People, will ever believe it to 
 be true : For in the firft place, the People will never be convinced of it, it being 
 above a vulgar Underftanding, that their Princes, whom they are very well afiured 
 are not their Fathers, nor yet right Heirs to Adam or Noah, Ihould notwith- 
 ftanding lay claim to a Paternal Authority over them. In the next place, Princes 
 can never believe that they are Fathers of their People, for the fame Reafon : I 
 grant indeed, that they may be very willing to believe one half of your Hypothe- 
 fis, that they are abfolute Lords and Maftersover them, and fo would be willing 
 upon that account to uie their Subjefts like Slaves ,• but that they fliould look up- 
 cn themfelves as Fathers of their People, and the Heirs or Afligns of Adam or 
 Noah, I think no Prince in Chriftendom can be fo vain to believe. So that what- 
 ever Power Adam or Noah, or any other Father, migiit been intrufted with by God, 
 hecaufe of that natural Aftcftion which they were fuppofed to bear toward their 
 Children ; yet fure Princes at this Day can lay no claim to it, fince none but true 
 Fathers can be endued with this Paterual AffeElion. 
 , And whereas you fuppofe, that Princes ought to treat their SubJeSs, nay even 
 
 thofe that are conquered, like Children, and not like Slaves, or Brutes ; this can 
 have very little efteft upon them, who can as little believe it, as the People. For 
 if Monarchical Power is not Paternal (as I think I have clearly made out) then 
 there can lie no Obligation upon Monarchs to treat their Subjefts like Chil- 
 dren : And therefore, fince the Defpotual or Majlerly Power only remains, which is 
 ordained principally for the good and benefit of the Mafter, and not of the Ser- 
 vant or Slave; who can blame Princes, if they exaft the utmoft of their due 
 Prerogatives, and fo treat their Siibjcds lil.e Slaves, whenever it ferves their Hu- 
 mour or Intereft fo to do ? Nor are they any more to be blamed for thus exert- 
 ing their Power, than a Mailer of Negroes in the M-'eJi-Indies is, for making the 
 beft of the Service of thofe Slaves, whom lie hatli bought with his Money, or 
 are bom in his Houfe : Whom though I grant he is not to ufe like Brute Beafts, 
 for the Rcafons you have given ; yet doth it not therefore follow, that he 
 is obliged to ufe them like his younger Children ; for then fure he could not have 
 a Right to keep them for Slaves as long as thev lived, and to let them enjoy no- 
 thing
 
 Dialogue the Second, 7p 
 
 thing but a bare miferable Si:bilftar,cc. And there is very good reafon Tor this, 
 for almofl every Planter in BmLadoes knows very well the diffcrence between 
 the Relations of a Father, a Maftcr, and a Prince, and that the one is not the 
 other; and it is from your jumbling together theie three different Relations, of 
 a Son, a Slave, and a Siibjcd, that liatli led you into all thefe miftakes. For 
 though it Ihould be granted, that the Right of a Mafter over his Slaves may 
 be acquired by Conqueft, or afTigncd to, or ufurped by another ; yet certainly, 
 the Authority or Relation of a Father, and the Dcfpotical or Civil Power of a 
 Monarch, can ne\er be acquired by Conqucft, nor yet. ufurped, without the con- 
 fent and fubmiffion of the Children and Subjefts. 
 
 And therefore to conclude, I do not think your Hjpcthcfn one jot the better, 
 by your founding it upon an Imaginary Pate.ml Poicer, ratiier than upon CompaEly 
 which I am fure can never be made upon fo unequal Terms, as to render the Cafe 
 of a Man and a Brute very little different,- lince it would be to no purpole for 
 any Siibjeft to make a Bargain with their Monarch, or Conqueror; and yet, to 
 leave thcmfelves in as bad, or worfe condition, than they were in the State of 
 Nature : So that howc\ er convenient your Hjfijthejis may be, either for Prince, 
 or People, it iignihcs no more than the Popifli Hypotbefis of the Infallibility of the 
 Pvpe, and a General Council, which becaufe they fuppofc necellary, and h indeed 
 very beneficial for their Church ,• therefore God had conferred it upon them : But 
 how falfe a way of Reafoning this is, hath been fufEciently demonftrated. The 
 Application of this Comparifon is fo obvious, that I leave it to you to make. 
 
 M. I cannot but think, for all you have yet faid, that God hath endued 
 all Princes with a Pate.nal Juthority, and for this, I have the Church of England r- p , 
 on my fide, which in its Catcchifm, in the Explanation of the Duties contain- p'q_'(7^<,^ J,, 
 ed in the hfth Commandment, Honour thy Father, &c. doth comfJrehend under 
 that Head, not only to Honour and Suaour our Fathers and Mothers, but alfo to Ho- 
 nour and Obey the King, and all them that are pit in Authority under him ; as if all 
 Power were originally in the Father : So that this Command gives him the Right 
 to govern, and makes the Form of Government Monarchical. And if Obedi- 
 ence to Parents be immediately due by a natural Law; and Subjeftion to Princes, 
 but by the Mediation of an Humane Ordinance, what reafon is there, that the 
 Laws of Nature fiiould give place to the Laws of Men ? As we fee the Pow- 
 er of the Father over his Child gives place, and is fubordinate to the Power 
 of the Magiftrate. And tliar this is not the Doftrine of Ciiriftianity alone, 
 but was alfo believed by the beft Moralifls amongfi the Heathens, may ap- 
 pear by this remarkable Paffage out of Seneca de dementia, wliich is fo put 
 to this purpofe, that I took the pains to tranflate it into Englifh in my Com- 
 mon-place- Book : Some of which I will now read to you. IV hat is the Du- ^'^- ^- ''■ '4* 
 ty of a Prince ? "That of kind Parents, u-ho nfe to chide their Children fometimes fiveet-' 
 ly, and at other times vjith more parpiefs, and fometimes correci the?n iv/th blows. And 
 after having Jhewn, that a good Father wiU not proceed to difinherit his Son, or infiiEi any 
 tmre fevere Puntjhments upon htm, till he is pafl all hopes of Amendment ; he proceeds 
 thus .• No Parent proceeds to Extirpation, till he hath m vain fpent all other Remedies. 
 "That which becomes a Parent, becomes a P, ime, uho is filled without flattery the Fa- 
 ther of his Country ; m all our other littles, we confult their (i. e. the Emperors) 
 Honour. We have called them the Great, the Happy, the Augufi, and heaped upon 
 ambitious Majefly all the 'Titles vje could invent, in giving thefe to them : But we have 
 ftiled him the Father of his Country, that the Prince might con/ider the Power of a 
 Father wa^ given him: Which is the mofl temperate of all Power s, confulting the IVelfarv 
 of the Children, and prejerring their good before its own. i 
 
 And as for your Objedtion, why Princes cannot be loved and reverenced, as 
 if they were our Fathers, becaufe not being our Fathers indeed, they may pof- 
 fibly want that Natural and Fatherly Afteftion to their Subjcds, and confe- 
 quently may tyrannize over them ; I think this is eafily anfvvered : For, 
 
 Firfi, God, who is, and ever was the true Difpofer of Kingdoms, hath in his 
 Hands the Hearts of all Princes, and endows them with fuch Affedions as he 
 thinks fit, not only tov/ards tlie People in general, but towards each particular 
 Perfon : And therefore, as he was the Author of all Government, and is ftill 
 the Preferver of if ; fo no inconvenience can happen, but he is able to redrefs 
 it. 
 
 Secondly,
 
 So BiBLiOTHECA Politic A. 
 
 Secondly, That there was as great, or rather greater Inconvenicncies, which 
 fprung at firft from the too great Lenity of thcfe natural Princes, for v^^ant of 
 Power or Will to punifli the diforders of their Subjcft Children, as have ever 
 fpriing fince from the Tyranny and Cruelty of the worft Princes: And I believe, 
 to this was owing that excefTive WicUednefs, which forced as it were God Al- 
 mighty to put an end to the firft World, by that time ir had ftood about i6oo Years. 
 And we fee afterwards Eli and Samuel, good Men, and fcvere Judges towards 
 others, were yet too indulgent to their own Children; wliich flicws the weaknefs 
 of your Reai'cns, and the greatnefs of the VVifdora of God, in mal;ing all Go- 
 vernment to fpring from Paternal Po'der, which is the mildeft of all Powers, and 
 to defcend by degrees to Hereditary Akiiarchies, which are the Divmejl, the moft 
 Natural, and the beft of all Governments, and in which the People have the leaft 
 Hand. 
 
 F. I fee plainly, that you think the Laws of Nature or Reafon are not on your 
 fide, and therefore you are forced to recur not to the exprefs Words of Scrip- 
 ture, but to the Paraphrafe or Explanation of them in our Church Catechifm, 
 which certainly never was intended to have thac confcqnence drawn from it 
 which you have made; for though you are pleafed to omit one pare of the Com- 
 mandment with an &c. yet the Words are, as you yourfelf maft acknowledge. 
 Honour thy Father, and thy Mother ; and if from Honour thy Father, you will gather 
 that all Power was Originally in the Father, it will follow by the fame Argument, 
 that it muft have been as Originally in the Mother too : Father, aad Mother, or Pa- 
 rents, being mentioned together, in all Precepts in the Old ard New Teftamcnc, 
 where Honour or Obedience is enjoined on Childieii : And if thefe Words, Hc~ 
 nour thy Father, mult give a right to Government, and make the Form alio Mo- 
 narchical; and if by thefe Words muft be meant Obedience to the Political Pond- 
 er of the Supreme Magi/irate, it concerns not any Duty we owe to our natural 
 Fathers, who are Subjefts; becaufe they, by j-our Dcdtrine, are diverted of all 
 that Power, it being placed wholly in the Prince, and fo being equally Subjefts, 
 and Slaves with their Children, can have no Right by that Title to any fuch 
 Honour or Obedience, as contains in it Civil SiiljeElion. But if Honour thy Fa- 
 ther, and thy Mother, fignifiesthe Duty we owe our natural Parents, (as by our Sa- 
 viour's Interpretation, Mattheiv 15.4. and in all the other places 'tis plain it doth) 
 then it cannot concern Political Obedience, but a Duty tiiat is owing to Perfons 
 who have no Title to Sovereignty, nor any Political Authority, as Monarchs over 
 Subjedts. For Obedience to a private Father, and that Civil Obedience which is 
 due to a Monarch, are quite different, and many times contradicSory, and in- 
 confiftent with each other. And therefore, this Command, which neceflarily 
 comprehends the Perfons of our natural Fathers and Mothers, muft mean a Du- 
 ty we owe them diftinft from our Obedience to the Magiftrate, and from which 
 the moft ablblute Power of Princes cannot abfolve us. And to make this yet 
 plainer, fuppofe upon your Hypothejls, that Seth, as eldeft Son of Adam, was 
 Heir of all his Patriarchal Power, liow could all his Brethren and Sifters Ho- 
 nour, that is. Obey Eve their Morher, fuppofing Seth, and her, to have ;dom- 
 mandcd them things contradiftory at the fame time ? 
 
 So, that though I grant tlie Compilers of our Church Catechifm did intend 
 in this Explanation to compreiiend all the great Daties towards our Governors ; 
 yet it is plain, they never dreamed of this far-fetched Inference, that you have 
 drawn from their Explanation of it; for though under this Command o( Honour thy 
 Father, and thy Mother, they do indeed comprehend Obedience and Honour to be 
 due to tht KingjCirc. this lo more proves that they believed all Kingly Powertooc 
 Paternal, than that becaufe they likewife there infer from this Command, a Si^b- 
 mifllon to be due to all Governor <, Teachers, Spiritual Pajlors, aw^yl/iZ/Ftrj, that there- 
 fore all thefe Parties here named do likewife derive tlieir Authority from Adam's 
 Fatherhood; or |:hat becaufe under the Command againfh bearing Fa I fe IVitncff, we 
 are taught to refrain our Tongues from Evil Speaking, Lying, and SLndeymg, that 
 therefore all Lies, and Evil Speaking whatloever, is downright bearing Falfe 
 Witncfs aguinft our Neighbour; fince nothing is more certain, tiian that a Man 
 may commit either of the former, witiiout being guilty of th.e latter. And to 
 anfwer your Query, if Obedience to Parents be immediately due by a Natural 
 Law, and Subje^im to Princes but by a Humane Ordinance, wiiat realbn is there 
 
 thac
 
 Dialogue the Second, 81 
 
 that the Laws of Nature fliould give place to thofe of Men? I can eafily reply, 
 that the Power of a Father over his Child gives place and is fubordinate to the 
 Supreme Powerf, becaufe they are both ordained fo by God in the Law of A^a- 
 ture; it being highly reafonable, that the good of a private Family fliould give 
 place to the common good of the Commonwealth, which is a fiifilcicnt reafoii, 
 and extends to all Nations, which never fo much as heard of the Ten Com- 
 mandments. 
 
 But to come to your Quotation out of Seneca, I think this hath a great deal 
 lefs weight in it, than your Argument from the Fifth Commandment : For 
 though this Philofopher writ to the Emperor, to perfuade him to Clemency; yet 
 this I am fure of, that he never dreamt of this Notion of Adam's Sovereignty, 
 or believed that c\ery Prince was endued with Patfinal Authority, becaufe amongft 
 other Titles lie was flilcd Pater Patrij;. And therefore what this Author here 
 fays, is to be looked upon only as a Rhetorical Flourifh, or, at the moft, to be 
 iinderflood but in a Metaphorical fcnfe; the Arguments ol this Author not being 
 to be always taken ftriftly as a Logician, but only as an Orator, who was to make 
 life of all Appearances of Reafon to perfuade a young Prince to Mercy and Cle- 
 mency; and yet all this was not fufEcient, as SeM-ca himfelf found, before he di- 
 ed, by woful Experience. And Seneca very well knew, that TuUy was ftiled Pa- 
 ter Patrix by the Senate, though he was never endued with your Imperial or Pa- 
 ternal Authortty. 
 
 But to reply a little to your Anfwer againft my laft Argument, that Princes 
 not being our Natural Fathers, muft often want that Natural and Fatherly Ajfec- 
 tion towards their Subjeds, and therefore may tyranniz.e over them ; I think the 
 firft part of your Reply will make nothing in confutation of what I ha\e faid: 
 For though I will not deny but God, who hath the Hearts of princes in his Hands, 
 may fometimes endue them with fuch Afleftions as he thinks fit, not only to- 
 wards the People in general, but towards each particular Perfon ; yet this may 
 be as well evil as good Afleclions : As God is faid in Judg. p. to have fent an 
 evil Spirit between Abimelech, (one of your ufurping Monarchs) and the Men of She- 
 chem, his Subjeds : And therefore God may as well fend the one for the punilh- 
 mcnt, as the other for the benefit of a Nation : And that God is more likely to 
 incline the Hearts of Princes to fuch evil, than good Affeftions towards their 
 Subjefts, may appear from Mankind's more often deferving God's Anger, for 
 their evil Deeds, than Favours for their good ones. 
 
 And I defire you v\'ould fhew me in how many Ahfuhite Monarchies now in the 
 World, God Almighty is pleafed to declare this wonderful Operation of thefc 
 Fatherly Ajfccliuis towards their People. I pray deal ingenuoufly, and tell me, 
 is it to be found in our European Monarchies, where moft Princes do not only mife- 
 rably harrafs and opprefs their Subjefts, by intolerable Taxes, and {landing Ar- 
 mies, till they reduce them to the lowcft condition of Beggary and Defpcration ; 
 and where, for the leaft differences in Religion, tiiey take away their Subjeds 
 Lives by that cruel Tribunal of the Inquiiition, without any fair or legal Trial ; 
 or clfe, where, notwithftanding all Edidts, Oaths, and Vows to the contrary, they 
 feize upon, and fpoil their Subjeds of tiieir Eftatcs, and imprifon and torment 
 their Perfons by thofe booted Apoftles the Dragoons ; becaufe Faith is not to be 
 kept with Herecieks ; or elfe» in another Country, wiiere the Prince took upon 
 him a Prerogative to difpenl'e with all Laws at his pleafure, and to imprifon, 
 and turn Men out of their Freeholds, contrary to the known Laws of the King- 
 dom ? Or, to conclude, muft we look for thefe Divine Operations amongft the 
 Eajlcn Monarchs, where they treat their Subjedts like Slaves, and allow them no 
 Property either in Lands, or Goods, farther than they think fit, and to have their 
 Perfons and Lives wholly at their Mercy, to be caftrated, made Slaves of, or kil- 
 led, as often as it fiiali pleafe their Humour or Paflion ? And I doubt, if you 
 will but read Antient as well as Modern Hiftories, and alfo furvcy the State 
 of Mankind in all the Abfobut Monarchies hc^twcQn France and Japan; you wili 
 find more frequently Examples of the evil, than good Arfedions of thefe your Ar- 
 tificial Fathers towards their Adopted Ciiildren. 
 
 M. I cannot deny, but you have given a very Tragical Account of the Ty- 
 ranny and Opprejjuns under divers Abfolute Monarchies now in the World ; yet this 
 is not the fault ot the Government, but of the evil Principles, bad Education, 
 or Tempers of thofe Monarchs; as alfo, oftentimes from the unquiet and rcbel- 
 
 M lioiis
 
 Sz BibliothecaPolitica. 
 
 B.C.F. (/ 5. lious Difpofition of their Subjefts, from the diftrufting of which, they place all 
 their Security in {landing Armies, and Guards ; fo that I muft grant, that all 
 thofe Governments that are maintained by Armies too flrong for the Subjects in 
 general, are uneafy, and degenerate into Defpetiek Monarchies, and are unfafe both 
 to the Prince and People. And to let you fee, that it is not my intention to 
 
 F. P. 5 6. maintain or defend Opprejjion or Tyranny, I muft freely aflert, with Sir R. F. (whofe 
 Principles I here take upon me to maintain) that all Princes are bound to treat 
 their Subjeds as their Children, and that it is contrary to the Nature of Man- 
 kind, to make their Offspring Slaves ,• and that all Kings, (nay Conquerors too) 
 are bound to preferve the Lands, Goods, Liberties, and Lives of all their Sub- 
 jects, not by any AJimidpal Law, but by the Natural Law of a Father, which 
 binds them to ratify the Afts of their Forefathers and Predeceflbrs in things ne- 
 ceflary for the publick good of their Subjefts : But yet you have not done fairly^ 
 not to take notice of the great Oppreffions that are exercifed in fome Common' 
 txenlths likewife towards their Subjefts, which if you would plcafe to confider, 
 and weigh the fewnefs of thefe againft the great number of Monarchies now in 
 the World, I believe you will have good caufe to confefs, that there are many 
 BiP. P. more good Monarchs, than equal Ccmmonwealths. And I do believe there was as 
 ?. II, 13. much Tyranny exercifed in thefe three Kingdoms during our late Ciiil IVan, and 
 afterwards under the Government of the Rump and Cromwell, till the Return of 
 the late King Charles, as in all the Abfdute Monarchies between France and Chi' 
 na, or from the North to the South Pole. And it is very remarkable, that when 
 Oliver Cro?nwell fet up the moft Ahfohne and Tyrannical Government that ever was 
 in this Ifland, there was yet no noife of any Fears or Jealoufies of it in all 
 his Times. 
 
 F. I am very well pleafcd to find you fo heartily agree with me, in condemn- 
 ing of Tyranny and OpprefTion in all forts of Governments whatever. And I do 
 aflure you, I do as little approve of it, if it be any where exercifed in Comr 
 monwealths, as you can do in Monarchies : Only I mufl needs tell you, I am not 
 at all of your Opinion, that the OpprefHons or Abufes, committed by the 
 Magiftrates in Commonvcealths, are to be compared with the Tyrannies, and Cruel- 
 ties exercifed by Abfolute Monarchs, and their Subordinate Minifters. For though 
 I grant they often lay very fevere Taxes and Impofitions upon their Subjefts, 
 efpecially fuch as they have acquired by Conqueil:, and fo ad like Abjolute Mo- 
 narchs over them, yet are thefe Oppreflions not at all to be compared to thofe 
 imder Arbitrary Monarchies ; for though perhaps divers Commonwealths may im- 
 pofe greater Taxes upon their Subjeds than fome Neighbouring Monarchs ; 
 yet doth it not follow, that their Government is more fevere for all thatj 
 lince the People having an opportunity by free Trade, and Liberty of Con- 
 fcience in fuch Commonwealths, to acquire a greater fhare of Riches, are alfo 
 thereby enabled to contribute more to the maintainance of the Government, 
 by which they reap fo great Benefits. Thus we fee a Citizen of Amflerdam is 
 able to pay fix times the Taxes of one of Antwerp : And therefore I dare, for all 
 that, appeal to any common Subjed (though a Papift) of the United Provinces, 
 whether he had not rather Jive under the States oi. Holland, than under the French 
 Kingj or to any Subjed of the Connnoirwealths o{ Venice, Genoa, or Lucca, whether 
 he doth not prefer his Condition, as bad as it is, to that of any of the Subjeds 
 of the Pope, Duke of Florence, or any other Italian Prince ; not to go over into 
 T'urkey, and thofe other Eajlern Monarchies, where the Yoke of Slavery lies yet 
 more heavy upon the Subjeds than in Europe. 
 
 And as for what you fay, in the comparing of thofe Illegal Arbitrary Proceedings, 
 that were exercifed in England, during the late Civil Wars, and afterwards, till 
 the King's Coming in, I muft beg your pardon, if (befides the great Hyperbole 
 in your ExprefTions on that occafion, which I am fure are very far from Truth) 
 I impute thofe Mifcarriages, not as the fault of this or that fort of Government, 
 but rather to a powerful FaElion, backed by a. /landing Army, which was more like 
 a Tyranny, or corrupt Oligarchy, than any fettled Government. Nor is what 
 you fay concerning Oliver's Government more true than the former ; for all Men, 
 except his own Fadion, were not only afraid, but really fenCble of the lofs of 
 their Liberties under his Tyrannical Ufurpation : Though indeed, there was a 
 very good reafon, why there fhould be fewer Fears or Jealoufies of it, than in his 
 late Majefty's Time, when his Government began to grow uneafy through the Peo- 
 
 * pics
 
 Dialogue the Second. 83 
 
 pics Fear of Popery and Arbitrary Goremmenc, which they had no jealoafy of in 
 OomKell's Time ; and as for the latter, they had no occafion to fear that which 
 had already happened. 
 
 But tiiat you may not miflake me for a ComvjomLeahhs Man, I muft fo far agree 
 with you, that to condemn Monarchy as fuch, were to repine at the Govern- 
 ment of God himfelf ; fo that I alfo grant, that the fault lies not in the Form of 
 Government, but in the trail Nature of Men, which can rarely adminiflcr that 
 great Trufl committed unto them, as becomes what tliey take upon them to be, 
 Ged's Vicegerents upon Earth : And I muft own, that I efteem Monarchy limited by 
 kmmn Laws, as the left and mofl equal Gcvernment in the IVorld ; and under which 
 both Prince and People may live moft happily and eaiily, if each of them will 
 be but contented with their due fhare. 
 
 But I beg your pardon for this Digreflion j and to come to a Conclu/ion, I muft 
 freely tell you, it is not a Straw matter, what your's or Sir R. F's Principles are 
 concerning the Fatherly Power of Princes ; for as long as there is no ground for 
 it in Scripture or Nature , you cannot expeft that either Princes or People 
 will ever believe you. Neither is it true, that Princes as Fathers are bound 
 to treat their Subjefts in all things like their Children, for then Princes ought 
 to maintain their Subjects, and notSubjefts their Princes; fince it is the Apof- iCuc. n. 14. 
 tie's Rule, T'hat Children ought not to lay up for their Parents, hut the Parents for the 
 Children : And though you pretend not to plead for Tyranny or Arbitrary Go- 
 vernment, yet I cannot at all underftand, why if it were not for this End, you 
 Ihould aflert not long fince, in your anfwer to me, that God thought fit to 
 change Paternal Government into Hereditary Monarchy, becaufe of the excefTivc 
 Wickednefs of Mankind before the Flood, proceeding from the too great Lenity 
 of thofe Patriarchal Princes, in not punifhing the diforders of their Subject Chil- 
 dren; which is a very bold AHertion ; fince you know no more than I, what that 
 Wickednefs was in particular, for which God drowned the World, much lefs 
 what was the occafion of it. And therefore, if God thought fit to change Pa- 
 ternal Power into Hereditary Monarchies, which (as I have proved) do not at all pro- 
 ceed from Paternal Power, it will alfo follow that the Government of your Patri- 
 archs was not fufllcient for the well being and happinefs of Mankind, or elfe 
 God would never have thought fit to have altered it for a more cruel and fevere 
 way of Government. 
 
 But as for what you fay concerning thofe Princes that place all their Security 
 in Guards and Armies too ftrong for the Subjefts, that they are uneafy, and de- 
 generate into Defpctick Monarchies, (you might better have (aid Tyrannies) and 
 that they are unfafe both for Prince and People, is very true, and I altogether 
 agree with you in it. But thofe of your Principles have no reafon to find fault 
 with Princes for fo doing ; for fince they do but ufe tiieir juft Prerogative over 
 their Slaves or Vaifals, it is but fit that they fhould be made to undergo that 
 Yoke, whether they will or no, which they would not bear willingly : And as long 
 as Princes look upon themfelves to be (what they really are upon your Principles) 
 the Maftcrs, and not the Fathers of their People, as they fuppofe the Goods and 
 Eftares of their Subjefts to be wholly at their Difpofal, fo can they never com- 
 mand them as they pleafe, without the Alliftance of Standing A) mies. Nor have 
 you any reafon to complain of thofe Princes for keeping them too ftrong for the 
 Subjeds to oppofe ; fince, upon your Principles, be they ftrong or weak, the Sub- 
 jects are not to refift them. But if Princes, without your extraordinary fondnefs 
 of ufing their People like Children, would but always ufe them like Subjefts, 
 with ordinary Juftice and Moderation ; and not opprcls them with exceflive 
 Taxes, and unneceflary Penal Laws about Religion, you would find there would be 
 no need of i'tandii^g Armies to keep the People in awe, who would themfelves be 
 the beft defence not only againft Domcftick, but Foreign Enemies. And this Til 
 aflureyou is a much better Receipt againft i?f^e///o;;, than all your new Recipe's oi 
 Patenial Power in Monarchs, which is not only without all ground of Reafon, but 
 above common Apprehenfions. 
 
 M. You have made a long Speech in anfwer to my Hypothejis, which fince you 
 are not fatisficd with, I can likewife fhew you another very good reafon, why the 
 People fliould love and reverence their Princes; and that is, thofe great Likrtiei 
 and Ccncejjjons that all the Monarchs of Europe have granted their Subjefts , 
 
 M 2 which
 
 84 Bib L^:^.Q x h e 'g^A', P 6 l.i t i c a. 
 
 wiiich arc now pafs'd into thciettled L,aws and Cufioms of thofe Kingdoms, with 
 which die People ought to be very well eontentcd. Nor ought ihey to rebel, 
 or refid, though they may fometimes out of wantonnefs and neceffity infringe^ 
 or intrench upon thofe Privileges, which rfcey or their Ancertors have confer- 
 red upon thenii lince they can never fyrft^^ih^l Power they hii\^ migjually c(v^ 
 
 them. ■, ■ ..1- ,;Uj.,;. ■■ :.':,.:, ,..:.r. -.-jm 
 
 F. I do not very well underfland yfhi^x, yoii mean ; for I have hitherto fup-** 
 pofed that all Subjects have a Property ii^ their Eiljitcs, and a Freedom for the^r 
 Perfons by the Laxi^s of Nature ; ,a.i)d which nq Cm/ P(rwe>- whatever could deprive, 
 them of without their Coyifent-. And therefore I defir-c you would Ihew me, that\ 
 if Children, Subjects, and Slaves, were all oiic ^r the hrft, how we in this lide o^' 
 the World came to be in a better condition tiian x,\\Q(<:.m Afia ancj Africa i Op_ 
 that we Eiiglijhinenc3.n claim a Property in our Eftates,and a Right tooor Livps, 
 which the Prince cat^not take away, but a€<yOrding to ibme known Laws? , :. j;") 
 At. I fliink Icaneafily do this, "not only.ip relation to £k^/W, bur any othfir, 
 Kingdom, which is now governed by knOY-nL^w^ and fhat upon S'^t R.F.' s Hyf^ 
 fothejis; which I fliall do (as near as I can.jrcmembcr) in the Words of ; that ex^ 
 p'^e.'cg^'io. cellcnt Perfon the late Earl of Clarendmiy ill his Survp)' oj:" ')sh.Hohbs\ UiHathan^ 
 who fuppofes, according to this Hypothefi^, Xhntjome om o^ Noalw Dejlindoiits -wa^ i^^ 
 Abiblutc Monarch at firfl ci'er all his Pcjiirity, ixhicb might lomiiui? in hie Liu^.fo^ 
 fume Ages, till at lafl their Relation by Blood to their SubjeBf mv remoied at fo great. a, 
 diflauce, that the Acqotm of their Kindred or. RclafioK to each ( ther .if/a^/tarie reffief^'j 
 ber'd; -ixberchy they/uho hadthe Sovereign Power, fliil expr/fs lef Paternal Afte.ittiou 
 in their Gwernmeniy koktvg upfH thofe they governed as wq^-. SHhjeSis, ay.d mt as their 
 Kinjmeii vr Allies j till by degiees, according t» tl^e Cufovf.cf E.\orbitant Power, the]/ 
 (confderiri^ cnly the ex;tent of their men yurifdiclton, and v>hat they mighty rather tha/i, 
 what they fjoald do) treated them p>ho uere ui.der them, not Uts Shljefls, but as Slaves;, 
 ■who haviiig no Right to any tlMUg but uhat they permitted them, they would allow them to 
 pojfefs nothing, but what they had no occajion to take away. Efiates they had npne that thejf 
 could call their own, becaufe when their Prince called fur tham, tfiey were his : "fheir Per- 
 fons were at his Cammand, when he had either occafion or appitite to mak^e^iife of them ;^ 
 and their Children inherited nothing but their Father's .£ubjecii»n; fe tbat^they were happy 
 or tniferable, as he who had tl<e PoVi;er over tl.vm, ple^fed to e:<e)cije it with more or Icfs Ri-> 
 gour or Indulgence ; yet they fubmitted alike to both, acknowledging his Domiuim to be natu-^ 
 rally as abfolute oi their SubjeEiion and Obedience. ■ , ' • nv/ - . , fi , 
 
 Thefe Princes might fm- fame Ages have pleafed then felves with thisExorvitant Extx-. 
 cife of their Poxver^ which though it had been always the fame, yet the Exerctfe of it had 
 •* been very incderate, whilfl there remained the "Jendernefi or Memory of any Relation. But 
 thefe Princes began at lafi to difcern, and be convinced, that the g, cat flrengi^h they feetntd 
 to be p(ffefl of, would in a fiort time degenerate into weab-iefs, and the Rnhes they fe^ixcd^ 
 to enjoy, would end in want and necejfity, asv^ell-wthemfelves, as in theirSuhjelis; ^r^s^e 
 no Alan would build a good Hvufe, that his Chifilrenxould mt inherit, nor cultivate thexf 
 Land with any good Husbandry and Expence, jfuce the profit thereof might be given ta. 
 another Alan: And that if the Subjeils did not enjoy the Coifveniencies of Life, they could 
 not be fure of their Help and Affetlion, whenever they flyo^ld. have M-a,v with ancthey 
 Prince as abfolute as then felves ; but they would rather chufe to he filjetl t(j him, unde^ 
 whofe Government they might live with greater Liberty and Stuisfanicn. And lafily, that 
 if they ingrofd all the IVealth and Power into their own Hands,^ they Jhculd find none who 
 would defend them in the Pcfjefjlon of it: And that tlxre was a great di^erence between 
 that Subjeclion which Love and Duty pd.ys, and that whhhrefuhs only from Fear aui^ 
 Force ; fwce Defpciir often puts an end to that .Duty., which Reafun, and it may be Ccnfci- 
 V ence, would otherwife have perfuaded them fliil to continue: And therefore, that it was Ke^ 
 ceffary that their Subjects jhouldfnd eafe and profit in Obeying, as well cis Kings phji- 
 ftcre in Cofftmanding. "Thefe wife and wholefime RcfieEiions might p-revail wttk Princes, for 
 their tuw, as well as SubjeBs beiwfit, to refirain their Power, and tomakeitlejs abfdutf^ 
 that it might be more ufeful ; and ta give their Subjetls fuch a Property in their Goods, 
 and Lands, as fhould net be invaded, but in fuch cafs, and on fuch occafious,, as the ne- 
 cejj:ties of the Gcvernment really ^e^uired. But as they found the benefit arifing from thefe 
 Londefetjfiuis highly tend to ihe Improvemciit oJ the Riches, und Civility cf their SubjeTis., 
 with all tkfe Additiom of Pleufiire .and hiduflry which rendir Alans Life, as well 0i 
 the Gcvernment eafy and pleaf ant, ^ they fill in feveral Generations enlarged thefe Qtut 
 ces arid Conccjfio)zs to their Subjehs , yet referving all in them felves that they did not 
 
 part
 
 
 Dialogue the Second. - Sc" 
 
 part "With h their "joluntiiry Grants cr Crmejjicns. And if xce take a "jifJi of the 
 k\eral Kingdoms' if/ ?/;<> f4^oy/d, ne Jhall fee antther face of thr,:gs, hth o/" Power 
 and Riches, in tftcje Gcicrnments u-l\;e thefc CiiideJieuficKs and Ccnuffjins ha^je been 
 btfl cijeized, than m thcfe Kingdur.s ii/xre the Sovrrcif^ns either retain, or refume to 
 themfehes all thoje Rigljts, or }^rerc?atiTet, uhich a;e mvefled in them fnm the Ori- 
 ginal Nature 0/ Go%einme)it ; fo that there ftill remains enough in the Princes Hands to 
 be tnade life of for the prejtrvaticn of his cv:n Pov:er , and the defence of his Subjects, for 
 ■whoje btneft it ucu intruftd -jiith h/?n by God. So Far the late Great ClianccUor. 
 
 And rheic Privileges and Gondclccn/ions being once pafs'd into conflant and 
 Handing Laws by the Princes that gave thejn, and alfo folcmniy fwcrn to by their 
 Coronation Oac.'is, do for the iuturc bind not only thoi'c Pi-inces that granted 
 them, bat alfo thc.rSuccellbrs, to their obfervation : And I then look upon them 
 bound, under paiii ot Damnation, not to break or infringe tiiem, without very 
 great necelFity. IjiIjl: 
 
 But ho^vcver, ifthey fliall. happen fo to do, fiiice they were Matters of mecr 
 Grace and Favour at the lirit, and not of Right, the Princes that thus tranfgrcfs 
 them ate only accountable to God, and punifhablc by him, and not by their Sub- 
 jects,, tor any Breaches or Infringements oF/iich Liberties and Immunities : And 
 this may fer\-e agamft the Fahcies of all thofc, who think Princes have nothing 
 but what the People have given them ; and likewife againfl fuch as Mr. HMsi 
 who maintain fo niitch is conferred on them, that they have a Right to leave no 
 bodf clfe any thing 10 enjoy, that 'they have a mind to take from them. And 
 this I take to bea much better Security fof the Peoples Liberties, to leave it to 
 the Honour and Conlcicncc of their Princes, and that Fear iliey ought to have of 
 the Divine Vengeance, in cafe they opprefs their Subjcds contrary to Law, than 
 your heady and violent Methods of Rclillahce for the Oppreffion or Tyranny of 
 Princes, which would but give the common People a Pretence of taking Arms, 
 and rebelling againli: their Princes upon every flight Provocation. 
 ( '-'Fi Ycu have made a very plaulibJe Difcourfe, whether of your own, or from 
 the Author yoii qtidtc, is not much material ; for, I doubt, when it comes to be 
 examined, it .will appear much more like a Romance than a true Hillory : And 
 therefore, granting at prefcnt your Principles to be true (tho' tliey are not) I de- 
 fire you to fbew me, how jou can make it out, either from facred or prophanc 
 Hiftory, that any Limited Kingdom now in the W'orld ever had its Original from 
 thofe gi'ttcious Coridifcciilions, or Conccffions of Princes, as you here mention : 
 For by all that ever I can read or obfervc, either from our own or foreign Hif- 
 tory, all the Liberties and Privileges, which Subjec^ts enjoy at rliisday, proceeded 
 at firft either from the original Contrafts, Culloms, or Conltitutions of thofe 
 Kingdoms or Nations, at the faji Inflmtion of their Government ; or clfe were 
 forced from Pri:ices hy their Subjeiits, who would no longer endure the Severity 
 of their Yoke ; or e!fe were granted by forae of them, whc; believing they had inoje 
 Titles than their Coraj^titors to theCi'own, were willing to engage the Pecfle^ 10 
 their fide, by granJjpg them greater Privileges than they before enjoyed. '; f 
 
 And tho' I grant,- the Reflections you make upon the Excrcife of arbitrary 
 Power, and the Miferies it brings both upon the Prince and People, are very 
 true ; yit I am fuwtfhe Practice of moll abiblutc Monarchs tinougliout the whole 
 World hath run quit«- contrary to your Suppofitions. for Princes .tre fo f;ir (by 
 what I ever read oro-bierved) from being willing to pan vvidi any of f heir Power^ 
 that tlwy have itill endeavoured by degrees to enlarge it, and render it }nore cibfc 
 lute than it was !efc them ; as you may obfcrve in the Goveran;eht of France, 
 Spain, Denmark, a.rA- Stixden, in this lalt Age ; and what £«oaci,/);«f;u'j were made 
 in this Kingdom, by the Prerogative, upon the Peoples Liberties, during the 
 Reigns of our lall Princes, he is a Stranger to the Hiitory of the Country, that 
 hath not read of, if he do not remember them ; and liow nuic;i higher they would 
 have been carried, if this ftrange and fudden Revolution had not put a ftop to it, 
 I had ruther you ;<nd I Ihould underhand in Idea than by F..\periencc; 
 
 But if (uch gta/yt-Reflettions as tliefe cf yours were able to work upon thefirft 
 Monarchs, I defirc to know the realon why thofe oi'TinUy, Perfia, Ruff a, and 
 the Afiican limpct'^jrt <,f Mor4Kco, and of tin; Ahijfmes (who furc have been as wife 
 as any you can naiiic-) Ihould not, in fo many Ages as tliey have governed, fee 
 thelc Inconveniences' you mention, and reilrain their exorbitant Power within 
 feme rtiCKJerate Limits : Nay, to the contrary, one of the molt ambitious and 
 
 aipiriug
 
 86 BiBLioTHECA Politic A. 
 
 afplring Monarchs in Europe is making what hafte he can to reduce his Kingdom 
 into the Tame Model. And what, do you think, would the Princes and Coun- 
 fellors ofthefe Empires fay to fuch a one as you or I, who ftiould oferto preach 
 this ftrange Doftrine to them, that they ought under pain of Damnation to ufe 
 their Subjefts as their Children, and not as Slaves or meet Vaflals ? I doubt they 
 would make us pay dear for publifliing fuch falfe Doftrine in their Dominions, or 
 at leaft would defpife us for half-witted Fellows, without any true Notions in 
 Politicks ; fince they believe, that the true Security and Glory of a King confill 
 in valt Standing Armies, great Fleets, and a Power to take from their Subjects and 
 Neighbours whatever they pleafe, thereby to enjoy their own Pleafures and Hu- 
 mours in all their Hearts can defire, and to extend their Empires (ferfw & nefai) 
 as far as ever their conquering Swords will give them leave. And if you fhould 
 tell them, that their Subjefts could not love them, nor live happily nor contentedly 
 under fuch a Government; I fuppofe their Anfwer would be (if they could fpeak 
 Latin) Oderim dum metuant ; or, in the Language of their own Country, that they 
 would rather truft a Standing Army than the A.fFeftions of their People ; and that 
 it is better to take from their Subjeds what they have a mind to, than to leave it 
 to their Good-will what they will give them. Thefe are all the antient and mo-; 
 dern Politicks that I can obferve in moft abfolute Monarchies, or in thofe King- 
 doms where Kings have taken upon them fo to govern their Subjeds at this day : 
 But I defy you to fhew me any one Kingdom in the World, where the People owe 
 all their Liberties and Privileges meerly to the Good-will and Favour of their Prin- 
 ces, who granted them only out of thofe wife Conliderations you have now men- 
 tioned. 
 
 But as for the Expedient at the latter end of your Speech, that thefe Privileges 
 and Condefcenfions, when once granted by Kings to their SubjeSs, and pafs'd into 
 conftant and ftanding Laws, and alfo folemnly fworn to by Princes at their Coro- 
 nation, do not only bind thofe Princes that granted them, but alfo their Succellbrs, 
 under pain of Damnation ; I fo far agree with you, tho' I muft beg yoiir Pardon, 
 if I cannot think this a fufficient Security, for feveral Reafons I can give you at a 
 more convenient Time, when I fhall, when you pleafe, more fully difcufs this 
 Point- 
 
 M. I muft freely tell you. Sir, I am not yet fatisfied neither with the Liftances 
 you have brought, nor yet with your Replies to my Anfwers ; and I think I can 
 Ihew you, as to this Kingdom, that they are falfe in Matter of Fad:. For if that 
 the iirft and moft antient Kingdoms and Monarchies began by Conquejl at firft, and 
 that perhaps for the moft part by Wars unjuftly made, as I may alfo inftance in 
 England, if this were a proper Seafon for it ; fo that indeed the greateft Liberty 
 in the VVorld (if it be duly coniidered) is for a People to live under a Paternal 
 Monarch). It is the Magna Ghana of this Kingdom, all other Shews or Pretexts ot 
 Liberty are but feveral Degrees of Slavery, and a Liberty only to deftroy Liberty. 
 B. P. P. So that I think I may very well keep my firft Opinion, that Paternal Gorvernmtnt 
 
 is the Foundation of all other ; and I have ever thought God's Love and Kindnefs 
 to Mankind did never appear in any thing more (except in Man's Redemption) 
 than in creating only one Man, and out of him only one Woman : So that Adam 
 was a kind of a Father to his Wife, that Marital, as well as all other Power, might 
 be founded in Paternal "JurifdiEiion ; that all Princes might look upon the meaneft 
 of their Subjefts as their Children, and all Subjefts upon their Prince as their com- 
 mon Father, and upon each other as the Children of one Man ; that Mankind 
 might not only be united in one common Nature, but alfo be of one Blood, of one 
 Family, and be habituated to the beft of Governments from the very Infancy of 
 the World. 
 
 Were this well confidered, as there could be no Tpants, fo neither would there 
 be any Traitors and Rebels ; but both Prince and People would ftrive to outdo 
 each other in the Offices of Love and Duty. And now do you or any Man 
 living read Sir R. F.'s Patriarcha, or other Works, and fee if either he or I have 
 afcribed one Dram of Power to Princes, which will not naturally fpring from this 
 Supreme Paternal Poixer. 
 
 So that upon the whole, I think Rcafon it felf would conclude, that this way of 
 folving the />y? /{//^ of Government is true, and that it is the Duty of all, who by 
 the Blefling of God are under Paternal Alonarchies, to be very thankful for the Fa- 
 vour, and to do the utmoft that in them lies to prcferve and tranfmit that beft 
 
 Form
 
 Dialogue the Second. 87 
 
 Form of Government to their Cliildren after tiiem. And fiirely there i% no Nation 
 under Heaven hath moreReafon for this than the £?;;f///J, who are under a Patei-- 
 nal Mnanh, which has taken rhe beft care that can be to fecure them, not only 
 from Oj preiFion and Wrong, but from the very Fear of it. 
 
 F. Since you lay the chief ftrefs of your Adertion upon the Original of moflof 
 the Kingdoms and Monarchies now in the World, and of our own in particular, I 
 think I may fafcly join iiTue with you on both points, and in the firft place affirm 
 that an !wju/l Ccnquefi gives the Conqueror no Right to the Subjcfts Obedience 
 •much lefs over their Lives or Eftates ,• and if our Normmz IViUiam and his Succef- 
 fors had no more Right to the Crown of England than meer Gonqueft, I doubt 
 whether they might have been driven out after the fame manricr they came in : 
 But I believe you wjJl find, upon ftcond thoughts, that unjufl Conquefls and 
 Ufurpations of Crowns be no firm Titles for Princes to rclie on ; left the old Eng~ 
 lijh Proverb be turned upon you, viz,. "That -which is Sauce for a Goofe is Sauce fm- a 
 Gander. But I (Lall defer this Difcourfe concerning Titles by Conqueft, and in 
 particular that of our Kings to this Kingdom, to forae other time ; when I doubt 
 not but to (hew, that it is not only falfe in Matter of Faft, but alfo that it will 
 not prove that for which it is brought. 
 
 And therefore what you fay in your Conclufion, in exaltation of God's Love 
 and Kindnefs to Mankind, in creati^ig one Man, and out of him only one Wo- 
 mftTi, that Adam miglit be a kind of Father to his Wife, is a very pretty and in- 
 deed fingular Notion ; and you would do very well to move the Cm-vocation, next 
 time it lits, that this Explanation may be added to the fifth CommaKdment, that 
 Women may be taught in the Catechifm, that Obedience to Husbands is due by 
 the Precept of Homur thy Father and thy Mother. 
 
 And therefore I need give no other Anfwer to all the reft you have faid : For 
 Irowevcr fpecious the Hyfothejis may fccm (as you have drcfs'd it up) for Princes 
 :and People ,• yet till you have proved, that all Paternal Po-xer is Monarchical, 
 and that all Monarchical Pciver is derived from Fatherhood, it fignifies nothing. 
 
 Nor can thefe piic Fraudes do any more good in Politicks than Religion : For as 
 Supcrftition can never ferve to advance the true Worfhip of God, but by creating 
 fldfc Notions of the Divine Nature in Mens Minds, which doth not render it, as 
 it ought to be, the Objeft of their Love and Reverence, but fervile Fear i fo I 
 fuppofe this aflc'rtirg of fuch an unlimited defpotical Poii:er in all Monarchs, and 
 fuch an entire Subjedlion as Sir R.F. and you your fclf exad from Subjefts, can 
 produce nothing but a flavifh Dread, without that Efteem and AfFcftion for their 
 Prince's Perfon and Government, which is fo necclTary for the Qiiiet of Princes, 
 and which they may always have, whilft they think themfelves obliged in Con- 
 fcicnce and Hohour to proteft their Lives and Fortunes from Slavery and OppreP 
 fion, according to the juft and known Laws of the Kingdom, and not to difpcnfe 
 with them in great and eflential Points, without the Confcnt of thofe who have a 
 hand in the making of them : And all falfc Notions of this Supre7tie Poim; as de- 
 rived from I know not what Fatherly (but indeed Difprtick) Power, are fo far from 
 fettling in Peoples Minds a fober and rational Obedience to Government, that 
 they rather m.ike them defperate, and carelcfs wJio is their Mafter ; fmcc, let 
 what Change will come, they can exped no better than to be Slaves. 
 
 Nor are Siibjeds put in a better condition by this Doftrine of abfolute Non- 
 rejtj}ance, fincc all Princes are not of fo generous a nature, as not to tyrannize and 
 infult the more over thofe, whom they fuppofe will not, or elfe dare not reftfl: 
 them ; and therefore 1 cannot fee how fuch a Submilfion can foften the Hearts of 
 the moft cruel Princes in the World, as you llippofc ; much lefs how a Power to 
 rcfift fn fome cafes can enrage the mildcft Princes to their Peoples Ruiii ; fince all 
 Rcliflance of fuch mild and merciful Princes I grant to be utterly unlawful : Nor 
 do I hold Refiflancc ever to be pra(5tifcd, but where the People are already ruined 
 in their Liberties and Fortunes, or are juft at the brink of it, and iiavc* no other 
 Means left but that to avoid it. 
 
 To conclude, I fo for agree with you, that I think it is the Duty of all that 
 are born under a Kingly Government hmittd by Laws, to be very thankful to God 
 for the Favour, ard to do the utmoft that in them lies to prefervc and tranfmic 
 this beft Form of Government to their Cliildren after them, without maintaining 
 fuch unintelligible Fiaioiis as a Paivmal Monarchy derived from Adam or Noah. 
 And tho' I own tf^t fome of our former Kingv have taken the beft care they could 
 
 to
 
 88 BiBLioTH EGA Politic A. 
 
 to fecure this Nation from Popery and Arbitrary Power ; yet whether the Method of 
 our three laft Kings has been the readieft way to fecure us from the Fears of it, I 
 leave it to your own Confcience (if you are a Proteftant) to judge. 
 
 But fince you defy me to fiiew you out of Sir R. F.'s Patriarcha, that he hath 
 afcribed one Dram of Power to Princes, which doth not naturally arife from a 
 Supreme Paternal Pmer, and that this is no exorbitant Height ^ I think I am able 
 to prove from many Pafl'ages in his Patriarcha, as well as other Works, that no 
 Author hath made bolder Aflertions to render all Mankind Slaves, inftead of Sub- 
 jefts ; and all Princes Tyrants, inftead of Kings ; and that his Principles are fo 
 far from being fate, that if they are duly look'd into and weighed, they will 
 prove dcftruftive as well to the Rights of Princes, as to the Liberties of the 
 People. 
 
 M. I (hould be very glad to fee that proved ; for I muft always believe, 'till you 
 fhew me to the contrary, that this excellent Author lays it down for a Ground, 
 that Princes, being as Fathers to their People, are bound to treat their Subjeds 
 as Children, and not as Slaves :-And therefore waving this laft Controverfy, which 
 we have argued as far as it will go ; pray make out what you fay from his own 
 Words, and I will give up the Caufe. 
 
 F. 1 wonder how you can be fo partially blind as not to fee this, fince you 
 yourfclf have already made ufe not only of a great deal .of his Dodrines, but 
 alfo of his very Words. And therefore, pray fee his Obedience to Government 
 in doubtful Times ; as alfo in his Preface to the Obfervations upon AriJlotle's'Po- 
 Tage 4. liticks; where you will find he aflerts, 'that Adam woi the Father, King and Lord 
 ever his Fainily ; a Son, a Subjefl, and a Servant, or a Slave, -were one and the fame 
 thing at firfl : The Father had pcauer to difpofe of, or fell his Children, or Servants. 
 " Whence we find, that at the firft reckoning of Goods in Scripture, the Man- 
 " fervant, and the Maid-fervant are numbered among the Pofleffions, and Sub- 
 " ftance of the Owner, as other Goods were." So that then, if the Power of a 
 Father, and of a Monarch be all one, and that all Monarchical Po-xer is Defpctical, 
 the Confequence is alfo as evident, that all Subjefts are alfo naturally Slaves, un- 
 lefs their Princes fhall pleafe to lay an eafier Yoke upon them. 
 
 M. Perhaps Sir R. F. may have carried this Matter a little too far ; yet if you 
 pleafe to look into his Patriarcha, Chap. 3. Part i. you will find that he hath this 
 PalTage, which plainly fpeaks the contrary : The Father of a Family governs by no 
 ether La-w, than by his onn JViU, not by the Laws and M^iUs of his Sons and Servants. 
 There is no Nation that allows Children any Action, or Remedy, for being unjufily governed; 
 and yet for all this, every Father is bound by the Law of Nature ts do his beji for the pre^ 
 favation of his Family ; but much more is a King always tied by the fame Law of Nature 
 to keep this general Ground, That the Safety of his Kingdom be his chief Law. Whence 
 you may obferve, that though he takes away all Remedy from Children againft 
 their Parents for being ill governed, yet doth he not fet the Father free from all 
 Obligation to preferve the Good of his Family, of which fure a Man's Children 
 are a principal part. 
 
 And if you pleafe to look back to the fecond Chapter of his Patriarcha, yoii 
 will find thefe Words ; To anfwer in particular to the firfl Text, it may be faid the Senfe 
 cf thefe Words, By the Law of Nature all Men are born free, mufl needs mean a Freedom 
 only that is oppofite to fuch a SubjeHion as is between Father and Son. This is made ma- 
 nifefl by the Text of the Law : For Ulpian in this place fpeaketh only of Manumiflion, 
 which is afetting at Liberty of Seivantsfrom Servitude, and not of Emancipation, which 
 is the freeing of Children from the Fathers Tuition. Servitude, c(s the Law teacheth, is 
 a Confiitution of the Law of Nations, by which a Man i( fubjeSi to the Dominion of any 
 ether Man againfl Nature. So not every SiibjeEiion is Servitude, but Subjection contrary 
 to the Law of Nature. Tet every Man ii born fubjeB to the Power of a Father. This 
 the Law itfelf faith, InPoteflate noflra Liberi nnflri funt. So that you fee here he maketh 
 a difference between Servitude, and that SubjeElion that is due to Fathers. 
 * F. Give me leave to anfwer thefe two Inftances before you proceed any far- 
 
 ther ; and I fhall in the firft place make bold to anfwer your laft Inftance firft, be- 
 caufe I (hall be much fhorter upon it. But pray take notice by the way, that 
 this Author is very high and rigorous for the abfolute Power of Life and Death 
 in all Fathers over their Children in the State of Nature, and that they may 
 exercifc it for very flight Offences ; And therefore in this Chapter you have laft 
 quoted, he fecms very well fatisficd with the Example of (Mffw, who threw his 
 
 » Son
 
 'Dialogue the Second. 8p 
 
 'ioK out of the Coijftfiory fur publijhiitg the Agrarian hzw, fr, the Divijiov of Landi ; and 
 I think this was no fuch great Crime, for which a Fatiicr might juftific the put- 
 ting his Son to Deatli. And in the S^dion betorj this, he jufliheth the Power 
 of Fatiiers amongfl the Romans, m being ratifal and amplified by the Laws of the 
 rxelve 'Tables, enabling Parents to fell their Children tn'O or three times cvo: So tliac 
 thefe things conlidcred, I canr.ot fee how this DiftincSion of Sir R. F. cut of the 
 Civil Law will do him any icrvice. For though I grant iudecdy tiut Alamimi/jion, 
 and Emancipation, are two uitiercnt V/ords, )'ct do they bocli fignih'c t!ie fame 
 thing. And though for the greater rcfpeft which they would flicw to tlie Con- 
 dition of Children above that oi Slaves, tliey were pleafed to make ufc of diftc- 
 rent Expreflions; yet whoever will look mere clofely into the Nature of the 
 Subjcihion that Children were in, under their Parents, by the Rcfnan Law, will 
 find, that the Condition of Children was no better than that of Slaves. Fcr Fnfi, 
 Tlxc Father had fuch an abflate Poiier over the Perfon of the Son, that he could 
 fell him three times, whereas lie could fdl a Slave but once. Secondly, Uc had 
 fuch an abfulute Power over his Life, that he could take it away whenever he 
 pleafed. La/ily, A Son could have no Property in any Goods without his Father's 
 Confent, 'till he was emancipated, or made free : So that if his Father were harfh 
 and ill-natured, the Condition of a Son was worfe than that of a Slave, as long 
 as his Father lived. 
 
 And therefore, I am ftill of the Opinion of the antient Civil Lawyers, who 
 aflcrt the natural Freedom of Mankind, according to the Maxim you have now 
 cited. And they acknowledge, that the Servitude, or abfolute Siibjc^ivn of Children 
 to their Fathers, was not by the Law of Nature, but by the Civil or Roman Law, 
 peculiar to therafelves, as I have already proved at our lall: Meeting. 
 
 But to come to your firft Quotation, whereby you would clear Sir R. F. from 
 maintaining any unjufl Severity in Fathers, or Tyranny in Princes, becaufe they 
 arc both to endeavour the common Good of their Families and Kingdoms. 'Tis 
 very true he fays fo ; but of this Conmon Good they themfelves are the file fudges. 
 So that if the Father pleafe to fell one or two of his Chileren, whom he leaf): 
 loveth, to provide Portions for the reft, he may lawfully do it for any thing I 
 fee to the contrary. So likewife immediately after he alferts the Superiority of 
 all Princes above Laws, becaufe there were Kings long before there were any 
 Laws. And all the next Paragraph is wholly fpent in proving the unlimited 
 furfdiclion of Kings above Laws ; as it is defcritjcd by Samuel, when the Ifaelites 
 delired a King : So that it fignifies little what Laws Princes make, or wiiat Pri- 
 vileges they grant their Subjefts, fince they may alter them, or abrogate them 
 whenever they pleafe. 
 
 M. But pray take along with you what he fays in the next Paragraph you 
 quote; where you may fee thefe Words; It is there- evidently fiewed, that the Scope 
 of Sum.uel was to teach the People a dutiful Obedience to their Kii^g, even in thofe things 
 •which themfelves did ejleem mijchiev.us and inconvenient : For by telling them what a King 
 would do, he indeed in/lrucls them what a SubjeB mujl fuffer ; yet not Jo, ai that it is right 
 for Kings to do injury, but it is right for them to go unpunijhed by the People if they do it' 
 So that in this point it is all one, whether Samuel defcribe a King or a Tyrant ; for pa~ 
 tient Obedience is due to both : A/y Roncdy in the Text again/l Tyrants, bat in crying and 
 praying unto God in that Day. And that Sir R. F. is very far from jullii'ying Kings 
 in the unneceflary Breach of their Laws, may farther appear by what he fays, 
 cap. 3. part 6. of this Treatife ; where pray fee tliis Paflage. Now albeit Kings 
 who 7nake the Laws, be (ai King James teacheth m) above the Laws, )et will they rule 
 their Subjetls by the Laws ; and a King governing in a fettled Kingdom, leaves to be ■ 
 a King, anddegenerateth into a Tyrant, jo foon as he leaves to rule according to his Laws ; 
 yet where he Jees the Laws rigorcm, or doubtjul, he may mitigate and interpret them. 
 So that you fee here he leaves the King no Power or Prerogative above the 
 Laws, but what Ihall be dircdted, and employed for the general Good of the 
 Kingdom. 
 
 F. But pray. Sir, read on a little farther, and fee if he doth not again undo 
 all that he hath before fo fpeciouflylaid down; and if you will not read it, I will: 
 General Laws made in Parliament, may, upon known rcfpetls to the King, by his Autho- 
 rity, be fnitigated, or fufpended upon Caufcs only blown to him. And altlmigh a King do 
 frame all his Aciions to be according to the Laws, yet he is nit bound thereto, but at his 
 good Will, and for gocd Example : (^ fo far fot th as the General Law of the Safety of 
 
 ' N ■ the
 
 JO iBiBLioTHECA Politic A. 
 
 the Common'-xeal doth naturally bind him ; for iiifuchfort only, pojitive Lava's may be f aid 
 to bind the King, not by being pofaive, but as they are naturally the beji, or only means 
 for the f refer vation of the Commonv^ealth. 
 
 So that if the King have this Prerogative of mitigating, interpreting, and fuf- 
 pcnding all Laws, in Cafes only known to himfelf, and that he is not bound to 
 the Laws but at his own good Will, and for good Example. I defire to know whac 
 greater Prerogative a King can defire, than x.o fvfpend the Execution of any Law, as 
 often as he fliall think fit. For though I grant the Snfpenfion of a Law diifers 
 from the Abrogation of it, becaufe the former only takes away the force of it in 
 this or that particular cafe, whereas the. latter wholly iinnuls the Law ; yet if 
 this Sufpenfion be general, and in every cafe, where the Law is to take efleft, it 
 amounts to the fame thing with an Abrogation of it ; as may be plainly fcen in 
 the late King's Dtfpenfing Pov:er. For though it be true he pretended to no more, 
 than to difpenfe with this, or that Pcribn, who fliould ur.dertake a publick Em- 
 ployment, either MiUtary or Civil, without taking the Oaths and Tefi ; yet fince 
 he granted this Difpenfation generally to all Papifls, and others that would tranf- 
 grcfs tliis Law, it amounted to the fame thing, during his Pleafure, as an alfo" 
 lute Abrogation of it. And therefore I do very much wonder why divers, who are 
 very zealous for the Church of Eitgland, snd the Kings Prercgative, fliould be fo 
 angry with him for erefting that Pou'er, -winch not only this Author, but all others 
 of his Principles have placed in him : And ii the King may fufpend this, and all 
 other Laws, upon Caufes only known to him, I do not fee how he differs from be- 
 ing as ubfolute and arbitrary a Monarch, as the Great Turk himfelf j and may, 
 when he pleafes, notwithftanding all Laws to the contrary, take away Mens 
 Lives without any due Forms of Lav/, and raifc Taxes witliout Confent of Par-' 
 liament. 
 
 M. But pray read on a little farther, and you will find that he very much re- 
 trains this ahfolute Poro:er, in thefe Words : By this means are all Kings, ezen Tyrants 
 and Conqueyors, bound to preferve the Laws, Goods, Liberties and Lives of ail their Sub' 
 jeEis, not by any Municipal Law of the Land, but by the Natural Law of a Father, 
 ■which binds them to ratine the Acts of their Forefathers and Predeceffurs in things ne- 
 ceffary for the publick Good of their SubjeBs. 
 
 F. Were I a Monarch limited by Laws, I v^^ould defire no greater a Power 
 over them than this you have here brought out of this Aufhor. For he {ays,pcfit!ve 
 Laws do not bind the King, but cu they are the befl or only means for the prefervation of 
 the Cofnmonwealth. In the next place you fee that all Kings are bound to preferve 
 the Lives and Eltates of their Subjeds, not by any Municipal Law of the Land, 
 but by the Natural Law of a Father, which binds them to ratifie the Afts of 
 their Predeceflbrs in things ncceflary for the publick Good of their Snbjefts. Now 
 this Paternal Power is large enough of all Confcience to difcharge Princes from 
 any Obligation to the Laws farther than they pleafe. For it before appears, that 
 the Fatlier of a Family governs by no other Law tiian by his own Will, and not 
 by the Laws and Wills of his Sons or Servants ; therefore if the Power of the 
 King be wholly Paternal, he may alter this Will of his as often as he pleafes : Nor 
 can his Subjeds, who are all one with Sons and Servants, have any reafonto find 
 fault witli it. For he fays. There is no Nation that allows Children any Remedy for be~ 
 ing tmfuflly governed. And though it be true, that he retrains this Prerogative 
 both in Fathers and Kings to the publick Good of their Children and Subjcfts ; 
 yet as long as he is left the fole and imcontroulabic Judge of what is for the publick 
 Good, all'thefe fine Pretences will fignifie nothing. For he is bound to obferve 
 or ratifie no Laws or Ads of his Predeceflbrs, but what he is fati^fied tend to this 
 End : So that if he thinks fit to judge, that Magna Charta, for Example, or the 
 Statute de Tallagio non concedendo, or anj' Liberty we enjoy, are not necefl'ary, or 
 contrary to the common Good, he is not tied to obferve them. And upon this 
 Principle it was that the Judges in the Reign of King Charles the Firft founded 
 the Kings Prerogative for Ship-money : For they fuppofcd that the King, in cafe of 
 necelTity, (chat is, for the publick Good of the Subjeds) might lay a Tax upon 
 the Kingdom, though without Confent of Parliament. So that upon this Pretence 
 the King being the fole Judge of the Neceffty, he might quickly have raifed what 
 Trtxf f, and as often as he had pleafed. 
 
 But, lell our Kings fhould tiiink thcmfelve^ too ftridly bound by their Corona- 
 tion Oaths, to obfcrvc the Laws, pray fee in th* nexc Paragraph how this Author 
 
 endeavours
 
 Dialogue the Second, pi 
 
 enocavours to help the King to creep out of that Obligation too. Therefore 
 pray read on. Other x there be that affirm, that althotigh Laivs of tbemfehes do not bi.id 
 King', yet the Oaths of Kings, at their Coronations, tie thm to keep all the Laws of their 
 Kitiqdoms : Hovo far this is trvs, let m but examine the Oaths of the Kings of England 
 at their Coronation : The Words v:hereof are thefe : " Art thou pleafcd to cai fe to be 
 " adminiflred in all thy Judgments indifferent and upright Juftice, and to ufe 
 " Difcretion with Mercy i* Art thou pleafcd that our upright Laws and Cultoms 
 " be obferved ; and doft thou promife, that thefe fliall be protefted and main- 
 ** tained by thee ?" fhcje two are the Articles of the King's Oath, -which concern the 
 Ln.ti, or SitbjeQs in gencrat ; to ■which the King anfwers affir7natively ; being firfl de- 
 manded by the Archbijbvp of Canterbury : " Pleafeth it you to confirm, and obferve 
 " Uie Laws and CiifLoms of ancient Times granted from God, by ji'It and de- 
 ** vout Kings unto the Engl/jh Nation, by Oath unto the faid People, efpecially 
 " the Law.', Liberties and Cufloms granted unto the Clergy, and Laity, by the 
 " famous King Edward? '' We may obferve in thefe Words of the Articles of the Oath^ 
 that t/je King is required to cbferve not all the Lavus, but only the upright, and that with 
 Difcretion and Mercy. Tlie Word upright cannot mean all Laws, becaufe in the 
 Oath of Richard the Second, I find evil and unjuft Lav\'s mentioned, which the 
 King fwears to abolifli : And in the old Abridgment of Statutes fet forth in King 
 Hemy the Eightl/s Days, the King is to i'wear wholly to put out evil Laws, which 
 he cannot do, if lie be bound to all Laws. 
 
 Now wliat Laws are Upright, and what Evil, who fhall judge but the King ? 
 fince he fwears to adminifter z<!/>r/^A? jf«y?7ce with Difcretion and ^ercy j or (as 
 Brasionhath it) atjuitatem pracipiat, & imjiricordtam. . So that, in effect the King doth 
 fwear to keep no Laws but Jiich cie in his fudgment are upiight, and thoje w.t literally al- 
 ways but according to the Equity of his Coiijaence, joined with Mercy, which is properly 
 the Office of a Chancellor rather than of a Judge. And if a King did flriEily fwear to 
 obferve all the Laws, he could not, without Perjury, give his Confent to the Repealing or 
 Abrogating of any Statute by A^ of Parliament, which would be very mifchievom to the 
 State. 
 
 But let it be fuppofed fir Truth, that Kings do fwear to obferve all the Laws of their 
 Kitfgdoms ; yet no Man can think it reafun, that Kings Jhould be more bound b'i their volunr 
 taiy Oaths, ihan cGmmcn Perfons are by theirs. Nozv if a private perfon make a Contract 
 either with Oath, or without Oath, he is no farther bound than the Equity and Jujiice of 
 the ContraSl tiei Jum ; for a Alan jnay have Relief againfi an urn eafonable andunjiifl Pro- 
 mife, if either Deceit or Error, Force or Ftar induced him thereunto ; or if it be hurt- 
 ful or grievoHi in the performance. Since the Laws m jnany Cafes give the King a Preroga- 
 tive ab'fve common Perfon^, I fee no reafon why he fhculd be denied the Privilege which the 
 meamefl of his Subjetis doth enjoy. ■ii_ '■:<■ ■ 
 
 I need not make any long Paraphrafe upon thefe Words : It is fufEcient that 
 the King is here kizfok Judge of wiiat Laws are upright, and what unjufi ; and 
 confcquently what Laws iie.pieafes fiiall be obferved, and wnat not. So that no 
 Laws, tiiough thought never fo jiill, and necelfary by the Parliament at the time 
 of making of them, fliall lignifie a;iy thmg, if he thinks fit afterwards to judge 
 othcrwife. And left tins fboiild not be fufficient, he hath found out. another way 
 whereby Princes may abfolve.chemfelvcs of this troublefomc Obligation of Oaths; 
 and iheretbre he would have them no more bound up than common Perfons, who, 
 becaufe they may have Relief in pubhck Courts of Juftice, againfi an unjull Pro- 
 mife ; ;■/ either Error, Deceit, Force, or Fear, induced them thereunto ; nay more, if it 
 be hu;rful or gric^im-inthe performance ; Kings who have. a Prerogative above com- 
 moivPcrfoM'-, and wlio acknowledge no Tribunal above themfelves, may abfolve 
 tliemfclvcs of their Oaths whenever they think good ; by faying it was extorted 
 from rJiun by Deceit, I-lrce, or Pear : Or if they cannot fktisfie themfelves with- 
 out it, they might have had formerly the Popes's Diipenfation for Money, which 
 we read King John, and Henry the Third obtained to be abfoUed of the Oaths 
 lUcy hid t^kcn xo obktvc Alagna Charta. But tiiis Author hath found out a 
 (horter cut, and Iratli made Kings botJi Judges and Pasties, and to abfolve them- 
 fel'.'es by a Fundmnci,tal Right of Government. And wliat hath proved the Con- 
 chriion of Inch Princes who have taken this Autjior's Liberty of breaking their Co- 
 ionaticn Oath at their pleafure ? It hath only taught their Subjefts to imitate their 
 Example, and ro nul.e as light, of their Oath of Allegiance. 
 
 N 2 M.1
 
 ^% BibliothecaPolitica. 
 
 M. I will not deny, but perhaps Sir R- F. may have carried the Prerogative in 
 this Point a little too far ; yet that he meant honeftly towards the Commonweal 
 in • all this, I pray fee tlie 8th Seftion of this Chapter, where you'll find thefc 
 VVords ; Mmty luilJ be ready to fay, it is aflavifi and dangerous Condition to le fiihjeti to 
 the M'^ill of any one Man, rcho is not fubjeti to the Laws : But fuch Men conjider not, i. 
 I'hat the Prerogative of a King is to be above all Laws, for the good only of them who 
 (ire under the Laws, and to defend the People s Liberties, as his Majejiy gracioufy affirmed 
 in his Speech, after his lafl Anfwer to f//e Petition of Right ,- howfoeuer, fame are afraid 
 of the Name of Prerogatiue ; yet they may affure themfehes, the Cafe of SubjeEis would be 
 defperately miferable without it. So that you fee here he aflerts no Prerogative in 
 the King to be above all Laws, but only for the good of the People, and to de- 
 fend their Liberties ; which I think is a fufficient reftraint of Prerogative. 
 
 F. But read a little lower, and the People will have no fuch great caufe to thank 
 him, as you may fee by thefe Words : In all Ariflocracies the Nobles are above the 
 Laws i and in all Democracies, the People. By the like reafon, in a Monarchy the King 
 mufi of neceffty be above the Laws ; there can be no Sovereign Majefly in him that is 
 under them ; that which gives the very Being to a King, is the Power to give Laws ; with" 
 out this Power he is but an Equivocal King. 
 
 And moft part of what follows in this Treatife, is only to prove, that the Pa)-" 
 liament, or ATl'embly of Eftates, was a Creature wholly of the Kings Creation, and 
 confequently, that he alone makes the Laws in it : And he hath alfo written a 
 whole Treatife, called "The Freeholders Grand Inquefi, to prove that it is the King's 
 Authority alone that makes the Laws ; and therefore that he can interpret and 
 difpenfe with them athispleafure. So that Richard II, had this Author liv'd in 
 his time, might have made him a Judge as well us Trefillian and Belkrap, fince 
 they all maintain'd the fame Principles. But, left we Ihould miftake him, fee 
 what he fays at the Conclufion of this Treatife : For the confirmation of this Point, 
 Kx^ot\Q faith, "That a perfect Kingdom is that wherein the King rules all things accor- 
 ding to his own Will ; for he that is called a King according to the Law, makes no kind of 
 Kingdom at all. "This, itfeems, alfo the Romans well underfiood to be moft neceffary in a 
 Monarchy ; for tho they were a People moft greedy of Liberty, yet the Senate did free Au- 
 guikus from all necejfity of Laws, that he might be fee of his own Autho^-ity, andof abfiy 
 lute Power over him f elf, and ove^- the Laws, to do what he pleafed, and leave undone what 
 helijl; and this Decree WM made while Auguftus was yet abfent. Accordingly, we 
 find that Ulpian, the great Lawyer, delivers it for a Rule of the Civil Law, Prittr 
 ceps LcgibmfolutHi efi. The Prince is nor bound by the Laws. 
 
 So that upon thefe Principles, all Kings are not only difcharged from the i'e- 
 nalty, but alfo the very Obligation of obferving Laws, farther than they Ihall think 
 fit. And indeed, this Author carries this Prerogative beyond what the moft mo- 
 derate Roman Emperors ever pretended to, as I can eafily fhow you from your own 
 Civil Law Books ; and therefore pray reach me down your Volume of the Code, and 
 1. 5. Ub. 6. t. fee here what the Emperor declares on this Matter De Teftamentis. Ex imperfeEio 
 ^3* Tefiamento nee Imperatorem hareditatem vindicate poffe, fape confiitutum efi, licet enim Lex 
 
 Imperii Solennibm juris Imperatorem folverit ; Nihil tarr.en tarn proprium Irnperii efi, quam 
 C, Ae Le^lhiii Legibtii vivere. See likewife in the 'Theodofian Cide thefe words : Digna vox efi Ma- 
 I. 4. lib. I. /. jefiate Regnant is, Legibm alligatum fe Principis profiteri, adeo de Author itate juris, noftra 
 ^4- pendet Authoritas, & re vera majiis Imperio efi fubmitte^e Legibm Principatum, & ortf 
 
 culo prafentis EdiBi quod nobis licere no» patimur, aliis indicamm, (viz. Succefforibm Ihe- 
 odojio & Valentino.) 
 
 So that you may here fee, that even the Roman Emperors were more modeft, 
 than to declare themfelves difcharged by their Prerogative, or thought of any of 
 thefe fubtle diftindions of this Author, from their obligation to the Laws, however 
 they were from the Penalty ; which is the true Senfe of this Phrafe of being Legi- 
 irti folutm. 
 
 But God be thanked, moft of our own Kings have been more confcientious, 
 than to maintain that they were not bound by their Coronation Oath farther than they 
 Baj}.il,f. 99. pleafed. For you may fee in the Preamble to the Statute of Provifors, made in the 
 25th of Edward III, where it is declared and acknowledged by the King himfelf, 
 and both Houfes of Parliament, that the Right of the Crown of England, and the 
 Lavj of the Realm is fiuh, that upon the Mifchiefs and Damages which happen to the 
 Realm, he ought, and was bound of his faid People in his Parliament thereof, to 
 make Remedy, and Law, in voiding the Af//c7;/e/} which come thereof- And the 
 
 * King
 
 Dialogue the Second. ^-^ 
 
 King feeing the Mifdtefs and Damage aforefaid, and having regard to the faid 
 Statute (fiiil. the former Statute of Prcvifors) he here farther acknowledges, that he 
 is bound by his Oath to'do the fame to be kept, as the Lavj of hit Realm, tho' by 
 fufltrance and negh'gencc it hath been hitherto attempted to tlic contrary. 
 
 So likewife, Knig J/enry IV. declares in full Parliament (as appears by the Par- Pet. Pari. H. 
 liament Roll) That whereas the Commons in Parliament had granted, that the IV. ?;. io8. 
 King Ihould be in as great Liberty as any of his Noble Progenitors ; on which our •■''•"';"'"»■.?''»- 
 faid Lord of his Royal Grace, and tender Confcience, had granted in full Parlia-''"^' '"^'^'* 
 ment, that it is not his intent, nor will he alter tiie Laws, Statutes and good 
 Ufages, nor take any Advantages by the faid Grant ; but will keep the ancient 
 Laws and Statutes ordained and ufed in the times of his Noble Progenitors, and do 
 Right to all People in Mercy and Truth Seloncfon Serment, i. e. according to his 
 Coronation Oatli. 
 
 M. I will not affirm, but Sir R. F. obferving how much the King's Prerogative 
 was run down by the long Parliament ; and how the leaft Hips and mifcarriages 
 in Government were aggravated .by the Demogogues that then domineered, as 
 open and violent breaches of his Coronation Oath, might be willing to make the 
 beft defence he could for fuch Mifcarriages; and this TvQiii^&oi Pan imtha, being 
 a Pofthumous piece, perhaps he would have altered many things in it, had he 
 lived to publifti it himfvlf ; but I doubt not, but he was a very honefl Man, and 
 meant well to tlie Kingdom for all that. And therefore I hope you will not be 
 too rigorous in your Cenfure of him. 
 
 F. I'll affure you. Sir, I £hall not, becaufe he hath been dead many Years, and 
 therefore I had mucli rather cenfure his Writings, than his Perfon, which I never 
 knew. But, if I may judge from his Works, he was certainly no Friend to Par- 
 liaments, or the Power of the Laws above the Prerogative : But that I may alfo 
 fliew you how dangerous and derogatory his Opinions hkewife are to the Ti- 
 tles of all Sovereign Princes and Monarchs now in the World, however he may 
 feem to write in their defence, pray turn to his Patr.chap.i.far. 9. and to a 
 Queftion, What becomes of the Right of Fatherhood, in cafe the Crown efc heat for tisant 
 of an Heir I he thus replies, which pray read. It is but rlie Negligence or Igno- 
 rance of the People to lofe the kncwledge of the true Heir : For an Heir there alxvays 
 is ; if Adam himfelf zuere fitll living, and mix) ready to die, it is certain, there is one 
 Man, and but one in the World, ivho is next Heir, although the knoivledge -who jhould he 
 that one 'Man be quite loft. The which he likewife repeats to the fame efted, in 
 his Treatife of the Anarchy of a limited or mixed Monarchy. Pray fee the 
 place, and read thefe Words : It is a truth undeniable, that there cannot be a Muhi- Mifcel. p. 
 tude of Men luhatfoever, either great or f nail, though gathered together from the federal -H- 
 Comers, and remotefl Regions in the World ; but that in the fame Multitude confidered by 
 itfelf, there is one Man amongfi them, that in Nature hath a Right to be the King 
 of all the rejl, as being the next Heir to Adam, and the other fubjeSi unto htm ; every 
 Man by Nature is a Kmg, or a Stibjeci. So that I think no Kings in the World be- 
 ing able to deduce their Pedigree from Adam (of whom there can be but one right 
 Heir) they all (or at leaft all but one) are only Kings de Fath, and not da Jure^ 
 and Ufurpers upon this Heir of Adam. So that if God would but be plcafed to 
 reveal who this next Heir is, all the Kings of the Earth were bound in Confci- 
 ence to lay their Crowns at his Feet ; though he were but a Cobler or a Link- 
 boy. How ridiculous a Notion this is, I leave it to any indifferent Man to judge. 
 
 M. I hope this Opinion is like to have no very ill eft'ed:, unlefs any Prince, by 
 virtue of this Title of Adams right Heir, fiiould pretend a Right to an univerfal 
 Monarchy ; and then I think it were but reafonablc, he fhould be put to make 
 out his Title ; but feeing no body doth fo, to the beft of my knowledge, it is but 
 reafonable that all Princes fiiould in the mean time enjoy what they are in law- 
 ful Pollefllon of, till this Heir oiAdam hath made out his Title, and then they 
 may confider farther of it. 
 
 F. And it is very well, that this right Heir is not to be found; for if he were, 
 all f'rinces would be Ufurpers, who did not immediately relign to him. But thi-s 
 Doftrine is of more fatal confequence than you imagine ,• for it doth not only con- 
 cern Princes in refpe6t o^ Adam's right Heir only, but alfo of any other right Heits to 
 Princes, who have loft their Right to a Crown never fo many Ages ago : For look 
 Into his Diredtions for Obedience in doubtful times, and read this Paflage : By 
 Humane pofitive Luvjs, a PoJfclp,ijn ttme out of mind lakes avjay, or bars afortner Right, to 
 
 a'joii
 
 P4 B I B L i O T ,li E C A P O^ L I T I C A. 
 
 aiioid a general AHf chief of bringing nil Right into a Difpntation not decideabk l\ Proof 
 and confequentlyy to the overt hrovj of all Civil Gmernmtnt, m Grants, Gijts, and Coyt^. 
 tracis bet-<x:een Man and Alan ; but in Grams and Gifts, that ha've their Original from 
 God or Nature, {as the Poiver of a Father hath) no inferior Poiver of Man can limit, nor 
 make any La-w of Pnfcriptim agaiKft than. Upon this grou/^d is built that Nullum tempus 
 occurrit Regi, no time bars. a King. And a little bi;t"ore, he gives us this reaion' 
 of it : For tho' by humane Laws a long Prefcription may take auay Right ; yet 
 a divine Right never dies, nor can be loft or takeu away. By which Principle, 
 he renders the Titles of moft (if not all) of the Princes ot fwry/f at this day i cry 
 weak and difputable, whenever any other Perfon foall fct up a Tide agamil 
 them. : 
 
 M. But Sir R. F. hath found a very good Expedient for this ; for he tells us, in 
 the laft cited Difcourle, that the Pate, ual Po-uier cannot be lofl, tlm' 3t may either be 
 pitg. 275. transferred or iifurped ; and in his Anarcliy of 3 lilhited Monarchy, he thus more at 
 large exprefles it. Many times, by the Act either of a Ujurper bimfelf, or of thofe that 
 fet him tip, the true Heir of a CroiJ^n is difpcjfejf'ed, God ufing the Mtnifl,y of the ijcick.sdejl 
 Man for the removing andfettingup of Kings; in fee h cafes, the Subje^s Obedience to. the^ 
 Fatherly Po'^er mufl go along, and wait upon God's Providence, ziho only hath right td 
 give and take away Kingdoms, and thereby to adopt Subjects into the Obedience, of another 
 Fatherly Power. Andlafily ; in bis Difccurfe of Obedience, &c. he more dearly fet'tleth 
 this Point, in anfwer ro an Objcdioii there raade ; that mclf Kings now in the 
 World, have lio other Titles to their Crowns but Conqueft or Ufurpation : H^ 
 replieth, "fhat tho' all Kings were Ufurpers, yet flill the fir ft Vjurper hath thebtfi Fitky 
 beii.g in Poffeffionby the Permiffon of God ; and where an Jjf»rper hath ccninucd fo long, 
 that the knowledge of the right Heir is lofl by the Sub jells ; in fuch cafe the UJurper in 
 Pojfcjfion is to be taken and reputed by fuch Subjects for the true Heir, and is to be obey'd by 
 them CIS their Father. And I think you your felf will not deny, but -that Kingdoms 
 may be transferred from one Prince to another by Conqueft, or a long Ulurpation j 
 and that when there is no other better Title extant, the King in Poileillon, of his 
 Heirs, may have a good Title by a long Polleffion, tho' it began by Ufurpatioi> 
 at firlt. 
 
 F. I have not now time to anfwer all that your Author hath as falfly, as inco- 
 herently faid concerning this Siibjcd of Ufurpation ; and I fiiould be glad to .hear 
 you, or any Man elfe that will undertake to defend him, make him him conliflent, 
 not only with reafon, but with himfeli:, in this Difccurfe you quote, concerning 
 Obedience to Government in doubtful times. For to pafs by his uninielligible 
 Notion, of fuppofing two fupreme Paternal Powers fubfifling at once, and each of 
 them laying claim to the Obedience and Submiffion of the Subjects, the former 
 that of the UlurpCi-, If 'ho being in Poffeffvn of the Crown by the permijfive Will of God ^ 
 •who hath thought fit to adopt the SiibjeHsinto a Fatherly Poyxr; and the latter, that Pa- 
 ternal Right which he fuppofjs iiill to remain in the expulfecl Prince, and his 
 Heirs for ever. By which means the Allegiance of the Subjects is fo divided and 
 perplex'dj that tliey can never be able to tell, when the Allegiance to the right 
 Heir is to take place before that of the Ufurper. . > . / 
 
 M. But if you had been pleafed better to obferve this Difcourfe, you; ^TQiild 
 find that Sir ii. F. hath very well obviated this Objection, as appears. by j^fhefe 
 llitl t. 6S. Words. The Right of Fathc, ly Government was ordaintd by G^d for the prefervation of 
 Mankind ; if it bj ufurped, the Ufurper maybe fo far obeyed, as may tend to tfie preferva- 
 tion of the Subjecis, who may thereby ie enabled to perform their^.Dutytothetrtteand 
 right Sovereign, when timejhallferve; in fuch cafes, to obey an Ufurper, ri.ipreperly M obey 
 thefirfi and right Governor, who mufl be prefumedto defir^ thefajetyof'fusSubjeEls,, -T/jf 
 Command of an Ufurper is not to be obeyed in any thing tending to the Defiru^icn of the Go- 
 •vernor, whcfe being in thefirfi place is to be locked after. . ■ ,■",.■,. .oii-'! 
 
 . F. This is, I confefs, a \ery pretty Dillindtion, to make the "Ui^ripcri whq ggr 
 verns whether the right Heir will or no, yet to do it by his Confent, and thgx 
 the Subjefts, when they act thus, -do but ftili obey their rightful G^^vcrnor, wj^idfi 
 Suppofition would be contradictory to what your Author hath alrcaily laid, ffcwu 
 of the Subjects being adopted into the Obedience of another Fatherly Power iijy the 
 Ufurpation ^ for if it be as he now makes it, they flill remain under tiie Paternal 
 Power olthe former Prince, and the Ufurper governs orJy as his Deputy; which 
 is a very choice refined Notion, by v/hich all Men had been obliged in Corf.ience 
 to yield as full Obedience to CromiuU and the Rump, m all things that did net tend to 
 
 the
 
 Dialogue the Second, 55 
 
 ths DefiiuElion of the late King's Per/on, as to him himfclf ; which I fuppofc you high 
 Rovahfts will by no means admit* of. 
 
 But this is not the main Matter that I have to except againfl j for if the Prin- 
 ciples I have read out ot tliat Treatife be true, I'/m the Right of a lawful Monarch 
 and his right Heir, is a diviiie Right ; and that no length of time or prefer ijrticn can bar 
 it; becaufe a divine Right never dies, can be hfl, or taken a-^-ay, till the knov^ledge of the 
 right Heir be loft by ail the SubjeBs ; and till whicli time Ufiirpcrs and their Heirs 
 can never acquire an abfoUite and indefeafible Right in the Kingdoms tliey poflefs ; 
 it will certainly follow that tlie Title that mod Princes of Chriflendom have to 
 their Crowns,, will be hereby rendered difpiituble and uncertain : For fince this 
 Author acknowledges, that the Titles of moll Kings at this Day begun by un- 
 juft Conquells or Ufiirpations at Hrfl ; the right Heirs of many of which ex- 
 pulfed or depofed Princes are ftill, or were lately in being ; they might upon this 
 pretence make War upon the Prince in Pofleflion and his Heirs, to the World's 
 end : And tho' I grant, he fays, that an Ufurpcr is to be fully obeyed, when the 
 knowledge of the right Heir is iofl by all the Subjects, it is extreamly uncertain 
 and doubtful what he means by it ; for if he means a perfonal Knowledge, few 
 ordinary Subjcds, but thofe that have perfonally known all the Royal Family, 
 can thus know who was the right Heir j and fo confequently, as foon as ever his 
 Father or Ancellor that held the Throne is turned our, or dead, few private 
 Subjefts can have any perfonal Knowledge of this Heir. Bur if he means a Moral 
 or Traditional Knowledge, fuch as is conveyed down to Poflerity by Hiflorv', 
 Authentick Records, or Genealogies ^ Iknovvnothow fuch a Knowledge can 
 ever be faid to be loft, as long as fuch Hiftories or Memorials remain in being : 
 And that this is fo, is aj^parcnt, many Princes in Europe having upon this ground 
 better Right to the Crowns of fome Neighbouring Kingdoms, than thofe that 
 wear them : And we know that by virtue of fuch an old Title from Charles the 
 Great, the King of France looks upon hnnfclf to have a good Title to Alfatia, 
 Flanders, and ;>ll the Low Countries, and as much oiGeniiany as he can get : So 
 that I will leave it to your felfto judge, whether thefe Principles do not only render 
 the Titles of moli Princes doubtful and uncertain, but the Subjefts Allegiance 
 too. 
 
 M. I cannot deny, but Sir R. F. may have carried this Point of Obedience and 
 Submiflion to Ufurpers, and of a concurrent Right in the lawful Monarch and his 
 Heirs, a little too far. For I think it were much better to fuppofe with Grotius 
 and other Writers, that after the third Generation, or Sjcceflion of the Crown m 
 the Family of the Ufurper, they may have a good and perfeft Title to their 
 Crowns, againfl the right Heirs of the lawful Monarch j (and this I take to be 
 highly reafonable for the Peace and Welfare of Mankind) than that they fhould be 
 always divided in their Allegiance between two oppofite Princes ; but till then, 
 I fuppofe tlie Subjefts are bound to allift, and lland for the lawful Heir and his 
 Pofterity, as far as is poflible, without their own apparent Dcftruftion. 
 
 F. I confefs this Suppofition is much more reafonable than the former ; but I 
 fliouid be glad to know by what Law of God or Nature, the peaceable polfeifion 
 of a Crown, by an Ufurper and his Heirs, juft for tiiree Generations or Saccef- 
 fions, fliould give a Prince a better Title than three or four Years Pofleflion ,• for 
 God may have declared his Will as fufficiently in that time, as in three or four 
 hundred : And if your Reafon be good, that it is for the Peace and Safety of Man- 
 kind, that the Title of the right Heir fliould be loft and extindt after fuch a time ; 
 Icannot fee why it fliould not be more for tiie good of Mankind, that their Alle- 
 giance fliould be fettled and afcertained in a far lefs fpace, that is, as foon as the 
 Conqucrcr or Ufurper is quietly fettled in the Throne, and hath received the 
 Confcnt or Submiflion of all. the Subjefts. But I do nor dcfirc at prtfent to enter 
 any farther into this knotty Difpute about Conqiuft or Ufurpations, but I rather de- 
 lire to refer it to our next meeting. 
 
 M Well, iince you will have it fo, I yield to it ; but in the mean time Icannot 
 but fmile at your great partiality to the People, who upon yo.-r Princij les, if they 
 have but once given their Confent to the Vfu.per, he fhall prefentlj' iiave as good a 
 Title as the moft rightful Monarcii in the World : So that Gowiw/? having had this 
 Confent of the People in his Mock-Parliament, had as good a Title as King Charles IL 
 So that not withflanding wiiatever you may pretend to tl c cpntrary, you are no 
 fuch Enemy to Ufurpers, as you would make youjf fdf • But however, you 
 
 have
 
 9<5 
 
 BiBLlOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 have no rcafon ia the World (even by your own Principles) to except agaijifl: 
 this Author's Hypothelis of transferring the Subjects Allegiance by a Conqueror 
 Ufurpation. 
 
 F. I do not deny what you fay, but then the Conqucfl: mufl: be in a juft or 
 lawful War,- or elfe, if the Great Turk, or F'eiuh Kiug, Uiould, without any Pro- 
 vocation given, make War upon, and.conquer this Kingdom, and ufe the People 
 with the highcil Tyranny and Cruelty, they mull be all bound in Confcience, 
 not only to become, but continue abfolute Subjects, nav Slaves to fucli a Con- 
 queror, without any Rchitance. But let the Pimir of Ufiirpers or Conquerors be 
 what it will, I am fure it cannot be that of Paternal Authority, for the reafons al- 
 ready given : Nor can it be the Ufurpation or Acquifitinn of the Power of a Mailer of 
 .1 Family ; for then the Subjects not being the Childreij of the Conqueror or 
 Ufurper, muft be all Slaves inflead of Subjects : So that I muft again tell you, 
 that it is from your want of diilinguilhing between Paternal, Mafterly, and Regal 
 Authority, which hath led you into all thele Miilakcs in this Matter ; for the Re- 
 lations of a Father, a Mailer and a King, are all really diftinft and difterent, fo 
 that one of them is not the other, as any Man may calily perceive, that doth but 
 hear the three Names pronounced to him, and confider their Signification : And 
 therefore quitting this fubjeft for the prefent, if you ha\ e any better Arguments to 
 prove your Divine Injlitntion of Monarch), pray produce them, for it grows 
 late. 
 
 M. Ifhall readily obey your Commands ; but pray Sir, in the mean time re- 
 member that we aflume this Queftion the next time we meet. But to come to 
 the Matter in hand, I think there are yet fome material Arguments behind, to 
 prove Monarchical Government oi Divine Inflitution : For in the firft place, you may 
 pleafe to remember, that jou your felf have acknowledged that all Civil Govern- 
 ment proceeds from God. Secondly, You have likewife admitted, that the Goverit- 
 ment of Fathers, or Heads of Families, was the fi ft and mofi ancient Government of any 
 in the World after the Fall j wlien fome Government became necefl'ary for the 
 Punifhment of Offences, andthereftraining of the inordinate Appetites and Paflions 
 of Mankind. And laftly, That this Government having abfolute Power of Life 
 and Death, in fome Cafes, over the Wife, Children, and Servants of the Fa- 
 mily j and that if this Power is conferr'd upon them b)' God (which you like- 
 wife granted) and doth not depend upon the confcnt or compaft of the Wife, 
 Children and Servants : If thefe things were fo, I leave it to jour felf to confider 
 from the Premifes, whether this Power in Heads, or Fatliers of Famih"es (call 
 them which j ou pleafe) is not a Monarchical Porter, or the Government of one 
 Man, and that ordained by God ; and tliat this was the only Government 
 in the World, before the Inftitutions of Cojnmonivealths, you your felf cannot 
 deny. 
 
 F. I fhall fliew you plainly, that you would impofe a Fallacy, cither upon your 
 felf or me in this Argument, and fuch a one which I have likewife already 
 anfwered at our lalf meeting : For I then told you, that the Government of fuch 
 Heads or Fathers of Families v/as only an Oeconomical, and not a Civil Power; 
 and this I proved by divers Arguments againfi: what you then argued to the con- 
 trary i and therefore 1 think 1 may yet fafely affirm, that Kingly or Monarchical 
 Pmcer cannot be proved to be of divine Inftitution by this Argument ; and I luve 
 a greater Man tlian Sir R. F. viz.. the Judicious Mr. Hooker on my fide, who 
 makes a plain diftinftion between fuch a Head, or Mafter of a Family, and a 
 King, as appears by thefe words in his Ecclefiaftical Policy, wliich I deiire you 
 Uaoltn'^ Efcl. would rcad with me : It ii no impnbable Opinion therefore, which the Arch-philofopher 
 Pol. HI. I. f. icai of, "That the chief Perjun in every Hoiijliold was always, as it were, a King ; fo when 
 '°" numbers of Houfiolds joyned tiemfehes in Civil Societies together. Kings were the fir Jl kind 
 
 of Governors amongfl them ; vchich is alfo, as it feems, the reafonwhythe Name of Fathers 
 continued fill/ ra them, who of Fathers were made Rulers ; as alfo the ancient Cufioms of 
 Governors to do as Melchifedeck, as being Kings to exercife the Office of Priefts (zvhich 
 Fathers did at the fi,fl) 'grew perhaps bythefaiue occafion. Hovcbeit this is not the only 
 kind of Regiment that hath been received in the IVorld, the inconveniences of one kind have 
 caufed fund.y others to be devifcd. So that in a word, all Ci\il Regiment, of what kind 
 foever, fiem> evidently to have rifenfrom the deliberate Advice, Corfultation, and Compa- 
 fition, betwdn Alen judging it convenient and helpful, there being noimpojjrbility tn Nature 
 confider'd by itfelf, but that Man 7night havs lived without any Publick Regiment. So 
 
 that
 
 Dialogue the Second. p"y 
 
 that you may fee, that tho' he places the Original of all Governments in the Heads 
 or Fathers of Families (which Opinion I fhall not oppofe) yet it is plain that he 
 makes a clear Diftinftion between Oecoiiomkal Government, and that Politick or Civil 
 fffwer, which arifes fromCompaft between Men. So that this will not fcrve the ^ 
 purpofe you bring it for. You may now proceed to what other Arguments and 
 Inftanccs you pleafe ; but pray do not make ufe any more of the Examples of the 
 Patriarchs cither before or after the Flood, fince they are either altogether uncer- 
 tain, or elfc as to thofe after the Flood, I have proved them to have been not 
 Kings, but only Mailers of feparate Families. And you may likewife omit Mofif^ 
 yojhua, and the Judges, as Inflanccs of Monarchical Power by Divine Inflituticn ; 
 fince I have fo lately proved their Authority not to have been at all Abfolute or 
 Regal. 
 
 AI. I fhall not any longer infill upon them, fince you will not admit of thofe 
 Inftances, tho' I think there may be a great deal of weight in them : But thus 
 much I fuppofe you cannot deny, as well from the Tefiimony of facred as prophane 
 Hiilory, that Monarchy is the firfl and mofl ancient Government in the World, as 
 appears by thofe Remains we have left concerning the Egyptian and AJfyrian Mo- 
 Ttarchiei : And as for the Government of God's own People the Je-M, he was 
 plcafed to be King over them himfelf, tho' to govern by his Viceroys, till fuch 
 time, as he was pleafed to make Saul and David Kings over them. Now what 
 can be a greater Argument than this for the Divine Infiitutionoi Monarchical Govern- 
 ment? 
 
 F. I fuppofe you will not urge the Antiquity of a Government to be a Mark of 
 its Divine Inflitutiun ; it may indeed be an Argument to prove th^t Monarchy was 
 the mofl natural Government, becaufc the molt limple and eafy for Men to lighc 
 on ; and fo no doubt it was in the firfl Ages of the World, before Amhitmi 
 Avarice and Luxury had debauched the Minds of Monarchs, the befl fort of Go- 
 vernment. Andfoon the other fide, there is this to be objefted againfl it, that the 
 fetting up of fo many Commonwealths upon the Ruins of Monarchies, (hewed 
 that Men found great Mifchiefs and Inconveniencies in that fort of Government, 
 when once it grew Tyrannical, or elfe tliey had never departed from it ; and this 
 made them, as BrutHs faid at the beginning of the Roman Commonwealth, to 
 invent otiicr forts of Government, which might partake of all the Benefits without 
 the Ir.coijvcniencies of abfolute Monarchy. 
 
 But as for your Inflance of God's being himfelf King over the People of Ifraet, 
 this touches not the Quefiion in hand, fince tliat being a Theocratical, and not a Civil 
 Common'iiealth, could concern no other Nation but themfelves : And as for your 
 other Inflance of God's making Saul King, I hope you will not bring that for an 
 Argument of his Approbation, which it appears he was fo angry with tlie Ifraelites 
 for defiring ; and tho' it is true, he did at their Requefl make them a King, yet 
 it is apparent God would have been much better pleafed had they flill continued 
 without one ; So that I think there can no conclufive Argument be drawn from 
 any Examples in the Old Teflament, to prove Monarchical Government to htoi Divide 
 Ijfijlitution. I 
 
 M. Well, however flight you make of my Authorities out of the OldTefiament, 
 yet I hope I fhall be able to fliew more cogent ones out of the New, to prove, 
 that Monarchy is the only Power inflituted, or fo much as taken notice of, by our 
 Saviour Chrifl and his Apoftle^. And therefore when he would command the Pha- 
 rifees to yield Obedience to the Supreme Power then in being, he bids them, up- 
 on their fhewing him a Piece of Money, to render to Cxfar the things that are Cx- Matt. 11.21. 
 far'y ; not taking any notice of tlie Senate or People, whofe Authority thefe Cafars ^■' ^- <^' 
 had ufurped. And if St. Paul, in his Epiflle to the Romans, had only faid, Let 
 every Soul be fuhjeil to the Higher Powers, and faid no more ; then Men might in- 
 deed have difputed, whether St. Paul by Higher Powers had not meant as well 
 other Governors as Kings, or other Forms of Government as Monarchy. But the 
 good luck is, St. Paul hath been his own Interpreter ; for, after the general Doc- 
 trine of Obedience to be given by all Men to the Higher Powers, he proceeds next to 
 charge it home upon each particular Man's Confciencc, under pain of Damna- 
 tion, faying, IVilt thou not be afraid of the Power ? which Power he expounds in the 
 Singular Number, reflraining it to one Perfon : He is the Mini/ier rfGod to thee, &c. 
 It is not. They arc the Minijlers. And tlien again. He beareth not the Sword in vain. 
 And a third time, in the fame Verfe, lefl we fhould forget it, he fays, For he is ' -, 
 
 O the
 
 98 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA POLITICA. 
 
 the Minifier of God, &c. So Sr. Peter alfo doth the like ; for the felf-fame Word ' 
 that St. Paul akth (ox Higher, in St. Peter is tranflatcd -S/z/rew^ : So that tho' in 
 our Englijh Bibles the Words dirfer, yet in the Original they are both the fame. 
 And St. P^ul might have been Engliflied, Let every Soul be fubjetl to the Supreme^ 
 ^o-wers ; or St. Paul might have been alfo tranflated, JVhether to the King as to the 
 Higher. Yet there is this difference, that whereas St. Paul ufeth the Word in the 
 Plural Number, St. Peter hath it in the Singular, and with Application to thtKing 
 only, without taking any notice of any Governors but Kings, and thofe fent by 
 them. And it is farther to be noted, that St. P^mand St. Paul wrote thdt Efifiles 
 at a time when the Roman Senate had fome fhare in tl;c Government ; and that it 
 was (in appearance at leaft) a CoiTiTnonvsealth : So that feme Authors fuppofe, that- 
 r.otwithflanding the Emperors by ftrong hand had ufurped a Milirary Power, yet 
 a great fhare of the Government was for a long time, nay even then, in the Se- 
 nate and People. But for all this, neither of the two Apollles take any notice of 
 any (i^ch Popular Government ; no, nor our Saviour himfelf, who divideth all be-'; 
 tweeii C7oi and C^r, and allows nothing, that we can find, fcr the People ^otl 
 CommcN-nealth. 
 
 F. I think your Quotations out of the Mw Teffament will prove of no m'ore 
 weight than thcfe from the Old, and that they will not make out Alonarchy to be 
 oi Divine Inflitution, any more than the former : For our Saviour s Anfwer to the ■ 
 'Jevcs fignifiech no more, than that 'Tribute, and all latvful Dues, were to be paid' 
 to Cixjar, as the Svpreme Povcer tlien in being ; to anfwer thofe 'Je-^s, who doubted' 
 whether any Obedience were to be given vo a foreign Prince of another Religion' 
 than their own. The like Anfwer may be given to what St. Paid fays in the/io- 
 maw. Let every Soul he Jubjecl to the higheft Pouer ; wliich was chiefly direded to the 
 newly converted jfeivr, who might doubt, as well as their Countrymen in Judea, 
 whether they were bound in confcience to be fubject to Heathen Magiilrates ; as' 
 alfo againft the Seft of the Gmfiicks (tiien newly fprung up) who, tiho' they cat-" 
 led themfelves Chnflian^, yet looked upon themfelves to be thereby difcharged 
 from all Subjedion or Obedience to Civil Powers ; being thofe whom St. Jude 
 JudeS. expredy fpeaks againft. Who defpife DQinimon, and fpeak evil of Dignities. And 
 therefore when St. PiZ?// fpeaks of fuch Higher Pcicers, it is not in the Plural, bnt 
 Singular Number, terming him, the Minijler of God ; becaufe th^t at that time 
 there was no fuch thing as a Cn7nmonv:ealth (as he knew of in the \Vorld) the two' 
 greateft Empires, the Reman and the Parthian being then governed by ^Icnarchs. 
 The like I may fay to that other Text }'ou have quoted out of St. Petey, which 
 may very well be reconciled with that Place of St. Paul ; tho' the one called the 
 Higher Powers, the Poivers ordained of God ; and the other calls them, an Humane 
 Ordinance, or Creature (as it is in the Original) lince they certainly derive their 
 'Authority from God, tho' by the Mediation or Confent of Men- 
 
 And I beheve you will proA-'e miftaken in affirming, that the Senate or People 
 had any Power when St. Peter and St. Paul wrote thefe Epiflles : For it plainly ap- 
 pears, that whether thefe Epiflles were written in the Reigns of Clauditii or Nero, 
 the Government was then wholly in the Roman E?nperors : For tho' I grant, that 
 during the Time of Auguflm the Senate had fome ihadow of Power, . and that di- 
 vers Provinces were under their Government ; yet by that time Tiberim had reigned 
 but a few Years, he quite took away all Power from the Senate, and made them 
 no more than what the Parliament of Paris are to the French King, meer Minifters 
 of his Tyranny, and oblig'd to vcrifv all his Edifts ; and the Compliance and 
 Flattery of thcfe Senators was fo fervile, that they pafled whatfoever Decrees he 
 fent them, without the leaft Hefitation ; till it became fo fulfome even to himfelf, 
 that it made him cry out, gens in fervitutem nata ! So that all you have faid on 
 this Subjeft fignifies no more, than that our Saviour and his Apoftles did not come 
 into the World to diffolve or alter the Civil Governments, or the Policies of King- 
 doms, but to command Obedience to them, as they found them fettled in the 
 World, as the moderate MelanEihon very well obferves, Chriflm mn venit mutare 
 Politia:. 
 
 And I doubt not, but if our BlefTed Saviour had thought fit to come into the 
 World about half an Age fooner, and to have been born and preached the Gofpel 
 in the time of the Roman Common-wealth, but he would have commanded the Jevjs 
 to have paid Tribute to the Senate and People of Rome, as well as he did to Cafar : 
 And St. Peter would have enjoined all Subjedion and Obedience to be given tbem ; 
 
 and
 
 'Dialogue the SeconcL 5/5 
 
 and might haVC faid with greater Reafon of them, than of thofe fubordinate Ma- 
 giftrares they fent to govcr;; their ProviJices, that they were the Mmiflevs of God. 
 And if your Arguments for the Divine Right of Kings be true, it woJd be no 
 Rebellion at tiiis^day forSub/eds to rife up and deftroy the Supreme Powers in,all 
 Commir^ialths, bccaufe they arc not Monarchical ; and conftquently thcfe, in rela- 
 tion :o whom God hath left us no Rules ot Obedience. VVhich Doariiic if any 
 Man fliould offer to preach in the Territories oi Venice o^ Holland, I think, in the 
 former the Preacher might very defervedly be fcnt to the Gallies, and in the latter 
 they would at leal'i fend him a Pair of Shoes. But if you have any thing farther 
 to urge for x\\cji<ie DivinoU.'ip oi Monarch)- , pray will you let me hear it, for I 
 am wtary with anfwering fuch Trifles. 
 
 M. 1 confcfs I have not much to objcft againfl what yon have now replied, 
 and therefore I fhall infift no farther upon it i only thus much I am fatisfied of, 
 that God, by his own Example, as well as Inititution among the 'Je-m-.s, feems 
 more particularly to have approved of Kingly Government (and that abfolute 
 too) than any other. Not that I will condemn all Common-wealths as unlawful, but 
 that as being Scvereign Pov:ers, they may be alfo ordained of God. 
 
 But I have another Objeftion to make againfl: your Hypothesis, and that is, you 
 ha\e in your former Converfation fuppofed a natural Property in things, precedent 
 to Civil Government, which can icarce be underflocd. For by what Right can 
 any Man lay claim to any Property, but by the Laws ot the Government in which 
 he lives? And how can there be any fuch Laws before there was fome Supreme S. P. p. 
 J-egiilator to make' them .> So thp.t the only way (I know of) to folve this Dif- 
 ficulty, is to fuppofe, that the fole Dominion of things was in Noah after the 
 Flaod ; and that whatfoever Property in any thing his Poflerity poflefs'd in fevc- 
 ral, they enjoyed it by his Grant and Allotment, and in virtue thereof tranfmitted 
 the fame to their Poflerity, without waiting for the Election or Confent of tlie 
 People, or entering into any Articles of Capitulation with them whom they were 
 to govern, as you fuppofe was neceflary for the firft Inftitution of Civil Goiernment. 
 And the Texts in the tenth oi Genefis feem to import as much : By thefe -nere the Ver. 5. 5: 
 IJks of the Gentiles divided in their Lands, every one after his Tongue, after their Families 
 i)f. their Nations. Thtfe are the Families of the Sons of Noah, after their Generaticns in Ver. 32. 
 th^ir.p^ations ; and Ly thefe u-ere the Nations divided in the Earth after tlie Flood. That 
 is, not oply tlie Nations themfelves, but the Ifles or Countries of the Earth were 
 divided by thefe Patriarchs, amongft their Pofterities, into particular Sliares and 
 Territories. 
 
 And fo likewife in all the Abfolute Monarchies in the World, all the Property 
 that Men enjoy, either in Goods or Lands, is cither actually in the Prince, or 
 elfe was at firft derived from him ; tho' I do not deny but when fuch a dillinft 
 Propriety in Goods or Lands is once inllituted by the Monarch in any Kingdom, 
 that he caiiiiot again alter it ot take it away, without manifcft Violence and 
 
 And hence it is that our common Lawyers maintam, that all the Lands in 
 England are held of the King, either mtcdiately or immediately : For upon the 
 Conquefl by IViUiam the Conqueror, all Mens Eftates were thereby veiled in him. 
 So that there is no way ^o natural and eafy to folve .all thofe Difficulties that do 
 arifw concerning the Original of Civil Govemnian and Property, than to make them 
 begiu together in the Perfons oi Adim and Nvab, and thence derived to all their 
 Podcrity : So that whatfovcr abfolute Dominion Princes or States have claimed in 
 thofe Countries andPJaces, which they have either feiz'd upon themfelves, as the 
 firft Occupants, orelfe have conquer'd from others, theycnjoy'd them meerly as 
 they reprefented Adain or Noah, the lir/l Monarchs of the World. Nor can. wc 
 other way avoid thefe fevcral pther intolerable Inconveniences and Abfurditics, 
 that will follow from fuppoling.an original Community of things, or that every 
 Mai) at firft might take what Quantity of Land he pleas 'd, without tlie Autho- 
 rity or AiTignmcnt of any Supreme Power. 
 
 ,/' As to what you fay concerning God's approving Monarchy above all other 
 Governments, by his inllituting it among the 'Jc'm, tiut way of arguing is very 
 uncertain and fallacious ; fiiice one may by the fame a-afon argue, that the Cere-i 
 moiuul Pdxt ot the Mufaicul Law WIS the bell, that God could have contrived, be- 
 CAufe be was pleafed to prcfcribc it to xhc^L'-xs, during the time they fhould be 
 undci; the Governnvnt of it. No doubt God prefcribcd them fuch a Govern- 
 
 O z inenc
 
 \ 
 
 100 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 rnent both in Church and State, as he thou^t fit for their prefent Occafion and 
 Inclinations ; but whether that were the beft, or of perpetual InlHtution, is no 
 where faid. 
 
 But as for the other part of your Argument, I thought you had been very well 
 fatisfied by what I faid at our firft Meeting, that neither Adam nor Noah had, 
 by Grant or Donation from God, a fole Right to the Earth and all things there- 
 in. But fince you are not yet fatisfied with what I there faid, I fhall anfwer this 
 Objeftion more particularly ; and I doubt not but I fhall make it fo plain to you, 
 that you your felf fhall confefs, that there is no fuch great Myftery or Difficulty 
 in the tracing of Property, as alfo Civil GoverriTnem, to their firll Originals, with- 
 out fuppofing any fuch abfolute Dominion or Property in Adam and Noah, or in 
 any other Supreme Power, as their Succeffors. I fhall therefore firfl cf all remove 
 the main Obflacle you have laid in the way, and iliew you, that the Places of 
 Scripture you have cited to this purpofe do not prove the thing you intend them 
 for. I did before fhew you, that there was no manner of ground for Sir R. F.'s 
 Opinion, that none of Adam's Sons could have a Property in any thing, without 
 Adam's AiTignment; nor that any of Noah's Sons, when feparated from their Fa- 
 ther's Family, could have any Property in any thing but by their Father's Dona- 
 tion ,• Scripture and antiem Hi/lory being altogether filent in thefe Matters. And 
 therefore you are fain to lay hold of the firfl Place of Scr ipture- that ypa think n^ghc 
 ferve your turn, which will not do the buiinefs neither. ' '"."'' ' '■" . "; '.'/ ," ' 
 
 For fuppofing I fhould grant you, that in the Difperfion or Diviflon that was 
 made of Mankind after the Flood over a great part of the World, the People that 
 then followed their Ancellors or Leaders after this Difperfion (tho' the Text doth 
 not mention any fuch thing) followed them as Princes or Monarchs ; yet this will 
 not prove what you would have, that thefe Fathers of Nations made this Divifion 
 of the Earth in right of that Dominion which God conferred at firfl on Adam and 
 Noah ; fince (as I have already proved) if this Divilion had been made in right 
 cf the Dominion that defcended upon Noah, it ought to have been performed by 
 the Authority of only one Man, and him the eldefl Defcendant of the eldefl Son of 
 Noah : And I have alfo fufficiently Ihewed you the Abfurdity of this Fancy of fuch 
 a Divine Right. And befides, it plainly concradids it felf; for either this Divifion 
 you talk of was made in the Days of Noah, or it was not : If the latter, then it is 
 apparent;, that from the time oi Noah to tha.t o( Hekr there was a Community of 
 Things and Properties ; tho' you have afferted the contrary : If the former, and 
 that the Earth was divided before, then to what purpofe wasthis Divifion in the 
 Da.ys oi Pekg? And tho' I grant, that about that time every Language or Na- 
 tion might, under the Condud: of their Prince or Leader, feize upon fome Terri- 
 tory or Ifland fufficient for them to inhabit in ; yet doth not the Text tell us, 
 whether the Country they lived in was by them divided inio particular Shares, or 
 whether they made ufe of it in common, as the Indians of America do at this day, 
 where the Qiiantity of Land doth far exceed that of the Inhabitants that live in it. 
 
 Nor laflly, fuppofing that a Divifion was made of thefe Countries they then in- 
 habited, doth it tell us, whether it was done by t\\Q fole Authority of their Prince 
 or Leader, claiming as his own the whole Dominion of it, fo that no Man coul4 
 have Right to a Foot of Ground in it but himfelf ; or whether this Divifion was' 
 made by the joint Confent and Agreement of all the reft of the Heads of Families, 
 and other Freemen that went along with him. The Scripture is filent in thefe 
 Circumllances, that only telling us, that the Great Grand-fons of Noah, men-' 
 tioned Gen. lo. 'The Ifles of the Gentiles were dividei in their Lands, every one after his 
 "Tongue, after their Families in their Nations ; and that this Divifion was in the Days 
 of Peleg : But no where declares, whether every particular Region or Country 
 was then divided into diftinft Shares or not. 
 
 And as for what you fay, that all Princes, and Conquerors of Territories and 
 Countries, have the hke abfolute Dominion and Property in them, as Adam and ' 
 Noah had over the whole World ; if it were no more than that, I doubt it would 
 be very little ,• fince I have already proved, and I think you muft grant, that no 
 Monarch at this day can claim his Crown as the right Heir of Adam or Noah, or 
 as their Reprefentatives ; and it will, I think, be much harder to prove, that the 
 fole Property of an acquired Country or Kingdom muft be in them by virtue of any 
 fuch Right. But as for your Inftance of William the Conqueror's having a Right 
 to all the Lands in England by Conqueft, fince it requires fomewhat a longer An- 
 fwer
 
 Dialogue the Second. 10 1 
 
 fwer tlian the Time will now aftbrd, I (hall retcr fpeaking ^arther of it till another 
 Opportunity : But pray, Sir, at prefent make me fee a little plainer what tlwfe 
 Inconveniences and Abfurdities are that will follow from my Hypothefis, tiut 
 God at tirft gave the World and all Creatures therein to Mankind, to be ufed and 
 enjoyed in common, if they thought fit. 
 
 M. I fhall fhew you fome farther Abfurdities that will follow from it than I 
 have done already : For tho' Grotim and Selden indeed maintain, that a Comma- T.O.Q.^.^%, 
 nity of things was by the Law of Nature, of which God is the Author, and yet 
 that fuch a Community fliould not be able to continue, fcems to derogate from 
 the Providence of God, to ordain a Community of things which could not continue. 
 And it feems alfo an Aft of high Prefumption in the Defcendants of Noah, ro 
 abrogate the Natural Law of Community by introducing that of a Propriety m 
 things. 
 
 F. I pray give me leave to interrupt you, that you -may not run on in a Mif- 
 take : For let Grotim or Selden adert what they pleafe, I am not tied to fubmit to 
 it ; and tiierefore when I fay, that God gave the World, and all the Creatures 
 therein, to Men, to be ufed in common, if they pleafe ; I thereby underftood, 
 that God hath by the Laws of Nature commanded nothing in this matter, but 
 hath left the Earth and all things therein to be ufed in common, or in feveral, as 
 may bsft confill with the Convenience, Neceffity, or Cuftoms and Laws of each 
 particular Nation or Commonwealth, who God defigns fliould live peaceably to- 
 gether, and make the beft ufc of the Country where they inhabit, and the things 
 therein contained, for their own common Maintenance and Safety, according ro 
 the Expreflion of the Royal Pfalmifl .- But the Earth Imth Cod given to the Children of 
 Men, i. e. all the Defcendants of Adam. 
 
 M. Well, fuppofe it were fo, the prime Duties of the Second Table are chiefly 
 converfant about this Right of Propriety ; but if this Propriety were introduced by UhU 
 Humane Laws or Agreements, as Grotim and you your felf fuppofe, then both 
 the Moral and Divine Law would depend upon the IVill of Men; fo that there could 
 be no Law of Nature againft Adultery or Theft, if Women and all things elfe had 
 been in common. 
 
 F. This Objeftion wholly proceeds from your not having any diftinft or true 
 Notions of the Nature and true Original of Propriety ; and therefore if you pleafe 
 to hear my Account of it, I hope you will grant (when I have done) that your 
 Objection againlt the Community of things will be to no purpofe. I do therefore 
 in the firft place diftinguifli between a Natural and a Civil Propriety : By the for- 
 mer Men might be guilty of Theft before Civil Propriety was inftituted ; but as for 
 Adultery, that was always unlawful both by the Laws of God and Nature, which 
 abhors Community of Women and promifcuous Copulations ; and God hath par- 
 ticularly ordained, that the Man and his IVife Jhould be one Flejh : And no Man, that 
 maintains a natural Community of things, ever fuppofed that Women were amongft 
 thofe things that were to be in common, or that a Man had the fame kind of 
 Propriety in his Wife, as in • his Horfe ; fo that the Command againfl Adultery 
 might very well confift with the Community of things. 
 
 M. Suppofe I grant this, I do not underftand how there can be a natural Pro- 
 priety, and yet a Community in things^ as you fuppofe. 
 
 F. I wonder you fliould not be able to apprehend this, and have been fo often 
 at an Ordinary and a Play-houfe : At the former, you know, tho' a Man hath a 
 Right to his Dinner, yet all the Meat at the Table being in common, he cannot 
 call any part of it his own, till he hath cut it or divided it from the reft ; and ac 
 the latter a Man hath a Right to a Place either in the Box or in the Pit, and yet 
 he cannot tell where it is, till he hath placed himfelf in it, or fent fome body to 
 keep it for him. 
 
 M. I do apprehend what you mean ; but pray explain to me the Manner of 
 this Natural Propriety a little more at large. 
 
 F. I would readily do it ((ince if that were well done, I grant it would be a 
 great ftcp to the clearing of the Original and Nature of all Civil Power) were it 
 not now too late to enter upon fo long a Subjcft ; and therefore I think we may 
 both be fufficiently tired with Talk, fo as to put it off until another Opportunity, 
 when I fliall give you my Thoughts of the true Original of Civil Government, in 
 what fenfe it proceeds from God, and yet how far the Confent of the People is necef- 
 fary to make it obligatory on the Confciences of the Subjcds ; which when it is 
 
 once
 
 102 BiBLIOTHECA POLITICA. 
 
 , once well fettled, I hope there will be little need of difputing farrlier, whether 
 this great AlttriUion hath been brought about by lawtul Means or not. 
 
 M- I thank you for the pains you have taken to inform my Underflanding in 
 this matter : And therefore lince 'tis now very late, I deiire we may adjourn out 
 Con\ erfation to another time ; and then I deiire that you would prepare your fclf 
 to dilcourfe \<rith me of the fecond important Qiieilion we agreed on, viz.. the 
 Jrreffiibility of aU Supreme Pcwers by their Subjects ; not not only becaufe Refiftance 
 in any cafe whatfoever is inconfiftent with Supreme Power, and deftruAive to the 
 Peace of Civil Society, but chiefly as they derive their Authority immediately 
 froni God, and are only to render an Account to him of their Anions. 
 
 R I will not deny but what you have faid is true in fome fenfe, That all Soi'i' 
 reign Power is derived from God, and is alfo as fuch irrefijiible by Subjects ; but to affirm 
 generally and abfolutely (as moft of your Opinion do) that all Commands and 
 Afts of Men endued with this Supreme Authority, whether good or bad, lawful 
 or unlawful, are part of that Authority derived from God, and therefore irre-" 
 fiflible in any cafe, or upon any neceffity whatfoever, is fo dangerous a Propofi- 
 tion, that I know none that [hath contributed more to the Encouragement of the 
 King, and the Popifli Fadion he favoured, to make ail thofe Breaclies upon our 
 Laws, Religion, and Liberties, which we have fuffered fince the Beginning of his 
 Reign. 
 
 M. I am fo well pleafed with the Freenefs and Ingenuity of ybwr Converfatiooj 
 that I deiire nothing more than to difcufs this important Queflion with you at 
 our next Meeting : But I beg your pardon, if being taken up by fome Bilinefs to 
 morrow, I adjourn our next Meeting to the Day after, when_, if you pleafe to 
 come at the fame Hour as you did to night, you fhall here find me ready to wait 
 on you. In the mean time I mull bid you good night. > 
 
 F. Your Servant, Sir, I wi(h you heartily good night ; I will not fail to meet 
 you at the Time appointed- 
 
 ^tW(o-
 
 105 
 
 
 DIALOGUE III. 
 
 Whether Refiflance of the Supreme Poiver by 
 a v^hole Nation or People, in cafes of the lafi 
 . Extremity, can he jujtified by the Laiv of 
 Nature, or Rules of the Gofpel, 
 
 F. «Sv *..*,. ■!^,,-!|^,.*^^OU are welcome, Sir; I fee you are a pundual Man to 
 i^:i%^i^'<Xi'::Q'l{}> your Word. Will you be pleafed to fit down by the Fire, 
 «&! %/:^^"-*'^§ ^ and drink a Difli of Tea ? 
 
 •Sf g^ Y ^ § :fli M. I thank you. Sir : I aflure you, 1 love to be punftual 
 •51 S^&^S^'S •>> in fmall things, as well as in great ones, when I am not hiti- 
 »tf| t^&k^XQ^M i9e der'd or prevented by Bufinefs. 
 
 t^'C^-'^''^"^^'^ F- Before we come to the Qiieftion we the laft time 
 refolved to make the Sabjcci: of our prefent Entertainmei-it, 
 
 it will, I think, be convenient for me to look back, and fee what I ha\e already 
 
 proved at our two former Conferences, viz. 
 
 1. That Ada?n had nor, either by natural Right of Fatherhood, or by fojith-e 
 Donation from God, any fuch Authority over his Children, or Dominion over 
 the World, as you pretended. 
 
 2. That if he had, yet his Sons or Heirs had no Right to it. 
 
 3 . That if his Heirs had, there being no Law of Nature, nor pofitive Law of 
 God, that determines who is the right Heir in all Cafes that may arife ; the 
 Right of Succejjion, and confequently of bearing Rule, could not have been cer- 
 tainly determined without the Judgment of the reft of the Children or Defcen- 
 dants of Adam. 
 
 4! That the Knowledge of the right Hdr of Adam (fuppofing ftill there was 
 one) being now long fince loft, no Prince or Monarch in the World can graft any 
 Title iipoii this Paternal Dominion oi Adam or Noah. 
 
 5. That all Authority of inflifting Puniflimcnts of Life and Death, or other" 
 lefs Penalties, for the Breach of the La-^f of Nature or the Traufgreffion of the 
 Cwil Lavas of the Commomxealth, is originally derived from God, as being that 
 Power with which God, in the State of Nature, hath intruftcd all Mafters or 
 Heads of fcparatc Families, and this not as Fathers, but as Mafters. 
 
 6. That iince all Kingdoms and Commonwealths at this day do owe their Ori- 
 ginal either to the ElefUon of the People, or to Vfurpation or Cvnqiufl ; God doth 
 not now by the ordinarj- Courfc of his Providence confer this Divine Authority on 
 any Perfons whatfoever, lb as to give them a Riglit to tlic People's Alkgiar.ce 
 without the People's Conjent firft had, or elfe an owning of their Titles bya fubfw- 
 qucnt voluntary Submifllon to them. 
 
 M. I
 
 104 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 M. I grant indeed, that you have with great Labour, and fome appearance of 
 Reafon too, endeavoured to prove thefe Principles you have here laid down ; yet 
 however, tho' the five firfl of them fhould be true, I have agreat deal ftill to except 
 againft the lafl, if you pleafe to hear me. For I think 'I can fhew you a great 
 many evil Confequences that will follow from this Principle, of making the Cvnfent 
 or Suhmijjion of the People at all neceflary to the conveying of a Supreme Power, 
 or of that Divine Authority wliich you grant to be derived from God himfelf, on 
 all Monarchs and Supream Magiftrates in Commonwealths. 
 
 F. I pray give me leave a little to interrupt you. I know very well what this 
 evil Confequence is, of fuppofing the Confent of the People as a Means at all necef- 
 fary for the conveying of this Divine Authority ; that is, in plain Englijb, becaufe 
 it will deftroy your darling Doftrine of Passive Obedience and Non- 
 RESiSTANCEj therefore if it be fo, pray let us rather fall prefently to the 
 Queftion it felf, than argue by Confequences ; which if we fhould go that way to. 
 work, I have my Confequences likewife to urge, fome of which I have given you 
 already. Therefore, if you pleafe, let us begin a fairer way, and hear me pro- 
 pofe thofe Heads, in ^vhich I doubt riot but we do b6th agree j and then I will 
 bring it to the main Cafe or Qiieftion, in which perhaps we differ. 
 
 M. I confefs I had fomewhat more to fay, which would have, tended to prove 
 this Doftrine of Nm-refiftance ; but lince you are pleafed to pro^ofe anothfer KTeA 
 thod, which you better approve of, I am ready to comply with jou : Therefore, 
 Sir, go on in what way you think fit. ' ' ~ 
 
 F. I fhall then in tiie firft place lay it down for a Principle (which I fuppofe 
 you will not deny) that all Civil Po"Mr being from God, it \yas principally infti- 
 tuted by him for the Peace, Happineff, and Safety of Mankind ; that is, of ill the 
 Subjefts who are to live together in a Commonwealth or Civil Society. 
 
 2. That all Kings or Supreme Magiftrates are likewife fecured, by God's Au- 
 thority, in thofe due Rights and Prerogatives, which are neqeflary for their well 
 difcharging this great Truft or Duty which God requires 6f them, and ill con- 
 fideration of which the People at firfl: c/f^eJorfubmitted themfelvestothem. 
 
 If therefore you grant, as I fuppofe you will, thefe tw-o reafonable Propofi- 
 tions, the Queftion v/ill ainount to no more than this : Whether, if the Supreme 
 Power in any Kingdom or Commonwealth, fo flirabufes this Truft, which God 
 by the People hath committed to them, and inftead of preferving and defending 
 the Lives, Liberties, and Eftates of their Subjeds, they manifeftly go about to 
 deftroy or grievoufly to opprefs them, by making them, inftead of Subjeds, mcec 
 Slaves and Vaffals ; the Qiieftion, I fay, then is, whether, if fuch general Vio- 
 lence or OpprefTions be committed upon the whole People, or fo confiderable a 
 part of it, as that the Safety and Well-being of the Common-u^eahh cannot in any 
 likelihood fubfift without it \ the People, or the moft confiderable part of them, 
 may not (in cafe their Lives, Liberties, and Perfons are unjuftly aflaulted and 
 opprefs 'd by the Officers or Standing Armies of the Prince, or other Supreme 
 Powers) for their own defence take up Arms to defend their Lives, Liberties, 
 and Eftates, againft fuch an armed Force and Violence. Where, by the way, I 
 defire you to take notice, that I do here abfolutely difclaim all Rejifiame of, or 
 Self-defence againft Civil Authority, or the Officers commilTioned by it, by any 
 private Jingle Perfon, whether fuch Power be exerted according to Law or not, or 
 elfe abufed in fome cafes to the Hurt or Deftrudion of fuch fingle Perfon only. 
 So that I fuppofe this Rejlfiance to be lawful only in cafe of a general DefiruEiiony 
 or intolerable Oppreffjon, of the whole People, or at leaft a very confiderable Part of 
 them, and thofe that are in the chiefeft Places of the Adminiftration. 
 
 M. I confefs, the Dodrine of Rejlfiance, as you have put it, feems at firft fome- 
 what plaulible, and to tend to the common Good and Prefervation of the People 
 or Civil Society. But let me tell you, I am of opinion, that whenever it comes to 
 be put in pradice, it proves (like the other Speculations of Commonuealths-inen') 
 more hurtful than beneficial to the common Safety and Prefervation of the People i 
 and confequently more deftrudive to the main Ends of Government, than condu- 
 cive to the Good and Happinefs of Mankind ; and laft of all, that fuch Refinance 
 cannot well be maintained or executed without the Depoling or abfolute Deilruc- 
 tion of the Prince, or other Supreme Magiftrates, whatever may be pretended to 
 the contrary. And indeed it is almoft impoflible to fuppofe, that any MoiLirch 
 or Supreme Magiftrate ihould ever (unlefs they were ftark mad) purpoldy go 
 
 about
 
 Dialogue the Third. ^' i H ic^ 
 
 about to kill or deflroy theic Subjeds, in the Multitude and Safety of* whonl coor! 
 lift his chief Strength and Riches. And you may as, well tell me, that a Shep-" 
 herd, whilft he is in his right Wits, fliould go about to kill or deftroy-his^Fipcty 
 as that a Monarch Ihouid wilfully intend to kill ordeftroy his People. ,j :, . j 
 
 To conclude, lince the People muft be, in all Cafes of "tyrqiiny or Opprefflcifi, 
 their own 'fudges, and Executicners too j there is no Rebellion lb raiik and wicked 
 that this Pretence of a i^elf- defence of Men's Lives, Eftates, and Liberties, may 
 not juftify ; wijcreas indeed it is contrary to all natural and Ci\ il Juflice, for tlie 
 injured Party to be his own Judge and Lxccutioner too : For then the otlier Side 
 may pretend to the like Right, and the Trial muft be referred to force and Arms, 
 in which Contention if the People are overcome, they arc certainly reduced to a 
 worfe Condition they were before ; but li the Prince or Supreme Magiftrates have 
 the worft on't, the Civil Power then '\\\ being is abfolutely ruined : So ti)at whe- 
 ther the People or Magiftrate overcome, the State of both of them is very deplo- 
 rable ; befides divers other e\'il Confequefxes of this Dodriue, which I ftall 
 defer, till I hear what you can fay to what 1 have-, now urged againft your 
 Opinion. . 
 
 F. You have made a very plaufible Speech, in fetting forth the dreadful Con-" 
 fequence of this Doftrine of Refiftance in any cafe whatfoever ; and I confefs, if 
 what you lay down be true, ■z^/z.. that fuch Refiftance always brings along with 
 it greater Mifery upon a People than what the utmoft Violence and OppreiTiort' 
 of Princes can produce, then your Confequence would be alfo true, that fuch Re- 
 fiftance is ne\er to be praftifed upon any account whatfoever. So, on the other 
 fide, if that be not true, neither will your Confequence fignify any thing. 
 
 I fupi ofc you will not deny, but that there may be fuch a thing as a 'Tyrant^ 
 and that that fart of Mankind who live under him may be fenfible of \{\.%T'yyanny ; 
 or elfe tiie D-hnition which K.Ja?nes I. gives us of a Tyrant, in aSpcecli which he 
 made to the Parliament in 1603. would be altogether in vain. But the Words 
 are fo fit for this purpofe, that I will read them to you out of his Works. J do 
 acbw-xledge, that the fpecial and g/eatejl point oj difference that is betv:een a rightful King 
 and an tijurping Tyrant, is this : T'hat ■wherecis the proud and ambitious Tyrant doth think 
 his Kingdom and People are only ordained for the Satisfa^ion of his Defires and unrea- 
 fonableAppctites ; .the righteom find juft King doth, by the contrary, acknovjledge himfelf 
 to be ordained for the procuring of the tVealth and Prqfperity of his People. And fo like- 
 wife, in anothet Speech he jnade to the Pariiament, he hath this memorable Paf- 
 fage : T'hat a King gcveniing in a fettled Kingdom leaves to be a King, and degenerates 
 into a Tyrant, fofoon as he ceafes to rule according to the Law. So that fince it is plain, 
 that the People may judge when they have a Tyrant inftead oi' aKing to rule over 
 them, and that ur^der fuch a Tyrant the Condition of the People may be very deplp-*. 
 table J the Queflion ftill remains, what is beft for them to do in thiscafe ? Whethec-. 
 it be better for tlaem, or they are obliged by the Laws of Reafon and Nature, 
 patiently to fubmit to it ? Cftje}{e, if thpy,can, either by their own Force, or the- 
 Affiftance of a foreign Prince, 'to caft off the Yoke ? ^nd I think I may ftill main- 
 tain, that tliey^may do it^;j;{y3twithlUn4ing what .y.oii,i^ave yet- urged to the 
 contrary. \.:,;^jl';^'.^„; 3^: S^ ^y 'io .^i.J 
 
 In the firft place therefore, tho' you count it an atmoft impoiTible thing to fup- 
 pofe, that a Prince or Monarch would ever go about to murder or deftroy his 
 Subjefts i yet as^ incredible a?, j,i; is, I can give you feveral Examples out of Hif- 
 tory, both antient ar,d modern, that fome Tyrants have been fo brutilh, as not 
 onl)' to endeavour it, but aftually to put it in praftice. Of the firft kind is that 
 of Caligula, whom Suetonius mentions to have wifli'd, that all the People of Ro}ne 
 had but one Neck, that he might cut it off at once. The other is of Nero (in 
 the fame Author, as alfo in Tacitin) who fet the City o( Rome on Fire, and confe- 
 qucntly would have burnt all the People iu it to pleafe his Humour, and that he 
 might ling his BaL'ad of tiie Djftruition of Toy tlie more naturally whilft it burnt. 
 A third Example I ftnd related in AJucquet's Travels into the Eajl Indies, of a cei- ViJ. Moc- 
 tain King of Pegu, about an hundred Years ago, v/ho, by the perfualion of fome quet'j Tr.t- 
 oi his Diabolical Pr,iefli cr Magicians, took fuch An Averlion to his Subjeds, that"'*- ''''• 4- 
 he was rcfolved to deftroy them, and therefore forbid them to fow their Lands for''" 553- 
 two or tiiree Years, b}' which means a great part of tiicm died of Famine, or 
 were forced to devour each other. And in fuch cafes as thefe, I fuppofe, the 
 Laws of Nature and Reafon will juftify Self-defence in the People j and fure it had 
 
 P been
 
 Io6 BibliothecaPolitica. 
 
 been lawful for the People of Rome to have refifted Caligtilas Guards, if he had 
 gone about to put his wicked Wifh into execution ; or likewife to have refifted or 
 put to death thofe Incendiaries they found firing the City, tho' they might have 
 had the Emperor Nero's CommiiTion for it : So likewife fure it would have been 
 as lawful for the People of Pegu to have refifted thofe whom the Emperor might 
 have fent to hinder them from ploughing and fowing their Lands. And that I am 
 not the only Man of this Opinion, I defire you to confult what Barclay hath, in 
 his Treatife contra Monarchomachos , which he writ againft Buchanan, de Jure regni 
 apud Scotos, and the Author of Vindkia contra Tyrannos ; where, tho' he be a mofl: 
 zealous Aflerter of the unlimited and irreffiible Power of Princes, yet in his third 
 Book, Chap. 8. he fpeaks to this efted j the Senfe of whofe Words, as near as I 
 can, I will give you in Englifi. 
 
 " Now if any one fliould fay, But muft the People always yield their Throats 
 " to the Fury and Cruelty o( Tyrants ? Muft they patiently permit their Cities to 
 ** be deftroyed by Hunger, Fire or Sword, and their Wives and Children to be 
 *' expofed to the Luft of a Tyrant, and alfo themfelves to be brought into the ut- 
 *' moft Dangers and Miferies of Life ? Muft that be denied to them, which is 
 ** the Right of all Animals by Nature ; that is, that they may repel Force with 
 " Force, and defend themfelves from Injury ? To this it may eafily be anfwered, 
 ** that Self-defence, which is oi natural Right, ought not to be denied to the Peo- 
 *' pie : And therefore i^ the King doth not only exert his Hatred againft fome 
 *' fingle Perfons, but alfo fhall go about to deftroy the Body of the Commonv:ealthy 
 " of which he is Head ; that is, fliall exert his Hatred againft the whole Peo- 
 " pie, or fome confiderable Part of them, by an horrid and intolerable Cruelty or 
 *' Tyranny, there is a Power in the People, in this cafe only, of defending itfelf, 
 *' but not oi invading the Prince, or oVrevej^ging the Injury given ; neither of de- 
 " parting from their due Reverence, becaufe of the Injury received : In fhort, it 
 " hath Right only of repelling a prefent Force, but not of revenging a paft Injury ; 
 *' for one of them indeed is from Nature, that we fliould defend our Lives and 
 *' Perfons from Injury ,• and therefore the People may be able to prevent an Evil 
 *' before it be done, but cannot revenge it upon the King after it is done. There- 
 *' fore the People hath this Right more than a private Man, that he hath no other 
 *' Remedy left him but Patience ,• whereas the People, if the Tyranny be intole- 
 *' table, may ftill refift, tho' with Refpeft. 
 \ ■• In all which this Author hath there faid we may eafily underftand his Meaning, 
 unlefs it be in this of refifting Force with RefpeEl and Reverence : For I cannot un- 
 derftand how a Man may fight againft his Pvincq with Reverence, or give his 
 Guards a Knock over the Pate, or a Cut in the Face, with RefpeH to the Prince's 
 Authority. But the Reafon is plain why the People may aft thus, becaufe when 
 a Prince once goeth about to deftroy and make War upon his People, he doth 
 not aft then as a Monarch, but like a Cut-threat, and Enemy to the Common- 
 wealth : And no Man can imagine a Will to deftroy and to proteft the- People 
 can at once fubfift in the fame Perfon. 
 
 M. But pray give me leave to interrupt you a little. I grant indeed, that by 
 the Political Laws of any Government, which are made to fecure the Rights of 
 the Subjefts in their hives and Fortunes, no Prince can or ought to take away his 
 It. J. chap. Subjeds Lives or Eftates contrary to Law ; yet by the Imperial Laws in every 
 to. f. 203. Government, and by the Laws of the Gofpel, which (as I {hall hereafter ihew) 
 eftablifli thofe Laws in all perfed Governments (and particularly in the EngUJb) 
 all thefe Rights legally belong to the Civil, Sovereign, efpecially to be account- 
 able to none but God, to have the fole Power and Difpofal of the Sword, and' to 
 be free from all coercivtf^nd vindicative Power, and from all Refiftance by Force. 
 It is by thele CowwTO /.rtzuj of Sovereignty, that the Gofpel requires Pa^roe Obe- 
 dience, which is but another Name for Non-ref fiance : Thefe Laws are in eternal 
 force againft the 6'K^yef?j in defence of the Sovereign, be he good or evil, juftor unjuft, 
 Chriftian or Pagan ,• be he what he will, noSubjeft or Number of Subjedls what- 
 foever can lift up his or their Hands againft the Sovereign, and be guiltlcfs by 
 thefe Laws. Therefore for the SubjeEis to bear the Sword againft their Sovereign, 
 or to defend themfelves by force againft him or hisForc.es, is againft the Common 
 Laws of Sovereignty ; and by confequence Pajfive Obedience, even unto Death, be- 
 comes a Duty in Sovereign Governments, by virtue of thofe Laws, andweare 
 not to refift them upon any pretence whatfoever ; but therefore all Subjects are 
 
 bound
 
 Dialogue the Third. 107 
 
 bound to fufftr Death wrongfully, rarher than to refifl: tiiem iif on anj- prcteice or 
 account whatfoever. So that let Poprjb Writers (tho' never Co rrcderarc) i y 
 what they pleafc concerning the Laufidnefs of Kef flame in Tome care:, yet wc of 
 the Chunh of EngLvid have learned better things from the Scripture and the Exam- 
 ples of the Primitive Chiiftiam, which we think our felves obliged moft ftridly to 
 obferve. And therefore in relation to our own Government, and the prefent 
 State of Affairs, I (hall reduce all that I have to fay againft Refiflance of the Xir?, 
 or thofe commiilioned by him, into this .^yllcgfm : Not to be refifted b}' the Sub- 
 jefts is an infepacable Right of all Sovereign Power : But the K:r:^ is here the 
 only Sovereign Power. Ergo, the King is upon no pretence whaUoever to be 
 relifted by his SubjeAs. So that, not to quarrel any longer about Words, Non- 
 refiflance is the fame thing with Pajf.ve Obedience s-i^.A Submijfon, and by tonfwquence 
 thefe are required by the Imperial Laws of the Govemmert. Therefore 
 whatfoever the Imperial Laws of the Government require of its Si.bjeds, if it be 
 not contrary to God's Laws, tliey are bound to perform it. But Paffive Obedience, 
 or patient fuflcring of Injuries from the Sovereign, is not forbid by God's Laws : 
 And therefore Subjcfts are bound to perform it, where it is required by the Im- 
 perial Laws. 
 
 F. I (hall forbear to fay any thing, as yet, concerning what Doftrrnes the .SVr;)>- 
 turei teach, or tlve Primaive Chriftians pr2(3:ifed concerning this matter, btcaufe I 
 defire to difcourfe that Queilion apart from this of the Laws of Nature or Reafon, 
 which we are now upon : Therefore I muft tell you, that tho' this new Term of 
 Imperial Law of Nonrefiflame may found very prettily to their Ears who mind 
 Words more than Senfe ; yet I mull freely confefs, that I am altogether a Stranger 
 to this Notion of Imperial Laws, as alfo of the Diftinftion you make between the 
 Imperial and Political Laws of this Kingdom : And if by Imperial Laws you mean 
 thofe of the Rctnan Empire, I never knew that thofe Laws had any thing to do in 
 Engldnd before, but always fuppofed the Political Laws of our Country to be the 
 only Meafure of the Ring's Prerogative, as alfo of the Subjeds Obedience and 
 Subjection. Nor do your own C-w7 Luivs, by as much as I know of them, make 
 any difference between the Imperial and Political Laws of the Empire ; for by the 
 one, as well as the other, the Civilians underftand fucli Laws or Edifls of the Em- 
 perors, which, with tlie Approbation of the Senate, were made for the Peace and 
 Well-government of the Commonwealtli; but I never yet heard of any Imperial 
 Laws, whereby the Emperor declared, that he had a Right to plunder or murder 
 all the Citizens of Ro?ne, or that they believed they were obliged to fnjfer by your 
 Imperial Laws without any Refiflance. I am fure the Senate and People did not be- 
 lieve, that the Emperor had any fuch Authority, when they declared Nero and 
 Maximiii, for their intolerable Cruelty, not only Enemies of the Commonwealth, 
 but of' Mankind. But ii by thefe Imperial Laws of Nonrefflance you mean no more 
 than what you laid down in yourSyllogifm, that it is an infeparablc Right or Pre- 
 rogative of Sovereign Powers, not to be refifted by their Subjeifts, wlien you have 
 proved this Propolition by the Laws of Nature and l<cafon, I fhall then be- 
 lieve it. But as for your Conclufion, it being founded upon thefe Premifes, it 
 needs no Confutation ; for ii the Imperial Laws of Government do not require 
 your Paffive Obedience, tlicn Subjects are not hound to perform it. And to Ihew 
 you the Falfenefs and Abfurdity of this Aflertion, that whatfoever the Imperial Laws 
 of any Government require of its Subjeds, if it be not contrary to God's Laws, 
 they are bound to perform it, Inftead of Pajjive Obedience, or patient fuffcring of 
 Injuries, let us infert, 7y give up to the Sovereign all our Civil Properties and Eftates, if 
 demanded by bim, is not -forbid by Gvd's Laws ; and therefore SubjeEis are hound to per- 
 form it, whenever it is required by the Imperial Laws : For certainly the abfolute Difpo^ 
 fal ot the Eftates of the Subjeds is as unfeparable a Prerogative of Sovereign 
 Power as Irrefftibility it felf; as 1 think I am able to prove, if you think fit to dif- 
 pufe thatQuellion. 
 
 But at prefent I fhall only confine my felf to confute the Major in your Syllogifm. 
 In the firft place therefore, thougn I do grant what you lay down for a Ground, 
 to be true, That it belongs to Sovereign Powers to be accountable to, or pimjhable 
 by, none but God; yet, I fuppofe, Reffl urice oi ihtir Violence s.r\6.Tyranny may 
 very well be performed by the Peiph\ without calling them to ti Judicial Account, 
 or ereding a T^v^.wrt/ for that puipoll- : Calling lo an Account, and Puniflimenr, 
 arc Ads of Authority of Superiors over Interiors ; but Refflartce for Self-defence 
 
 P 2 is
 
 I08 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 is a Right of Nature, and which no Man, by entering into Civil Government, ever 
 ^ parted withal, but out of Confideration of a greater Good to be obtained there- 
 
 by, (viz,.) his own greater Security, together with the common Good of that civil 
 Society, whereof he is a Member ; which, when by the Prince's Violence, it is once 
 like to be wholly loft, his natural Right of Self-defence, for the prefervation of him- 
 felf and Family ,again takes place: Nor doth he then re(iftthe Supreme Powers as 
 fuch, but as Murderers and Cut-throats, who by going about to deflroy the' 
 People have already loft all that Right they formerly had. And of this Opinion is 
 tiiat moderate Romijh Author, Barclay, before cited, who in the idthChap. of the 
 Book laft quoted, hath this remarkable Paflage. 
 
 " What then ? Can there no Cafes happen in which it may be lawful for the 
 *' People, by their oiot Authority, to rife up, and rejijl a King governing Tyranni- 
 *' caf/y ? His Anfwer to this Quellion is, there are certainly none as long as he 
 " continues King : for the Scriptures forbid it, which fay. Honour the King, and 
 " be ivho refifteth the Power, refifieth the Ordinance of God. Therefore, the People 
 *' can have no Power againft him, unlefs he committeth fomething, by which he 
 " may ceafe to be King; for then he himfelf abdicates his Kingihip, and becomes 
 *' a private Man ,• and by this means tlie People being made free, that Right re- 
 " turns to them, which they had before the King was made : But there are but 
 *' few Fads of that Nature, which can produce fuch Effefts. And I cannot, 
 " when I think of it, find more than t-wo Cafes, in which a King doth ipfo faSio 
 " make himfelf no King, and thereby depriverh himfelf of all Honour, Regal Dig- 
 " nity and Power ; (which alfo IVtnz^erm takes notice of.) " One of thefe is, if he 
 deflroy s his Kingdom, and then give us the Examples of /V&joand Caligula, as I have 
 already done ; and next proceeds to this purpofe, that when any King defigns, 
 and doth ferioufly endeavour " to put this in pradice, he cafts offall care and de- 
 " fire of governing ,• and therefore thereby lofes his Empire over his Subjefts, 
 *' as a Lord of a Servant lofes his Dominion over him, by giving up all Care, 
 
 * Llh. I. c. 4. " and Government of him." And of this Opinion likewife are * Crotim and Puj- 
 
 * 7. II. fendorf f, the two beft, and moft learned Writers on this Subjed. Who do not 
 t Lib. 7. c. 8. j-iiink it *' inconfiftent with the Rules of the Golpel, for Subjeds to refift the King, 
 i 6. 7- (c j£ ^ffith a hoftile Mind he feeks the DeflruSiion of his People ; for, fays the for- 
 
 " mer, the Will of commanding and deftroying cannot confift together : And 
 " therefore he who profefles himfelf an Enemy of the whole People does thereby 
 " abdicate the Kingdom ; but that can fcarce feem to happen in a King in his 
 " right Wits, and who commands only one Kingdom. But if he commands more 
 " Kingdoms, it may fo happen, that he would deftroy the People of one Na- 
 " tion to gratifie the other, that he may there make Colonies of them." And this, 
 I fuppofe, Grctim fpoke in relation to the King of Spain, who (they fay) had de- 
 clared, that if he overcame the Dutch, then in Arms againft him, he would fell 
 the People for Slaves into America, and people the Country with Spaniards. 
 M. You very much miftake me, if you think, by Imperial, I meant the Roman 
 U. J. Ibid. Laws, but only the commra Laws of Sovereignty, which, though they deftroy no 
 Man's natural, or civil Rights, yet both grant, and confirm unto the legal So- 
 vereign, in every Government, the Effential Rights of Sovereignty, of which I 
 take Non-refftance, not only for Wrath, but Confcience fake, to be one of the 
 chief And therefore it were much better to venture the utmofi that a T'yrant can 
 do towards his People by deftroying them, than to give the leaft inlet to Rebellion, 
 by fuppofing the People may in anyc^k whatfoever refifl their Prince. For grant- 
 ing the worft that may happen,that a Prince once in a thoufand Years fiiould be fo 
 wicked and malicious, as to go about to deftroy his People, yet he could fcarce 
 find Means and Hands enough to bring it about ; And admit he fiiould deftroy, 
 by his mercenary Forces, thirty or forty thoufand of them, it were better all thefe 
 Ibould perifli, than that the Nation fiiould be involved in Ctvil War, and the 
 Prince's Perfon and Government deftroyed by Reftflance. And therefore in all Go- 
 vernments whatfoever, whether Monarchies or Commonwealths, there muft be an 
 abfolute T'rufi placed by the People in one, or more Perfons, which Truft they 
 can neither recall when they will, nor yet refift upon the Non-performance of it. 
 And therefore it is a Miftake, when you aiErm with thofe Authors you have quoted, 
 that a King, or other Supreme Powers, can ever lofe their Right, by going about 
 to deftroy the People, much lefs when they only think their Liberties in danger ; 
 and I have feveral Reafons 10 give you for my Aflertion. 
 
 As
 
 Dialogue the Third. lop 
 
 As firfl, from the common Notion of a Tru/i ; for what is more generaJfy undei'- V. J. R. p. 6. 
 flood by trufting another, than that we lodge our Concerns with him, and put 
 them out of our Difpofal ? When I truft a Man wirh my Life, or Fortune, all 
 Men agree, that I put it in his Power to deprive me of both : For to deliver 
 anv Property to another, with a Power of Revocation, is to truft him (as we fay} 
 no farther than we can fee him. He that can recover a Sum of Money he hath 
 depofited, when he pleafes, to fpeak properly, hath it flill in his Cuftody, and 
 trufls his Friend no more than he doth his own Coffers ; and therefore, if ws 
 confult our own Thoughts, we fhall find, that a Trt/Ji naturally implies an emire 
 Reliance upon the Condud and Integrity of another, which makes us re/ign up 
 our Liberty or Eflate to his Management, imagining them fafer in liii Hands, 
 than in our own. In fhort, a Truft, where there is no third Perfon to judge 
 of the Performance, (as in thefe Fafts between Subjefts, and Sovereign, there 
 is not) I fay, fuch a Truft includes a T'l-an/lation of a Rights and in rcfpeft of the 
 Irrevocablcnefs of it, is in the Nature of a Gift. So that there feems only to be this 
 difference between them, that a Gift ought to rcfpeft the Benefit of the Receiver, 
 whereas a Trufl is generally made for the Advantage of him who conveyed ix.. 
 
 And in every civil Society, or Government, under Heaven, that doth not de- B. D. f. /■. 8. 
 pend upon another, there muft be an abfohite and uncvnttoulable Pouer fixed fome- 
 ■u:here, w'^nch may irrcfijlibly difpofe of the Lives, Eftates and Perfons of the Subjed? 
 within that civil Society, or Government. For if every Man be left at Liberty 
 to difpofe of his own Eftate and Perfon, as he pleafes himfelf, then can he pro- 
 mife himfelf no Proteftion, but what his own natural Force will afford him j 
 and that will certainly be overpowered at one time or other by others. With* 
 out this Truft there can be no Juftice adminillred witliin the civil Society ; for 
 if every particular Man may be Judge in his own Cafe, the Right will certainly 
 be aflerted on both fides, tiio' it really can be but in one : No Malefactor will 
 ever condemn himfelf, nor fubmit to Juftice, if he can, and may refift ; and if a 
 War happen, every Man will be for faving his own Goods from the Expence, as 
 his own Perfon from the Danger of it ; and the Confequence muft be, that that 
 Civil Society muft perifli either by internal Diforders, or external Force. 
 
 Therefore this Power is, and muft be in one Perfon, or Body of Men in every W. t.^^. 9. 
 Civil Society, and is alfo indivifibk : For fuppofing that it fhould be divided in 
 the fame Civil Society into two, or more Parts j as between two Men, and two 
 Senates, or Councils,without any dependance upon each othef, or any third Power, 
 the Confequence muft needs be, that they differing, and oppofing one another, 
 and having no lawful Power fixed in either of them to oblige the other to fub- 
 mit, muft have recourfe to Force and Arms : So that this Civil Society can never 
 reft 'till this Supreme Sovereign Power be reduced again into one. And if you 
 fuppofe this Pouer of judging, and refifting in the People, or Multitude, the matter 
 is ten times worfe ; that being a blind, and heady Monffer, eafily provoked upon 
 flight Occafions, commonly judging falfe, even in its own Concerns, and as im* 
 placable in its Rage, as unfatiablc in its Revenge. 
 
 To conclude : Whether this Supreme Power be in a fingle Perfon, or in a few, 
 or in all, where ever it is lodged, none muft oppofe, none muft refift it ; nor can 
 any Man aflure himfelf of more Juftice, or better Ufage from a Senate, or a Mul- 
 titude, than ffom a Prince, or fingle Perfon. So that this Inconvenience of being 
 liable to have our Lives fometimes taken away, our Perfons injured, and our 
 Eftates opprcfs'd by the evil Management of our Governors, is one of thofe hu- 
 mane Miferics, that, by the Corruption of Men's Nature from the Fall, took 
 Pofleffion of tiie World, and can never be purged out of it 'till the final Confla- 
 gration. And therefore the Advice of Cerialis in I'acitm is always to be rcmem- 
 bred. That " Tyrants and evil Princes are to be born with, as immoderate Rains, 
 " and unkind Scafons, and amends may be made by a bcttet Succell'or : " Since 
 Refiftance will not cure, but only inflame the Diftemper. 
 
 F. You have made a long Speech, wherein I fee you have licaped together all 
 that Wit or Interefl can produce on the behalf of Tyranny ; though I muft confcfs, 
 I did not expeft to find you, of any Man, fo zealous an Advocate for it. But I 
 forgive it, as long as I really believe, that only a miftaken Confaence, and not any 
 private Intcreft, prompts you to it. But that I may take your Speech to Piece? 
 in order to anfwcr it : In xhc fir ft place, as to what you fay concerning a Truft, 
 I think you are under a very great Mift;^kc. For no Man, either in a Civil 
 
 State,
 
 no BiBLioTH EGA Politic A. 
 
 State, or in that of Nature, ever yet fo trufted another, as that, if he abufed 
 his Truft, he had not referved to himfelf a Right of Appeal. Under all Civil 
 Governments this is notorious, fince it is one of the main Bufinefles oi Supreme 
 Courts of Juftice, upon Complaints, or Appeals, of Breaches of Trufl:, to call the 
 I'rufiees to an Account, and force them to make Reftitution for the Wrongs they 
 have done. And whereas you fay, that in the State ot Nature, where there is 
 no third Perfon to judge of the Performance, fuch a Truft includes a TranflatioQ 
 of Right (as in thefe Fads between Subjefts and Sovereigns : ) This is likewifs 
 a Miftake, though it be true, that in that State, if I truft a Man with my Life 
 and Fortune, I put it in his Power to deprive me of both ; and that this Tnift 
 naturally implies a Reliance upon the Conduft and Integrity of another, which 
 makes me refign my Liberty, or Eftate, to his Management ; yet doth it noc 
 therefore follow, but that upon the abufe of this Truft, I may have a Remedy 
 againft him, who thus breaks this Truft I have fo repofed in him. And when 
 there is no third Perfon to judge between me and my Truflee, I my felf am the 
 fole fudge of tlie Wrong he doth me ; and may not only turn him out of his T'rufly 
 if I find he abufes ir, but may alfo force him to make me SatisfaElion for the 
 Wrong he hath done : So that, if in the State of Nature I truft a Man with a 
 Bag of Silver to keep for me ; if he either imbez^els, or runs away with it, I may 
 certainly force him to make me Reflitution, or elfe enter into a State of War with 
 him 'till he do : And where there is no common Potcer over us to whom we can 
 " Appeal, this Difference can no way be decided but by the Sword. And therefore no 
 
 "Trufl (as in thofe mutual Fads between Subjeds and Sovereigns) can be irrevor 
 cable, or include a perfect Tran/lation of a Right ; and no Trufl can ever be fup- 
 pofcd to be given but with this tacit Condition, that the Truftee doth not abufe 
 it. And you yourfelf have made a fufEcient Difference between a Trufl, and an 
 abfolute Gift ; but granting that a Gift refpeds the benefit of the Receiver, 
 whereas a Truft is for the Advantage of him who conveys it. From whence it 
 muft neceflarily follow, that if this Truft be for his Advantage, he hath ftiil an 
 Interefl in the thing ti-ufled ; and confequently may call the Truflee to an Account 
 in the State of Nature, and upon Satisfadion denied, appeal to God himfelf 
 by Battel, or Combat. So that if the Supreme Powers are but Truflees of the 
 People, they may be reflfted, when by going about to deflroy them they break 
 their Truft. 
 
 But as for the other part of your Argument, that in all Civil Gover-nmems under 
 Heaven, there muft be an abfolute and uncontroulable Power Rxed fomewhere, that may 
 irrefiflibly difpofe of the Lives, Perfons, &c. of the Subjeds. This, tho' it feems 
 a better Argument than the former, yet is all one in efied ; for the Queftion is 
 ftill. Whether the People ever repofed Juch an abfolute Power in their Supreme MagrflrateSy 
 or not ? I grant indeed, that as far as they ad as the Nature of Civil Power re- 
 quires, they are not by any means to be reffled. But the Queftion ftill is, Wliether, 
 when a Prince makes War upon the People, or goeth about to deflroy them, there 
 is tlien any Civil Power in being ; and whether the Goi.>ernment be not already dif~ 
 folved, fince the jnain Ends of Government, viz.. the Good and Prefervation of the 
 Subjeds, are quite deftroyed. And now pray tell me which is moft fuitable to 
 that pri7ne Law of Nature, the Endeavour of the Good and Happinefs of Man- 
 kind, that a whole Nation fliould be enflaved, or deftroyed by the boundlefs WiU of 
 a Tyrant, or that Rul^s fhould be fometimes refifted when they grow imoUrably 
 Tyrannical, and abufe their Power, to the total DeflruSiion of the Lives and Pro- 
 perties of their Subjeds. So then, if fuch an abfolute Arbitrary Power in Princes, 
 or States, can never confift with the tnain Ends of Civil Society, the Peace and 
 Happinefs of the Subjeds, it is plain, that whenever they are reduced to fuch 
 a State, they will look upon themfelves as again in the State of Natwre : Nor 
 would they liave ever quitted their natural Freedom, and tied themfelves up from 
 providing for the Security of their Lives and Properties, by fuch means as they 
 might before hat'C juftly exercifed, had it not been to obtain thefe Ends with 
 much greater Certainty by entring into Civil Society, and by flated Rules of 
 Right and Wrong, to fecure their Lives and Properties with their future Peace 
 and Qiiiet, by furer means, than they could hope for in the meer State of 
 Nature. 
 
 For it cannot be fuppofed that the People would ever confer fuch an arbitrary 
 tofUmited Power on one Man, or many, over their Lives and Eftates, that they 
 
 * might
 
 Dialogue the Third. \\\ 
 
 mighr take them away without any jufl caufc '^ foi^ this were to put themfclves 
 into a worfe Condition than the ime-/- State of Niifi'tre, wherciu they Jiad a Liberty 
 to defend their jufl: Right againft the Injuries of others, and were upon equal 
 terms of Force to maintain it, whether invaded by a fingle Man, or many in a 
 Combination : Whereas by fuppofing they have thus given up -tliemfclves to the 7. T. C.f.-»-t 
 abfolute Arbity-ary Power and Will oi a. fmgle Pcrfon, they have wholly dfm/tied^- 1-359- 
 themfclves, and only armed him to make a Prey of them whenever he pleafes ; he 
 being in a much worfe Condition that; is expofed to the Arbitrary Puwer of one 
 Man who hath the Command of I ooooo Men, than he that is expofcd to the 
 Arbitrary Pouer oi I ooooo fingle Men, no Body being fecure that his Will who 
 hath fuch Command, is better than that of other Men, tho' his Force be x ooooo 
 times ftronger. , ii: y ,,\ 
 
 To conclude, granting a Supreym Pozver to ht mzc d fomewhere, either in a 
 fingle Perfcn, or in many, yet it can by no means oe abfolutely Arbitrary and Lre- 
 fifttble over the Lives and Fortunes of the People ; for their Authority being (as I 
 have already proved in the former Conference) no more than that Power which 
 God hath granted to every particular Head of a Family, and other Freemen at their 
 own difpolal, for the fecurity of their own Perfons,and tlie common Good of thofe 
 ivhom God hath intrufted to their Charge, they cannot confer upon the Supreme 
 Magiflrate any more Power than what God hath conferred upon them before, and 
 and fo can be no more than thofe Perfons had in the State of Nature, before tliey 
 enter'd into Society, and before they gave up their Power to thefe Suprc?ne Ma- 
 gifirates, viz. that only which God had before trufted them withal. Now (accor- 
 ding to your own Principles) «o Man is trufled by God in the State of Nature with lLid.t. 55.?. 
 an abfolute Pou-er over his own Life, much lefs to dejlroy or take aivay the Life or 
 Property of another, and therefore cannot convey any fuch Power to thofe he 
 vyould entruft with it. So then if a Man cannot fubjeft himfelf to the Arbitrary 
 J'(wer of another, neither hath he in the State of Nature fuch an Arbitrary Pozier 
 oyer the Life, Liberty or Pofleflions of another, but only as much as the Law 
 6f Nature gave him for the prefervation of himfelf, and the common Good of 
 Mankind ,■ this is all iie doth, or can give up to the Commowwealth, fo that if it 
 ian iiave no more than this,, its Power, in the utmoft bounds of it, is Hill limited to 
 the publick Good qi the Civil Society. 
 
 All which, if duly confidered, the reft of your weaker Arguments are eafily 
 anfwered: For fuppofing but one Prince in 1000 Years fo wicked as to go about 
 to de/lroy his People, it will then, whenever it happens, be as much their Right to 
 defend themfdvcs^ as if it were to happen every Year. And tho' you afl'ert he 
 ^ould fcarce find Means or Hands to bring it about j yet that makes nothing to 
 the purpofe i for if he hath «o Right to de/lroy 30 or 40000 of the Subjects (as you 
 fuppofe he may by his Mercenary Forces) then that 30 or 40000 may defend them- 
 fclves if tliey can : For when once a Prince hath thus enter'd into a State of IVar 
 \^ith his People, who can tell when or where it will end, or can aflbre himfelf 
 that he fhall not be tiie next Man that fhall be dfftroyed'? And it is very pleafant 
 that you allow the Prince this Power of Murdering to avoid Civil tVar ; as if tliere 
 could be no War begun unlefs there be Fighting on both fides j whereas 'iAr.Hobbs 
 himfelt acknowledges, the very aflaukingor fettingupori any Man, to be ehtring 
 into a State of War with him .- And furc, I think, to' fall upon the People with- 
 , out Caufc, and killing 30 or, 40000 of them, is entring into a State of War, or 
 elfe nothing is : And tlierefore you miftake the Queilion, when' you argue from 
 the Indivijibility of the Supreme Power that it muft not be reffied ; for tlie Qiiefh'on 
 15 not here, whether it be divifible or not, but whether it be not abfolutely diffolved 
 by thus entring into « i'M/^o/W«- with the People, whom all Civil Magillratcs 
 are fuppofcd to protecS when they alfuitie the Government. 
 
 Nor doth this give any countenance to Malefadors or other fingle Perfons, to 
 rife in Arms and defend themfclves againft the Supreme Powers, when they have 
 offended againft the Laws, or tliat they think themfclves injured by the undue' 
 execution of them; fince fuch Abufes of Power cannot fuddenly, ot upon every 
 flight occalion, difturb the Government. And in the cafe o(MaltfaBors, the Supreme 
 Power is ftill fure to have all tiic reft of tlic People! on its fide, for their own Se- 
 curity : And in cafe of ioinc Murdcrt or Opprefjhns committed by fuch Supreme Mn- 
 gifhates on tie Li\es or Lftates of fome private Perfons, tho' I fuppofe tiiat even 
 fuch private Men have a Right in tlie State of Natwe to defend their Lives, and to 
 
 recover
 
 Ill BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA.' 
 
 recover by Force, what by unjuji- Force is taken from them ; yet this Right muft 
 ftill give place to tlie pilblick Peace and Safety of the Commonwealth, whereof they 
 are Members, which mull not be difliirbed for the fake of a few : And of this the 
 Ibid p. 4;9. People themfelves are fo fenlible, that it is almoft as impoflible for a few opprejfed 
 Men to difturb the Government, where the Body of the People do not think them- 
 felves concerned in it, as for a raving Mad-man or heady Malecoment to overturn a 
 well fettled State ; thfe People being as little apt to follow the one as the other. So 
 on the other fide, wiienever the People are once convinced that their Governors^ 
 inftead o( prctefiing, go about to dejlroy them, it is asimpoflible for any Man to pcr- 
 fuadc them not to take up Arms and defend themfelves againft them, if they are 
 able to mdkefufficient Rejiflance. And therefore tho' I foTar agree with you, that 
 fome OpprefTions and Violences may be praftifed in all Civil Governments what- 
 fcever, fince fuch Abufes will continue as long as Men are Men ; yet doth it not 
 therefore follow that the Supreme Powers muft always be born withal and never 
 refilled, no not when they go about to deflroy the whole Body of the People. 
 
 M. But pray tell me, is it not a very mifchievous and unjufl thing, that Siil>- 
 jefls fiiould be both Judges and Parties too in tiieir own Cafe ; fince they may 
 pretend that the King goeth about to deflroy or enflave them, when really he does 
 not defign any fuch thing ; and would not this bring all things into Anarchy and 
 Confujion ? I fhewed you the fatal Confequences of this at the beginning, but you 
 have not yet thought fit to anfwer them. 
 
 F. I beg your Pardon, Sir, I liave been fo taken up with anfwering the main Ar- 
 guments that you have propofed againft this Right of Ref fiance, that I have not had 
 time to confider this Objeftion, which h but a Confequence thereof : And there- 
 fore in the firft place give me leave to ask you this Queftion ; Suppofe you were 
 Mailer of a feparate Family in the Indies, and a Neighbouring Prince or Cacik of 
 the Indians fliould come to kill you, or to drive you out of your Plantation, might 
 you not defend your felf, becaufe you are both fudge and Party too in your own 
 Cafe ? Or fuppofe you fhould fo far abufe this Power of Self-defence, as to prdtend 
 this Neighbouring Prince was coming to aflault you, when he really was not, 
 and fliould therefore (to prevent it) fet upon him firft, and murder him and his 
 Followers ; muft your Abufe of this Right, which you have by the Law of NtUure^ 
 be a fufEcient Argument, that neither you, nor any Man elfe in the State of Nature, 
 fliould ever for the future exercife this Right ? fo neither will the Abufe of thefe 
 Rights be a fufficient Argument againft the Right of Self-defence againft the Supreme 
 Powers. 
 
 M. I grant indeed they are not in the State of Nature, but it is much otherwife 
 after People are entered into a Civil Society, or Commonwealth, and that upon your 
 own Principles j for then they have given up all that Equality, which you fup-^ 
 pofe between Men in the State of Nature : For fuppofing what you affirm fliould 
 be true, That Civil Government at firft began from the whole Body, or major part 
 of the People's making over aU their Right of Governing themfelves to one Perfon, 
 or more, upon Conditions of being prote^ed in their Lives and Eftates,- they muft 
 likewife make over all their Right of Judging for themfelves what means are necef- 
 fary for their common Good and Prefervation ; after which transferring of their , 
 Power, they can never have any Right to meet again in a Body, either by them- 
 felves or their Reprefentatives, to judge of thefe Breaches, or the Tranfgreffions of 
 thofe Conditions which they at firft propofed and agreed upon with fuch Princes or 
 Governors. And when the People come once to multiply into a Nation, it is ab- 
 folutely impoflible for them ever to wecf altogether again, and give their Judg- 
 ment of the good or evil Confequence of the Monarchs Aftions, or to come to any 
 Refolution upon them ; fo that their Opinion can never afterwards be known, orher- 
 wife than by the Munners of particular Perfons, which none can certainly know 
 neither, unlefs they could fpeak with every individual Perfon of that Kingdom,' 
 which is impoflible. But if you will fay, this Opprcjfon needs not be known by 
 IVords or Votes, but AEiions, viz,, by the People's aftual taking up Arms, tliis muft 
 either be by the whole People all together at once, or at leaft, the major part of them, 
 or elfe of fome particular Bodies of Men, much lefs than the whole, or major 
 part : Now the whole, or major part of a People of a Nation to rife and take up 
 Arnfs all at once, as one Man, is morally impojfsble : And if any part lefs than this 
 whore or 7naj(>r part, (as fuppofe a whole Province or City) every fuch Party or Body 
 of.Men fo rifing, muft be guilty of Rebellion, and difturbing the publick Peace of the 
 
 » Common-
 
 Dialogue the Third. tij 
 
 Commonwealth, as being but pri\ate finglc Perfons, which yoii your felf gran- 
 ted and condemn'd as unlawful. And therefore I delire to know, who fliall judge 
 when this Body or major Part of the People arc thus aflaultcd, fo that they may 
 juflly defend themfelves ? But indeed this Licence of taking up Arms is not only 
 unpra(5ticable, but unrcafonable too ; for it fuppofes, that after the People have: 
 given up all the Pozm- they had oi judging what was bad or good for the Publick, 
 they have this Power ftill left in them, which would make them at once both Sub- 
 jeBi and Sovereigm, whicli is a Conti-adiSiivn. 
 
 F. Had you been plcafed but better to have obferved what I faid the lafl; time I 
 fpoke, a great part of this Objeftion had been faved. For I there exprefly aflcrt- 
 cd, that the Security of Men's Lives, Liberties and Eftates, hc'mgthc main Endf 
 for which Menentred at firft into Civil Society, and likewife delired to continue in 
 it, as being tiie only means why Ci-jil Gcvernment is to be preferred before the 
 State of Nature, the People neither did ot can give up tViQiv Right ofjudgiiig, when 
 thefe are invaded or taken from them : And therefore you are very much millaken, 
 to belie\'e that at the Lijlituticn of Civil Society, Men mufl have given up tiieir com- 
 mon Sciifcs and Reafon too of judging wlien they are like to be Murdered, or made 
 Slaves of, or their Fortunes un juflly taken from them, by thofe whom they have 
 ordained to be their Governors : And I fuppofe you xvill not fay, that they thereby 
 acquire a Power of altering the Nature oi thh)t^s, or of making War, Slavery or 
 Beggary the means of procuring the Welfare and Happinefs of the People, anymore 
 than they can enaci that Hunger or Difeafes fliould conduce to the preferv ation of 
 any Man's Life: And therefore as the Judgment of thefe things was obvious and 
 natural to every Man's Senfes and Underftanding in the State of Nature, fo it is as 
 plain, they ne\ er intended wholly to give up all their Right of Judging concer- 
 ning their own Prefervation and Happinefs, and all means ncccflarilytendmg there- 
 unto, but only in fuch Cafes, and concerning fuch Matters as are %o/7i/ the Power, 
 or al/ove the Knowledge of every ordinary private Subjecl. Thus in a Difeafe, tho' 
 I give up my felf to the Skill and Judgment of a Phyfcian, yet I do it not fo abfo^ 
 lutely, but that I llill referve to my felf a Right of judging, whether he gives me 
 Poyfon inflead of a Putge. And if Princes or Supreme Magiftrates were thus alfo- 
 lutely inve/led with an Ail/itrary Pcvser of doing whatfoever they pleafed with the 
 Lives, Liberties and Eflates of the People, they would then be in a much -worfe 
 Condition under Civil Governjr.ent, than they were in the State of Nature, as I have 
 already proved ; and th.erefore there is no need of any fuch ^w^/vj/ Meetings or Af- 
 femblies of the whole Body, or Reprefentatives of the People, to judge when thefe Fun- 
 damental Conditions oi &\\ Government are notorioufly violated and broken : Since 
 it will be apparent to every Man's Senfe and Reafon that is thus alVaulted or in- 
 jured. 
 
 And as for the other part of your OhjeFiion, how the pjople can know when 
 the whole Bedy or major Part of them is thus ailaulted oropprefs'd; and being fo 
 aifaultcd or opprefs'd, what number are ncceflary to juflify this Refinance ? To this 
 important Queftion I thus anfwer, that if fuch a War or Aflault be made upon 
 fuch a conftderahk part of the People, as may jujlify this Refjhmce to be inuch better 
 for the good of the Commonwealth, than that To many People fliould be de- 
 ftroyed ; Refiflame certainly is then lawful : And the reafon why every particular 
 Perfon, when unjulHy aflaultcd by liis Prince's Order, or his Eftate taken away by 
 bis unjufl EdiFls or Decrees, ought not to make any publick Diflurbance, only to five 
 the one, or reicver the other, I have given you before, viz.. bccaufe the publick 
 Peace is to be preferred before that oi any private Perfon : Yet even then, fuch a 
 private Perfon may very well defend himfeli, if ««;///?/)' alfaulted by AJfajf nates, whom 
 the Prince, or other Supreme Magiflrates, fliall fend to take away his Life without 
 any juft Caufe or legal Tryal j tho' I grant he may not follicit others to rife with 
 him, and take his Part, or help him to defend his Life or Eftate ; yet (as a 
 Reverend Dignitary of our Church very well obferved) A'c* Man can want Authori- 
 ty to defend hu Life againjl him who hath no Authority to take it away. Bur much ^^ ^' '^' 
 more, when this Aflai.lt orOppreflion is either made upon the whole People in ge- *°' 
 ncral, or upon fo conliderable a Part or Member thereof, as the Commonwealth 
 could nor well fubffi without if it were de/iroyed: In all fuch Cafes, I fuppofe the 
 People thus ailaulted oropprefs'd, have a fufficient Right to defend their Lives, and 
 /)-fe themfelves from that Slavery and OppreHion they lie ui.der : And thus the 
 People of Rome might very well have juftified their Refifiance oi Nero's Incendiaries, 
 
 Q_ when 
 
 59-
 
 114 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTICA. 
 
 wlien he fent to burn the City, tho' they had been his own Guards. We read 
 likewife in the Hifl. Augufl. that the Emperor Caracalla, the People happening 
 to laugh at him (for his FoUy) in playing the Gladiator in his Chcui Maximus, 
 fent his Guards to kill them : So likewife in Herodian, that upon another fuppofed 
 Affront, he fent his I'retorian Bands to murder moft of the Inhabitants of Alex- 
 andria, who came out to meet him with ifvhnn Proa-jfion. And I fuppofc no ra- 
 tional Man will deny, but that if the Citizens of Rome ox Alexandria had had 
 Arms in their Hands, they might have lawfully defended their Lives againft thefe 
 Murdering Guards ; for I think it was much better that thofe fliould be deftroyed 
 who were the Aggrejfors, tiian that fo 'vaji a Body of Innocent People fhould be made 
 Sacrifices to the unreafonablc Pafllon or Revenge of a Cruel 'Tyrant. So that 
 when the OpprefTion or Violence to Men's Liberties and Properties is general and 
 notorious, and afted the whole Body of the People ; I do then fuppofe, that any Part 
 of them that are fufficient to defend themfelves, may do it till they can find Af' 
 fifiance, eitlier from the rf/? of the People, or elfe from forae Foreign Prince or 
 State, who will vindicate their Caufe and come in to their Afliftance- And thus 
 Vi. Meterani we read the Town of Brill in Zealand, under the Condud of the Count of Mark, 
 Hijior. f^rft revolted from the Tyranny of the Duke of Alva ; which Example w^as after- 
 
 wards (tho' not immediately) followed by moft of the Cities of Holland and 
 "Lealand ; and the Courage and Refolution of this Count, as alfo of the Citizens of 
 this Town, is highly commended by tlie Hiftorians of that Time, for fo nobly 
 •venturing their Lives and Fortunes to redeem their Country from that Slavery it 
 then lay under, till at laft they were relieved and affifted by Queen Eliz,abetb, to 
 wliom the United Provinces owe that Freedom they now enjoy. 
 
 M- I fliall not now difpute with you, what Right the States of the United Pro- 
 vinces might have to rejifi the T)'r(7/7«)' of the Duke ot' Alva, then Governor for the 
 King of Spain ; fince Grot ins, and moft Writers which are not of the Spanijh Fa^ion, 
 fuppofe that King to have had a Conditional Right of governing thofe Provinces, ac- 
 cording to their own Laws and Privileges, from the veryfr/i hflhution of the Go- 
 vernment; and therefore not being an abjohite Monarch over them, he might well 
 be refijled upon the Breach of thofe Conditions. But this is not the Cafe now in 
 hand, fince we are now difcour/ing of abfolute Monarchies or Commonwealths, 
 who being inveftcd witJi tlie Supreme Pov:er by the Confent of the People (as you 
 fuppofe) and therefore may have by their Confents (whether forced or voluntary, 
 it matters not) according to your own Principles, a fupreme unaccountable Power 
 over them : And in the firft place, I can £hew you how a Man may jnake over all 
 the Power he hath in his own Perfon irrevocably to another ; as when a Man fells 
 or grants himfelf for a Slave to another by his ozun Confent ; who when he hath 
 once put himfelf into this Condition, his Mafter hath an abfolute Property in his 
 Perfon, and an /Wi?/f(2/W(? Right for ever to his Service ; fo that notwithftandingall 
 the cruel, harfli and unreafonable Ufage he may meet with from his Mafter, he 
 can never regain his Freedom witliout the Confent of his Lord : And this I take to 
 be an uncontefled Truth, agreed on by the Laws of Nations, and eftabliflied by the 
 Fet. Ep. I. c. Law of God. Thus St. Peter chargeth thofe who are in this State of Ser\ itude, to 
 2. f. i8. befubjeB to their Majlers with all Fear, not only to the Good and Gentli, but alfo to the 
 Frozvard. So likewife St. Paul, in both his Epiftles to the Ephefians and Cohfjians, 
 Ep. 6. z: 5 commands Servants to be Obedient to them that are their Maflers-according to the Flejh, Sec. 
 Col. 5. 22. And that this particularly refpefts Slaves, appears by the 8th Verfe of the dth 
 Chapter of the former of thefe Epiftles. 
 
 So that if a Man may thus make himfelf a Slave or perpetual Servant to another 
 by his own Confent, I cannot fee any Reafon why a whole Nation ma.y not do the 
 fame, and deliver themfelves up to one Man or more, to be governed and treated 
 both for their Lives, Liberties, and Fortunes at his or their Difcretion ; fo that 
 tho' he may perhaps abufe this Power to the fevereft Tyranny or Oppreffion; yet 
 have they m Right to fliake off this Yoke, or to refifi him, fince their Lives and 
 Fortunes are wholly at his Difpofal by their own Acl and Confent. And that 
 ' "whole Nations may juftly furrender themfelves for Slaves or abfolute SubjeBs, I can 
 give you two Exampvles approved of by God in the Scriptures : The firft is that 
 of the Egyptians, who, when they had fold all their Goods, and Lands, to Pharaoh 
 for Bread to keep themfelves alive in the fevcn Years of Famine we read of in. 
 Genefis, you'll find they were afterwards fuch abfolute Servants orSlaves to Pharaoh, 
 
 That
 
 Dialogue the Third. Il^* 
 
 That as for the People, he removed them to Cities, from one end of the Borders of Egypt, G"«. 47. zr, 
 rjen to the other end thereof ; only the Land of the Priefts bought he net, &c. The other ""* 
 IS that of the Gibeonites, of whom we read that they accepted of their Lives from 
 yojhua and the Elders oi Ifrael ; tho' on the condition of the greateft SIa\'ery, ra- 
 ther than they would ve::ture to be deflroyed : So that if alfolute Monarchy were 
 riot lawful, but contrary to God's Will and Inflitiition, moft of the greateil King- 
 doms in tiie World would be governed contrary to the Laivs of Cod and Natine ; and 
 the Subjects of all the Kingdoms from France to China (not reckoning thofe of 
 Africa) might immediately, if they were able, n-^f/ againfl their Monarchs, and 
 fct up what fort of Government they thought fit, fince none of the Subjcfts in 
 thofe Kingdoms hold their Lives, Liberties or Eftates by any other Tenure, 
 than the good Will or Pleafure of the Monarch, who may take away all, or any 
 of them, as often as he pleafesto do it, and that -without any right oi Rejifiance in 
 all or any of their SidjeSls, let them ufe them never fofeverely. 
 
 F- I cannot deny, but what you fay is fo far true, that one Man, or jnapiy to- 
 gether, may grant or fell themfelves for Slaves by their ovjn Conjent ; and that the 
 Pcffons who thus make over themfelves, have afterwards no Right or Property 
 in any thing more than a bare Subfjknce ; yet that Servitude is not by the Law of 
 Nature, but only bi ought in by Cuftom, or the Law of Nations, as all Writers 
 agree, and is fo far lawful, becaufe it tends to the good and prefervation of Man- 
 kind, that Prifoners taken in JVar fliould rather be kept as Slaves than immediate- 
 ly (lain, or that Men compell'd by extreme neceifity fliould fell themfelves, or 
 their Ciiildren, rather than both fliould perifh ; and therefore it is no wonder 
 that the Apoflkt, who were not fent to alter the State of things in the World, or 
 to entrench upon any Man's Civil Rights, fliould command Servants or Slaves to 
 be fiibjed to their Mafters, tho' Unbelievers : Yet doth it not therefore follow, 
 that when Men are forced to give themfelves thus up to the Power of another, 
 they likewife give him an abjulute Right over their Lives, fo as that their Maflers 
 may take them away whenever they pleafe ; for that was more than thcj^ ever 
 had over thernfclves ; nor doth God confer any fuch Power upon Maftcrs : And 
 therefore if the Mafterhach no fuch alfolute Right ox Property in the Perfons of his 
 Slaves, as he hath in his Sheep or Cattle ; I fee no reafon why even Slaves, if 
 their Mafiers go about to take away their Lives for no other Caufe but to fatisfy 
 their own Humour or Paffion, may not (if they cannot otherwile efcape) re/fi 
 their Mafiers, and fare their Lives if they can : F"or all Writers agree, that if 
 a Maflcr doth fo fo inhumanly abufe his Slave, that he can no longer endure it 
 without danger of his Life- he may in tliat Cafe lawfully run away and efcape 
 from him ; and wJiy he may not as well rejtfl him to fave his Life, when his 
 Mafter goeth about thus unjufily and without any caufe to take it away, I can 
 fee no reafon to the contrary ; lince it was only for the faving his Life, that fuch 
 a Man could ever be fuppofcd to yield himfelf a Slave to another j and which 
 Condition being- broken on the Ma/ler's part, the Servant is again in the State 
 of Nature, and the Relation oi Majier and Servant fo far ceafes, or is at leall fufpend- 
 ed during that Violence. 
 
 This being the State oi particular Men, I cannot think that God hath put v;hole 
 Nations in a zvorfe Condition ; nor can I imagine that any ivhnle Nation, unlefs urged 
 by fome extreme necef[tty, would ever give up themfelves io abfolutely ior Slaves, as 
 not to have any Rignt to defend their own Lives, or a Property in any thing they 
 can enjoy J and if ever they could be fuppofed to have done fo, I think I may 
 boldly affirm, that fuch a. Nation arc not Suljeth, hut Slaves; and the Prince not a 
 Monarch or Civil Cventsr, but only a Lord of a great Family, or Mafter of a publick 
 fVork-houf. 
 
 For I take the difference between Subject or Slaver, and Princes and Maflers of 
 Families to conlift in tliis, that the Power of a Prince is chiefly ordained 'tot the 
 good and prefervation of his Subjects, tho' I grant his tnm may likewife be included 
 in it as an Encouragement and Reward for his Labour ; yet not as the principal 
 End of his hflhutivn ; whereas in a Family of 6'/rtw>-, they are chiefly ordained for 
 his Profit or Benefit that maintains them; but their Happinefs and Prefervation is 
 only accidental, and as it may conduce to that. The main End alio of Civil 
 Government is to inftitntc and maintain a dftiuti Property in Mer/s Eftates, and 
 which the Prince or Commonwealth can have no Right to take away. And there- 
 tore tho' I grant that in thof; Dej'potick Ahnarchies 30U mention, the Monarchs do 
 
 Q, 2 exercife
 
 1 16 B 1 B L I O T H E C A P O L 1 T i C A. 
 
 cxcvcifc an ahfolute Arbitrary Pouter over the Lives, Liberties and Eftatc? of their 
 Siibjeds ; yet that this is by Divine Right or Injlittition I utterly deny, or that it was 
 always fo in all oi them horn the beginning ; tor mofl of thofe Empires you men- 
 tion can m ctherwife fabllft, than by a conftant maintaining vafl Standing Armies 
 or Giiardi to keep their Subjects in Obedience. 
 
 Nor can any Governments be of Divine Inftitution, which are exercifed with a 
 fole Refpeci to the perfonal Power and Granduer of the Prince, rather than the 
 "good and prcfcrvation of the People : So that if you will but furvey the Accounts 
 that Travellers give us of thofe Eafiem parts of the World, you will find that 
 there are no known fetthd Lant or Properties in thofe Countries, except at the Ar- 
 bitrary Will of the Monarch or his Viceroys : And thus all thofe rich and fruitful 
 Countries of Egypt and AJia, which formerly flouriflied in all Arts, Knowledge 
 and Civility, and abounded in Multitudes of People, arc now, in mofl: places, 
 reduced to meer Defarts, and do not breed a tenth pa, t oi thiiX. Number of People 
 as they did in former Ages ; which proceeds from no oiher Caufe but the Cnwhy 
 and Iiijufiiie of the Government, quite different from what it was in the time of 
 the Roman Emperors, who, tho' 1 confefs they were in fome (tnk ahfolute too, yet 
 j^overned by, and were obliged to obferve knvum Lazvs ; and the People had a 
 fettled Property in their Eliates, which the Prince had no Right to take away : I 
 fhall not enquire how all thefe Monarchs came to be fo Arbitrary at firft, and thus 
 to abnfe their Pov:er ; but the Generality or Antiquity of this Abufe can be no more 
 a Plea for its Right, than that becaufe Idolatry was generally praftifed t)iroughout 
 the World within three or four iiundrcd Years after the i^oo^ till three or above 
 four hundred Years after Chrifl ; thOTcfore Idolatry was the tr.tie and ancient Religion 
 of the Woild. 
 
 Now, tho' I will not condemn this fort of Govermtent, where the Subjeds en- 
 joy no fettled Property in Lands or Goods as abfulutely unlanful, and direftly contrary 
 to the Lav:s of Gvd or Nature : Yet in thofe Kingdoms and Commonwealths, 
 where^iWor Hereditary Property is once introduced, I think it is not lawful, nor in- 
 deed in the pov:er of the Prince or Commonwealth to dcfiroy or take it away : And 
 therefore if the Roman Emperors fhould have endea\'oured, by any Laws or Edias 
 of their own making, to have dcftroyed all Civil or Hereditary Property in Lands ahd 
 Goods, and to have reduced all the Eftates of their Subjefts into their owa Pcffeffon -, 
 I think they might have been la-^fuUy difobeyed and relifted by the People, lince 
 they went about to deftroy one great End of Civil Government, wz,. the inllitu- 
 ting and maintaining of Ow7 Ao/fm'. 
 
 To conclude, I freely grant that in aU Countries which are governed either by 
 abfolute Monarchies or Commonvcealths, the Scveraignty is fo fully in one Perfon or 
 Body of Alen, that it hath no other Bounds or Limits under God but its (nm IViil or 
 Commands, provided they do not apparently tend to the ahfolute Ruin and Deftruc- 
 tion of the People ; for that being inconfiftent with the Notion or End of go\ erning 
 them, they are, and ever will be 'fudges of it : And therefore even amongft the 
 lurks and TrtrMr.f themfelves, if they fhould once find their Prince go about uv/- 
 ^k//v to deftroy them, or fell them for Slaves; you would foon find (notwithftan- 
 diiT^g this fervile Subjection) that they would quickly be rid of them, as the Jani- 
 zaries have ferved their Emperors of late Years for far lefs Faults. 
 
 M. I cannot deny but you have fpoken reafonably enough on this Subjed ; and 
 perhaps if you had refrained this Pozuer oi Refi fiance only to fuch Cafes where the 
 Prince or Monarch makes open War upon his People, or doth otherwife aflually go 
 about to de/iroy them, it might have been a tolerable Doctrine that they may 
 laiiifuHy refift the Forces he fliall fend againfl them ; but this is a Cafe that fo fel- 
 dom happens (if ever at all) that it can never be fuppofed, and ho Prince, tinlefs 
 lye XL-ere Mad, can be guilty of it ; and therefore whenever he afts thus, I think he 
 may not only be lawfully reffled, but tied up for a Madman : But this is feldom or 
 never the Cafe between Monarchs and xhcix: People, for moft of the Rebellions and In- 
 furretlions that I have ever read of, or obferved in the World, have not proceeded 
 from unynecejfty that the People had to rife up in Arms and rebel againft their Su- 
 preme Magifirates, becaufe their Lives or Eflates were aflaulted, or in danger to 
 be taken away ; but for the mofl part they arofe either from the too great Cruelty or 
 Seventy of the Supreme Poner towards fome particular private Men, who b)' them- 
 felves, and their Friends and Relations, have gone about to revenge thofe Injuries 
 that they fuppofed had been done them : And of this all Hiftories are Co full, that 
 
 I need
 
 Dialogue the Third. 117 
 
 I needgn-e no particular Inflanccs ot' them ; all wliich Abufes may be reduced tf) 
 thcfc Heads ; Fnfi, When a Prince doth commonly himfelF violate the Chafiuies 
 of the Wives or Daughters of the Subjedts, which tho' it hath been the Ruin ot di- 
 I'erfe Princes, yet is lie able to do this only to fomc fe-iu particular Perfons : And tho' 
 if he Qiould permit his Soldiers or Offuers generally to do this without any Puntjly 
 mem ; yet even this can hardly, it ever, extend to all the Wives, Daughters or 
 Women in a whole G)untry : And therefore both thefe Cafes are to be born with- 
 al, according to your own Principles, fince it dotli not tend to the Slavery or De- 
 firuclion of the People, I mean, as to their '>i:bok compkxed Body. A Second is, 
 when an atfolute Prince or Monarcii goeth about to alter the eflablijhed Religion of 
 his Country, and to introduce ^ difierent one by his ovrnfole Atahorky, whilft tjie 
 vtajur part of the P,;opie continue of another Opinion. In this Cafe 1 fuppofc you 
 will not affirm that t!je Sabjeils liave a Right torefifi their Prince for fo doing : For 
 then the Romam m,ight juilly iiavc rebelled againft Confiantine, when he fliut up the 
 Heathen Tempks, and forbad all publick Sacrifices to their Gods, and thereby made 
 ihc Chri/itan Religion the e/iablijied projeffiou of the Empire. 
 
 F. But pray Sir give me leave to interrupt you a little ; might not Confimtine 
 have a Right to do this, becaufe the Chriftian Religion is the only true one ; and 
 that tlie Idolatry xh<i Romans then praitifed, was againft the Lam of Nature ? 
 
 M- W hate verN weight diere-fnay be in this Anfwer, yet you have no reafon to 
 put this Qucftion now, firce you have already, viz.. at our h'rft Conference, afler- 
 ted that an Erroneiia Conjcience puts Men under an Obligation to follow ir, during 
 the time they are under this ignorance of the "Truth : And therefore if the Roman 
 Emperors had nu a Right to da this by their ov:n Authority, without any P.efijlame ; 
 the Subject.', wliilft they believed the Worfhip of their God to be thereby de- 
 ftroyed, might, nay ought to have refilled the Emperor, rather than to have fuftered 
 him to have rt/ii<.')ar/ tiie ancient Religion oi thz Empire, and to have brought in 
 another, which they look'd upon as an upfiart ; and it is very natural for Men to 
 do fo, fince nothing ought to be more dear to them ih&xi th^ JVorJhip znd Honour 
 ot God. 
 
 F. I do not defire at prefent to embark ray felf in this tedious and troublefome 
 Dilputc about tlie Autltority of the Supreme Potiers in Matters of Religion ; and 
 therefore I Ihall fay no more to it at prefent. But if yourAflertion be true, that an 
 abfolute Monarch may fet up -what Religion he pleafes, witiiout being rejjfled by 
 the Subjects, whom I fuppcie to be of another Perjiiafion, it will tlien follow, thar 
 if the French King or Emperor of Mnjcbiiy fhould turn Mahometan, and fliould fet up 
 that by Supcrllition Fmce, for the Publick and National Religion of the Country, 
 tho' with the Deduction of all that fliould cppoje it, none of their Subjects might 
 refi^ them in fo doing \ and if fo, I defire jou to confider what you have gained to 
 Religion, by tiius aflerting fuch an unlimited Prerogative to all Monarchs. But 
 laying afide this Difpiite till another time, I pray go on to the reft of tiiofe Cafes 
 in wiiich the People i},o take upon them to rejiji the Supreme Poiuers. 
 
 M. I Ihall comply with your delires ; and therefore a third Pretence of Subjects 
 to rebel, is when the Supreme Powers fhall think it necclfary to levy upon their 
 People more hca\'y andgrevioi's Taxes and Impofiions than the People are willing, 
 or it may be, able to pay. Novvifyour Principle be true, that they may rife in 
 Arms and reffi the Supreme Powers, whenever tiiey think themfelves thus intolerably 
 {pprejfed; and if they ihall he fole Judges oi this OpprelTion, then all the Rebellions 
 that ever were made in England or elfcwhere, by reafon of fuch exceffive Tributes 
 or Taxes, would be lawful; which would be a perpetual ground of Anarchy and 
 Ccnfujion ; ior: private SubjeUs not being admitted into the Privy Councils of Princes 
 or States, can never be fuppofed to undcrlland whether the neceffities of the 
 Commair^ealth may require them or not : And indeed the People do fo often repine 
 and murmur at the Government, when the pr.bhck Necejfities require to impofe 
 greater Taxes or Gabels than they think they can well bear ; that the Mobile of any 
 g>eat City or Province, for Example, who think thcmfelves thus opprefied beyond 
 what they are able, or perhaps willing to bear, may rife in Rebellion, and throw oft- 
 all Obedience to Civ.l Authority ; and tiiey may liave a very good Pretence for it, 
 according to your own Principle, becaufe they may look upon thcmfelves as a 
 very confiderable, nay r.eccJfn-.-y part of the Commonvjealth. And tiius the common 
 People ot Kent miglit have juftified their Rebellion in Richard II's Time under Uydt 
 T)lcr and Jack ^>;viu,-; .ind the People of Devon/hire and Somerft/bire might like- 
 wife
 
 Il8 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 wife have jiifiified their InfimeElion in Hairy V\Ys Reign under F/nmmock the Elack- 
 fmitb : And I could mention others of the hkc nature; but I forbear, becaufe you may 
 fay they were upon account o( Religion. And Lajily, This Principle might very 
 well juftifie the InfurreAion of the common People of Naples, under MajjaneUo, 
 which, beiides the vafl; fpoil it made upon the Goods and Palaces of the Nobility, 
 ended at laft (v/hatfoever they pretended at firft to the contrary) in delivering 
 up themfelves to the King of France, who refufing to proted: them, they were 
 foon reduced to their former Obedience to the King of Spain. 
 
 In fhort, if the People fhould take upon them to Rejifi or ReM whenever they 
 thought themfelves intolerably injured and opprefled in their filiates by immode- 
 rate Taxes, there would be no end of fuch RebeDions, efpecially confidering the 
 advantage which Wicked, Crafty and Ambitious Men would thereby take to ex- 
 cite the People to rife and depcfe their lawful Governors, and fet up themfelves in 
 their room, upon pretence of better Government and greater Liberty j and how 
 prone the common People have been to receive fuch Impreffions, he is but meanly 
 skill'd in antient and modern Hiflor}', who is not convinced of it. 
 
 F. To anfwer this Obje(5tion before you proceed farther, my Opinion in fliorc 
 is, that tho' Taxes may often prove an Univerfal Damage, and a great Im- 
 povcrilhment to the Subjefts ; yet if they are fuch as may be born with lefs 
 trouble than can follow from a Civil War, or the Change of the Government, there 
 is no juft or fufficient caufe of Reftfiance of the Soveraign Magiftrates Commands or 
 Edidts concerning them. As for Example, fuch great Taxes as the Subjedtspay, 
 and perhaps may bear it well enough in Holland and other Countries, fincc there 
 may be a neceffity for fuch Taxes; and of this I grant xhe Supreme Authority of the 
 Nation can be the only Judges ; and how far this may extend I cannot pofitively 
 determine ; for fuppofe you fhould ask me, if the Supreme Po-wers {hould borrow all 
 the ready Money the Subjects had, for the necefl'ary ufes of the State, fo that they 
 would give them Leather or Brafs Money inftead of it, to go at the fame Value, 
 for the neceflary ufes of Commerce ; yet if they did not take away their Property ill 
 their Lands, Corn^ or Living Stock, which are the neceflary means of their Sub- 
 liftance; I do not think it were a fufficient Caufe to take up Arms againft their 
 Governors for fo doing ,• becaufe the Sabjefts cannot tell but that the neceflities 
 of the State (for their neceflary defence againft a Potent Foreign Enemy) may re- 
 quire it. And fure it is a much greater Evil to fall into a Civil IVur, or to be 
 fubdued by Strangers, than to part with their Money ; fince by [v.ch. a War or 
 Conqueft, they might not only lofe that Money, but alfo their Liberties 
 and Eftates. 
 
 Yet on the other fide, I would not be underftood to give the Supreme Magrflrates 
 a Power to invade the Properties and Eftates of their Subjefts to what degree 
 they thought fit ; for then they might tax them to that extremity as might force 
 them to fell themfelves and their Wives and Children for Slaves, orelfe being un- 
 able to pay, muft be forced to run away and leave their Habitations (as the 
 Peafants often do in France) whereby whole Villages, nay Towns, may become 
 depopulated, as they are in divers parts of Italy and Turkey, by fuch extraordinary 
 Severities ; and therefore in absolute Mvnarchies, where there is no Nobility, 
 Gentry nor Yeomen, who can claim any Property in their Efiates, which with 
 us make up the bcft and moft confiderabie part di the People ; and where the 
 Government being wholly Military, is exercifcd over the People only hy force of 
 Arms ; I doubt not but fuch a People, reduced to this Extremity, may not only 
 quit the Country where they are thus intolerably opprefs'd, but that if they are 
 not of themfelves ftrong enough to make Rtjifiance and caft off this intolerable 
 Yoke by Force, they may (if an occafion be oftered) join with any Neighbouring 
 ' Prince or State that will undertake their Qiiarrel ,•' and upon this Account, I think 
 
 we may very well juftify the Revolt of the Greek Chriftians from the Ottoman Toke, 
 and putting themfelves under the Proteftion of the Venetians, both in the Morea 
 and other Places ; and alfo upon the fame Principles, I conceive the common 
 People oi France, who are reduced to the like Extremities, might alfo with a fafe 
 Confcience revolt from the prefent King, and put themfelves pnder the Proteftion 
 of the Prince of Orange, our now prefent Soveraign, or the States of Holland, it 
 ever they fhould be fuccefsful enough to make any confiderabie Invajion upon that 
 
 Kingdom 
 
 And
 
 Dialogue the Third. Up 
 
 And therefore I raufl confcfs, that there can be no certain and flated Rule fee 
 down, ro what Proportion abfolute Princes or Commonwcaltlis may tax tiieir 
 Subjeds ; fince in feme Countries the People can better part with a Shilling than 
 jn others they can pay a Penny. And as I grant it miift be left to the Mercy and 
 Difcretion of tiie Governors what Taxes to impofc without tlu-.s ruining and 
 deftroying their People, as it is left to the Judgment of the Owner of rhc Beaft, 
 how much Burden it is able to bear : So ii he, by laying too great a Weight, 
 breaks the Back of his Horfc or Beaft, he not only hath the Lofs, but makes him- 
 felf the Laughing-ftock of all his Neighbours. So that tiio' I confefs the People 
 ought to have patience, and rather to fufttr many OpprefTions and Hardfhips, 
 than to put themfelves in this miferable State of War ; yet there is a Midft in all 
 things, and the People may be fo cruelly opp;eJfed by I'axes, and other Impofi- 
 tions, as it is impoffible for them longer to fubfift, or provide Necellancs for 
 themfelves and their Families : And lince you have already granted, that the 
 People may ]vA^q when their Prince makes War upon them, and gocth aftually 
 about to deftroy them by the Sword, I cannot fee why they may not have the 
 fame Right of judging when they are like to be deftroyed by Famine too. And 
 who can be judge of this, but chofe who feel it ? 
 
 But indeed it is morally impofUble for the People to be milTaken in fo plain a 
 Cafe : For tho' this m^ny-headed Beaft (as you commonly call them) the Peo- 
 ple, cannot argue very fubtillyof the future Confequences of things, yet they have 
 a very nice and tender Senfe of Feeling, and can \ ery well tell, when they are fo 
 injured and opprefled, that they can bear it no longer : For then fure they may 
 be allowed to have as much Care and Senfe of their own Prefervation, as Camels 
 and D-rc?fieda>ies, which (as Travellers relate) tho' tliey are taught by their Mat- 
 ters to kneel down, and to receive their Loatls, which they will patiently endure 
 as long as they are able to bear them ; yet when once their Matters do over exceed 
 that Weight, neither fair means nor foul can prevail upon them to rife, or they 
 will throw off thofe Loads, if rifen, that they feel will otherwife break their Backs. 
 But I have difcourfed long enough on this Head, and therefore if you have nothing 
 more material to except againft it, I pray proceed ro the reft of the Caufes that 
 Subjeds may, as you think, pretend to have to take up Arms againft the Supreme 
 Powers. 
 
 M. I have fomewhat more to urge towards proving that this Libert}', which 
 you allow the Subjefts, wliolly tends to Anarchy and Confujion; but I fliall re- 
 fcrve it to the laft, when I fluU fum up all that I have farther to urge upon this 
 Subjeft ,• and therefore I fhall proceed to the other Pretences that Subjeds in 
 abfohtte Monarchies miLy make to rebel; and the next may be, that the Monarch 
 looking upon his Subjects as his Slaws, may either ufe them fo himfelf, or fell 
 them toother Nations for that purpofc, as Monjieiir Chardin tells us, the King of v;. S'r,- Jo. 
 Mhigrdia often doth diverfe of his People to raife Money. And tho' I will not be CharJiu's 
 fo ridiculous as to fuppofe that fuch a Monarch can fell away all his People at '^'■•'■■-'' '• ^^ 
 once, for then- he fliould be left aJone without any Subjefts, and confequently be- 
 come no King ; yet in fuch Monarchies as diverfe of the Eaflern and African are 
 at this Day, where (as you your felf own) the People have no Settled or Here- 
 ditary Property in their Eftates., the Monarch may difpofe of their particular 
 Perfons as he thinks fit ; I cannot fee any reafon why the Monarch may not in 
 in thefe Countries, without any blame, exert his Prerogative if he pleafes, and 
 take as many of his Subjefts or their Children to ferve him as Slaves, as he thinks 
 ncceflary for his Service. 
 
 And therefore whatfoever People or Nation have thus fubjeded thcraf>;ives to 
 the abfolute Power or Dominion of one Man, they have no more right to regain 
 their Natural Liberty, than I fliould have of taking away any thing by Force which 
 I had before given or granted to another; for tiiis fort oi Civil Servitude is r.ot fo 
 repugnant to Nature as fome imagine j or that becaufe Subjedts were forced to 
 confent to it for the avoiding of fome greater Evil, they can afterwards have any 
 right to fliakc it off again whenever they will : For tho' I grant that God liath 
 not inftituted any fuch Servitude ; yet when once it is introduced in any Country, 
 Men are not at Lil>erty to caft oft" the Yoke whenever they pleafe, but to obferve 
 St. P'atcfs Rule, If thou art a Servant, care not for it ; hut tf thou art Free, chufe it 
 rather; that is, Ficedorn is to be preferred before Servitude or Siibjethon- But 
 where Providence hath made Men abfolute Ser\'ants or Subjects, they are 
 
 bound
 
 IZO BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 bound to continue in that State, unlefs the Supreme Pozcers they are under think 
 fit to releafe them from it j and therefore this can be no good Pretence under ab- 
 folute Monarchies for Subjefts to take up Arms againfl their Prince, for fuch a 
 State of Liberty which they never enjoyed. 
 
 F. I fhall not trouble my felf to difpute what Right an ahfolute Monarch may 
 have over the Perfons of his People, in a Country where they have no Property 
 nor written Laws, and vHiere they look upon themfelves as no better than Slaves 
 to their Prince, and perhaps may take a Pride in it (as I have read the Ruffians 
 do.) And therefore if they have fo wholly fubmitted themfelves, I grant what 
 you aflert is true, and that they have no Right to Refijl, according to the old Say- 
 ing, Volenti mn fit Injuria. And yet even in thefe Dejfpotick Monarchies, tho' the 
 Prince may pick out here and there fome of his Subjects to fell for Slaves, or elfe 
 to ufe them as fuch himfelf ; yet I do much qucftion, if he fliould go about to make 
 any confiderable Number (as fuppofe to take 20 or 30000 all at once for Slaves) 
 I fay, I do much quellion whether thefe People would be fo convinced of your 
 Principles of Paffive Obedience and Non-refifiance, as to let their Monarchs Guards 
 drive them into Slavery, like Sheep to the Market, but would, if they were able, 
 make a vigorciu Refiflance, and knock their Drivers on the Head. Whetlier yure, 
 •vel Injuria, I fliall not difpute. 
 
 But for all this, even in ahfolute Monarchies, where the People have a fettled 
 legal Property in their Lands and Eftates ; and confcquently where their Perfons 
 are Free, I doubt not, if their Princes fhould go about to make all his Subjefts 
 Slaves, but that they might lawfully refijl him, or thofe he employs in fo doing. 
 And tho' it be true he could not make all his People Slaves at once ; yet if he afl'erted 
 it as a part of his Royal Prerogative, and alfo exercifed it on particular Perfons 
 as often as he thought fit, or could, I doubt not but the People might make ic 
 a common Caufe ; fince none can know whcfe Turn it may be next ; for fure 
 Liberty from Servitude is cu necejfary to Mms Happinefs and Well-being, oi Life is to his 
 Exiftence ; which would feem no great Benefit to thofe, who being Born Free, 
 Martial, were reduced to Slavery ; it being well faid by the Poet, Non efl vivere, Sed valere 
 vita. 
 
 And tho' the Roman Emperors did exercife an ahfolute Poxver over their Subjeds, 
 yet I never read that they durft prefume to make Slaves of Free-horn Romans ; nor 
 indeed of any of thofe Nations they fubdued ; for they had too great a fenfe and 
 Jove of Liberty themfelves, ever to impofe fuch a Yoke upon the People they Con~ 
 quered, which was fo deftruftive to the common Happinefs and Prefervation of 
 Mankind, And I fuppofe if the French Grand Seignieur, as Abfolute as he is, or 
 pretends to be, fhould go about to fell his Subjects (efpecially the Nobility) for 
 Slaves, all that the fefiuts (thofe Inllruments of Slavery) could do, would not, 
 I believe, be able to keep that People from rifing againft him. But ii you have 
 nothing farther to objed: againft what I have now faid, I pray proceed to the next 
 Head, if you have any more Inflances to make. 
 
 M. I am now come to the laft Prete/xe that Subjefts may make to Rebel, and 
 that is, fuppofing the Monarch fliould at once, or by degrees, turn the Subjefts 
 out of their legal Hereditary Properties in their Eftates ; and of this you your felf 
 grant there can be no Difpute in thofe Defpotick Monarchies, where there is no He- 
 reditary Property allowed : And as for all ether Gcvernments, fince you do own 
 that all legal and civil Property in Lands did chiefly proceed, or at leaft iseftab- 
 Jiflied by the civil Power, I cannot fee why thofe Powers in any Kingdom (if 
 they think it would conduce to the good of the Commonii:ealth) may not deftroy 
 this civil Property, and either make all Eftates equal, or elfe ordain that they ftiall 
 be enjoyed (as in all ahfolute Monarchies) at the Will of the Prince ; fince if the 
 Supreme Pouers are tlie Autlior of tliis Property, fure they may alter and abrogate 
 it again as often as they think fit.. 
 
 F. I fliall not difpute with you concerning fuch Kingdoms where there is no 
 civil Property yet inftitutcd, or where the People do own themfelves Slaves to the 
 Prince ; but if fuch a Monarch hath remitted any thing of this Right, and hath 
 inftituted a legal Hereditary Property in Eftates ; fuch a Law being once made, / do 
 not think it is in the Prince's Povcer to revoke it, any more than it is for a Mafter to 
 reduce his Slaves again to Servitude after he hath once fet them free ; fince both 
 Men's Liberties, or a fettled or Hereditary Property in Eftates, do equally 
 conduce to the Happinefs and Propagation of Mankind, and the Good of that 
 
 People
 
 Dialogue the Third, I2l 
 
 People or Nation wherein ic is incrodiiccd : And I doubt not but Pharaoh, the' 
 he was Lord ofall tlic Lands of E,^pt, by the Grant ot" the Egyptians, yet might 
 lav» idly have been re/ified by them, it lie hud gone to take away thofe four /ijch 
 ftirts of the Prolit ot the Lands which he had lett them Free by his own Con- 
 cedjon. 
 
 So tlut even in fuch abfJiite Empires, the Monarchs have Power to difpofe of 
 the Eilates ot" the People only as tar as tlie Compad or Conceffion at firft made 
 by thciTi or their PredecelTors do allow. And it is alfo not miidj otherwife, 
 where the Subjcfts do not acknowledge their Eftates as the Gift or Benefit of the \ 
 
 Supreme Pcu-ers : And that may liaj>pen clnefly too ways, either Fnfi, When any ^" 
 
 Free People, under the Condud: of a Captain or Leader, created by thcmfelves, 
 have Q>i:qi;ered any new Territory and Habitation ; or elfe, Secondly, When di- 
 vers fail icrs or Mailers of a Family, whohadEftatesof their own betbre, have 
 agreed for their mutual Security, and the quiet enjoyment of what they were al- 
 ready pollefs'd ofj to joyn together into one Coinmm-weahh, under the Command 
 of ont or more Men ; or clfc of others that will bring their Eftates, and joyn 
 themfclves to fuch a. Government already Couftituted, and will fubjed thcmfelves 
 to this Supreme Power, according to the Cohuitions already agreed on amongfl 
 rheiu. A '7i/>7^jC,afe may be^jV^'hcn an Hereditary Propejty in Land was eliablifii'd 
 before the Monarchy began, as in the Roman Commoniuealth, this Property vras 
 cflablifli'd feefoie the Government was changed from a Repiibliik to a Monarchy j 
 fo that the Peopl<? did not owe their Property to the Emperors Grant or Do- 
 nation. 
 
 In the former Cafe, if fuch a Free People conquer a Country under the Conduct 
 of a Captain or Leader ; tho' I grant fucli a Coiiutry may be afTigned by him to 
 all the People by %.oz, or in pro^'ortion to the greater Merit or Service of his 
 Fellovj Adventurers or Soldiers (tho' it may feem that the Property of particular 
 Men may have proceeded not from their own Rigiit or Polieilion, but from the 
 Aflignment of tiieir chief Captain or Leader) yet are not tlie Eftates which fuch 
 particular Men enjoy, to be loolv'd upon only as the meet Grace or Favour of fuch 
 a Prince j fiiice moft of thofe who followed him in this Coi-iquefi or Expedition, did it 
 not as Subje^s, but as Volmteers, and witliout whofe afliltance he could never 
 have Conquered at all ; fo that they thereby acqrir'd to themfelves a certain Portion 
 or Share m the Land fo conquered,; tho' for avoiding Difientions and Quarrels 
 amongfl them, it was left to the difpofal ot this new Prince, as a publick T'rufiee, 
 to difiribute to each Perfon what Share he fhould have. But in the other Cafe, 
 when Fathers or Mailers of Families, before /)w and pofiefl oi Hereditary Eflates, 
 do fubmit tiiemfelves to the Command of one Man Voluntarily or by Ele£t;on, 
 thofe Eftates do much lefs depend upon the Will or Favour of that Prince. And 
 therefore, if fuch a Prince fhould, without their Confents, go about to takeaway 
 their Property in their Eflates, he might very juflly be refilled by them, fincc a 
 quiet cii jo}ment of tiief e in Pqace and Safety, was one of the chief reafons that 
 made them chufe him for their Prince, and was certainly one of the Original 
 Compafts of the Government. 
 
 And that in abfolute Monarchies, where the Subjefts were not Slaves, theylook'd 
 upon themfclves to have fuch a fettled Property in their Perfons and Eflates by 
 Compaft, that Soma boldly pronounced, Errat, Jiqim exiflimat tmtpnejfeibi Regem, 
 ubi nihil a Rcge tiuiim eft ; Securitas Sectiritate mutua pacifcenda eft. And Mr. HLbs 
 himfelt, as much a Friend as he was to tlie Arbitrary Po-wer of Monarchs, and an 
 Enemy to the Natural Rights oi Subjeiis, yet is forced in his Leviathan to confcfs, 
 that the Rich.'s, Po'iVer and Honour of a Monarch, arife only from the Riches, Stiength p,^^ ^^ 
 and Reputation of his SubjeSls ; for no King can be Rich, nor Gloriota, nor Secure, tahofe 
 Subjects are cither poor cr contemptible. Tho' how tliis Riches and Strength of Subjcds 
 can confifl with that abfolute Poiier whicli he gives his Sovereign over the Per- 
 fons and Eftates of his Subjeds, I cannot underfland ,- fince he will not allow of 
 any Comp.icts or Conditions between liim and them. But that their Propriety 
 may very vvell confifl with the Pouer of the Prince, Seneca fhews us ; Jure Civili 
 (fays lie) vmuui Regis f tint, & tamcn ilia quorum ad Regern per tine t univerja pojfejfto in 
 ftngulos Do/nmos dijcnpta funt,A!j unaquaque res habct poffejforem fumn. Itaque dare 
 Regi, & dununt, & maijcipium <J' pecuniam pojjumw, nee donare iHi de fuo dicimur. Ad 
 Regesenitn Poteftuj omnium peitinet, adjingulos Proprieta:. And the Earl oi Clarendon, 
 in liis Survey of the leviathan, makes this excellent Remark upon this Patfage of 
 
 R Seneca :
 
 122 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTICA. 
 
 Cap. 14. Seima : And that Prince ii:ho thinks his Pozuerfo great, that his SubjeSis have nothing to 
 give him, "will be very unhappy, if he hatheverneed of their Hands or their Hearts. So that 
 notwitliitanding this univerfal Power, or fupererainent Dominion of the Emperor 
 over all things, which Seneca there fiippofes ; yet if he fiiould have gone about^o 
 have invaded all Mens Properties, and reduced all Mens Eftates into the publick 
 Treafury, I doubt not but he would foon have had not only his own Legions, 
 but the whole Empire about his Ears. And tho"" 1 have heard that the French King 
 doth by his exorbitant Taxes and Gabels raife more Money out of the Kingdom 
 of France, and the Territories annexed to it, than the Ottotnan Emperor doth out 
 of that vaft Empire (of which he hath the fole Propriety of the Lands in himlelf) 
 yet if the French King fhould endeavour, by the Power of his Standing Army, to 
 take away all Mens Hereditary Properties in their Eftates, and make them all to 
 be holden at Will, I doubt not but he would not only be oppofed by his Subjefts, 
 and perhaps ruined in the Attempt ; but alfo, if he fhould fucceed in it, would 
 be fo far from being the richer, or more powerful, that he would become the 
 poorer and weaker, when he had done : Since no Man would take the pains to 
 build, till, or improve their Eftates, any more than they do in lurkey, when they 
 were not fure hov/ foon they might be turned out of them, or at leaft could hold 
 them no longer than for their Lives, or a few Years. So prevalent a thing is this 
 empty Shadow and bare Name of Property that is now left in France (being often 
 charged with Taxes to above half the Value of the Eftates) to encourage the Peo- 
 ple to beautify, cultivate, and improve a Country abounding with all thoft Riches 
 that Nature or Art can produce. 
 
 And to let you fee I am not at all partial, I think I may fafely affirm the fame 
 of the Legijlative Po'a:er in this Kingdom ; fo that, if it fhould happen (which the' 
 highly improbable, yet it is not impoffible) that the Lords and Commons afl'embled. 
 in Parliament fhould fo far abufe the Truft repofed in them, as to give up all their 
 Civil Properties in their Eftates into the Kmg's hands, to be difpofed of as he 
 Ihould think fit, and that the King fhould thereupon go about to turn all the Peo- 
 ple out of their Eft;ates, I doubt not but they might in that cafe reffi the King, 
 if he went to do it by force, notwithftanding this Ad of Parliament : And my 
 Reafon is, that a fettled Hereditary Property in Eftates being asantient, if not more, 
 than Parliaments themfelves in this Nation, muft confequently be a fundamental 
 Law of the Government, and fo cannot be altered by its Reprefentatives. For 
 the' it be true, the People have given them a Power to difpofe of what Parr of 
 their Eftates they fhould think fit, yet did they not make it abfolute, to extend 
 either to their Liberties (I mean in refped: of Slavery) or their whole Properties 
 in their Eftates. And if the King may be rejifled, if he in\ ade them by his own 
 fole Authority, the Reafon would be the fame why he might be alfo refifhd, tho* 
 back'd by an Ad of Parliament ; fince the taking away of Civil Property would 
 prove as deftrudive to the People's Liberties and Happinefs in the one cafe, as in 
 the other, and as great an Abufe of the Truft repofed in them that were defigned 
 to proted it. 
 
 M. I cannot except againft your Diftindion between thofe Governments, where 
 a Property in Eftates did precede the Inlf itunon of the Government it felf ; for 
 there, I grant, that fuch a Property may be a fundamental Law of the Govern- 
 ment ; but in thofe Monarchies that have begun by Conqueft, under the Command 
 of a King or abfolute Prince over an Army of his own Subjeds, in that cafe, upon 
 the Conqueft of a Kingdom or foreign Nation, not only the Prey or Goods of the 
 Vanquilhea, but alfo tl.eir Eftates, were forfeited to the Conqueror, who had a 
 Right either to retain them for liimfelfi or elfe to diftribute them as Rewards 
 araongft his Officers and Soldiers. And that this is the Right of all Conquerors, 
 whether Commonwealths or Monarchs, by the Law of Nations, and was exercifed 
 amongft the antient Greeks and Romans, as well as other Nations, I refer you to 
 your own Authors, Grottui and Puffendorf. And therefore, fince it appears from 
 Hiilory, that moft of the Kingdoms now in Europe, and particularly this ofEngr 
 land, began from Conqueft, under the Condud of their firft Saxon Kings ; if then 
 whatfoever was fo conquered was acquired for them, and they alone had a Pro- 
 perty in it, it will necellarily follow, that all Eftates which the Subjeds of all forts 
 now enjoy, muft have proceeded from their Grants or Conceflions : And hence it 
 is, that not only in England, but alfo in Scotland znA France, they are all held eitiier 
 tnediauly. or immediately of the King, as being at firft all derived from him. And 
 
 we
 
 Dialogue the Third, 123 
 
 we read in the antient Laws of Scotland, that the King had the whole Property of 
 the Country till the Reign of Malcolm Canmor, who, as we read in the antient 
 Hiilories of that Country, granted all the Lands in Scotland to his Nobility and* 
 Gentry, according to that old Maxim in their Law, Rnx difinbutt totam terram 
 Scotia hominibm fuis. And therefore if Hereditary Property in Eftates were only from 
 the Gift and Bounty of our Kings, without any fundamental Contraft between 
 them and their Subjeds, as you fuppofe ; cannot fee any reafoa (granting the 
 worll that can happen, which l^ highly improbable) if tJie Kings of this, or of 
 our neighbouring Nations, ftiould go about by force to deftroy and take away 
 this Hereditary Property they now enjoy, that the People fliould have any Rigljt to 
 rcfift them ; but that it would be not only Ingratitude,, but Rebellion (o to do. For 
 tho' I own that Kings were guilty of Perjury in the fight of God, if they did it ; 
 yet that being an Ottence only againft God, the Subjefts could have no more Right 
 to rcfift, than Sons in the State of Nature had to refift their Father, if he fhould 
 go about to takeaway thofe Eftates, which he had before beftowed upon them. 
 And as for what you fay concerning thp Ronian Commonwealth, I grant indeed, 
 that the Government of the People did there precede that of the Emperor ; yet if 
 you pleafs to remember, Monarchy was the firft and moft antient Government of 
 that People : And I doubt not but all the Property the Romans had in their Eftates, 
 tho' they proceeded from Conqueft of their Arms, yet it was wholly owing to tlie 
 Grace and Bounty of their firft Kings ; and when, upon the Expulfion of "farqiiin, 
 the Supreme Power became divided between the Senate and People, the Property 
 of all the Lands that were conquered, devolved upon them, who often divided them 
 to particular private Men, as .they thgpght fit ,• tho', I confefs, the not dividing 
 of thefe Lands amongft the] Common People, was afterwards the Caufe of great 
 Tumults and Commotions among them :., Yet notwithftanding the Senate and No- 
 bility ftill maintained their Po\ver,.and.to,the laft.re&ifed to make a Divifion of 
 thofc Lands they had formerly conquered. Sothatthe iiow<?« Emperors fuccced- 
 ing in the Power of the Senate and People, they were likewife reftored, aS it were 
 ex poftlimmio, to the Prerogatives of the firft Kings, and confequently, as Seneca 
 himfejf confeffcs in the place you have quoted, tho' the particular Propriety of 
 Eftates was in private Men, yet you fee he grants, the univerfal Pojfeffion or Do- 
 minion of them was in the Kipg or Emperor, from whom th?y were originally 
 derived. . , 
 
 I would not be thought to fpeak thus, asif I were an Enemy to Mens Liberties 
 and Properties, or that I cither fearordefire any Change in them, from what we 
 "now enjoy ; but iince I thin^.ita thing njpraljy impoffible to alter them, and that 
 therefore no King will be fo, ill advifed, as to go aboiit to feize them inf:o his own 
 hands i but only by way of difcourfe, fuppofing the worft that can happen, I think 
 wc are not only obliged in Confcience, but alfo that it, were much better for the 
 common Peace, that the King fliould takeall we have, than that we fhould involve 
 the Nation in Civil War and Confufion, and our Co/^f(^nces under ,the Guilt of 
 a mortal Sin, by fuch Refiftance and Rqbellion/. ; , ^ ,-, . ,./,."',, ■ . '' ','' 
 
 F. I am very lorry to fee, that by your Principles all^^e free Kations of £ir^e 
 lie at the Mercy of any Prince, to be made as errant Slaves as any are in "turhy, 
 whenever their Monarch plcafes, or that chey thiql^ ,tl;i;^t they can make more of 
 their People by taking awj^y thejr Eftates, and Liberties,, than by letting tliem en- 
 joy them, which would render Civil Property in all Kingdoms like private Eftates, 
 which every Man may let to his Tenants at Will, upon a Rack Rent, or for 
 Yearsor Lives, as they fliall chink fit. ,But I tliink 1 may very well differ from you 
 in both your Propofitions :, Fpr, omitting, finy farther Difcourfe of thofe Eajlem 
 Monarchies, whci;elgrant the People are lictlp better than Slaves ; yet I think I can 
 cafily prove, out of the antient f^iftorics of thofc Kingdoms that are now in Eu- 
 rope, that tho' moft of them ,lpegan by Cqiiqucji, yet was it not under the Condudit 
 of abfolute Munarchs, but under fuch Princes or Leaders, whofe Followers (as I 
 faid before at our laft Meeting) were pot properly Subjects nor Alercenaries, buc 
 Volt/jiteers, under thofe thai; commanded them ; and therefore would never have 
 gone out ot their own Countries, but to advantage thcmfclves, and to enj'oy thofc 
 Privileges, which their Countrymen ha,d.at home j of which Liberty in their Per- 
 fons, and Property in their Eftates, wer(i ^^le chief : And this is apparent in the 
 French Nation, ^ho, whatever their Condition may be now, yet antiently called 
 themfelves iva/.a, in oppofition to that. Servitude, which they fuppofcd their 
 
 R 2 neigh-
 
 124 BieliothecaPolitica. 
 
 nelE^liboiirlng Nations amongfl: tlie Germans were in to tlic Romans at tiiat time. 
 And the' I gi'ant, that thtfj Nations or' the Goths^ landals. Francs and Saxo/is, 
 from whom mod of the Kingdoms in Europe arc now derived, might veA or in- 
 rruft the Lands of the Countries they had conquered in them whom they had 
 made ihcir Kint^s, yet ftill it was with this Truft, tliat retaining a fufficient Part 
 to fiiftain the Royal Dignity, they fhould dillnbute the reft to all their Officers 
 and Soldiers, according to each Man's Valour or Merit : And if they had rcfufed 
 to have done this, can any Man believe, that fo free a People, as the anrient Hif- 
 tories relate them to have been, would ever have fuftcred it, -n-itkiit pulli>:g dTj:}i 
 thcfc Kii/gs tbvy had Jet up, which was then very common among them for much 
 {lighter Occallons ? And to go no higher than llllHam, (whom you call the Cnu~ 
 queror) can any Man belitfve, that if lie had retained all the Lands of Ei:g[and ro 
 him{elt^ not only his own Nw7iian Lords and Soldiers, but thcfc of other foreign 
 Nations, who affilled him in this Expedition, would ever have fuffercd him to 
 have reigned in quiet over them, if inllead ot a limited King he had fet himicll- up 
 for an abfnhac Monarch, and have granted them no Ellates but at his Will and 
 Plcafure ; which would have reduced the Coi'.qucror and the Conquered to the 
 fame Condition ? 
 
 But as for your Example of Malcolm Canmor, I cannot believe that the Kings of 
 Scotland were ever polTelVed of the wliole 'Hereditary Puperty of all the Lands in 
 that Kingdom, fo as that no Man had any fettled Interefi in them before tliac 
 time; and therefore I muft beg jour pardon, if I think thisPallage in their Hifto- 
 fians to be very fufpicious, if not falfe. But I fpeak this only by the by, and. I 
 referve xvhat I ha\'e mote to fay on this Head for another time, wherein I doiibc 
 not but to be able to fhew you, as evidently as can be done after fo many Age<;, 
 that ail the Kingdoms in Etirope, which are defcended from the Gothick or German 
 Nations, commenced at firft from Compaft with their firft Kings, and have there- 
 by an unalterable Righr in their Lives, Liberties and Eflates ; and if fo, have 
 like wife Right to defend them, if generally and univerfally invaded by theic 
 Princes. 
 
 But granting, for the prefent, what ybii have aflerted to be true, that all this 
 Property, which is now in Europe, proceeded wholly from the Grants and Con- 
 celTions of PrinCes; y(?t will it not follow, that by the Law of Nature or Na- 
 tions, if any King fhould go about generally or at once to invade the Liberties 
 and Properties of their People, they might not latcjul'y be'yefijted: For, as I 
 faid before, even a Slave, when maninnitted by his Patron, may lawfully de- 
 fend his Liberty againft him, if he goeth about to take it away, and reduce 
 him. again into Slavery. So likewife, in the fame State of Nature, if a Prince 
 freely grant his Subjeds a fettled and hereditary Property in ih.eir Ellates, they 
 have likewife a Right to defend them againu him or any other, that would en- 
 deavour by forge to take, the.m away : For he that in this State grants any thing 
 to another, grants him likswifc a Riglit to keep k,w!iether the Donor will or 
 not, or elfe it were indeed oiopo;/ cthptv ■-.' For he that in the State of Naci're grants 
 another Man any thing rb be pofleffed or enjoyed oi>fy as long as he himfeif,. or 
 his Heirs, fliall think fir, doth in cfilft grant him a.s good as "nothing ; fince he 
 may alter his Mind ro morrow, and demand it again, and take it away the very 
 next dav. So that ■ if voii will grant, that Slibjt?A-s have inch a Right to their 
 Eftatcs, as that the Prince tannot without mailiYeft A'^iolciicc or Injuftice take 
 them awav, vou rauii likowiic grant, that they have alfo a Right to "defend them. 
 T.7.G. r.'o. But 1 flippbfc vou will nor deny that Right, thSt all Mcri have to their Civil 
 P'roperties in all' our European Kingdoms aiid Commonwealths, tho' never fo abfo- 
 liite : But your Objcftionagainft the Subjects defending ir by force, if it be invaded, 
 is, that it' mav caule Rebellion and Confuiion. I grant indeed,) it may forrtctimes 
 occafion Civ ilW'ats or intcfli.ne Commotions, if the People, finding their Liberties 
 .and Properties notorioully invaded, fliall oppofe theunjuA Violence of thofe whos 
 contrary to the Trull repofL'd in them, do thus violently invade them : There- 
 fore fforlboth) if thisDoftnne be allowed, it may prove defiructive to the Peace 
 of Kingdoms and Commonwealths, arid confequently to the Ciood and Happi- 
 ' ,nefs ofMankind : But methinks you iriight as well have argued, that honeft Men 
 •might not lelill Robbers or Pirates, beeaufe it mayoccafion Difordef and Blood- 
 fiied : If anyAliCihicf come in fuch cafes, fure it is not to be Charged upon him 
 who deferds his own Right, but on him that pivadcs another's. If the innocent 
 
 honeft
 
 Dialogue the 7 bird. Il^- 
 
 ''^oneR ^fan muft quit all he hath, for qiiiftiiefs fake, ro him wlio will lay \idcnr 
 hands upon it, I Uw-iire it may be coii/idercd, what a kind of Peace there will bt • 
 in the World, which would conlilt only in Violence and Rapine, and whicii 
 would be maintained only for the beneht of publick Robbers and Opprellors. 
 
 M Bat pray, do you make no dii+erence between a Knot of Tiiiei'ts and Rob- 
 bers, and the Civil Go\emmeut of a Monarci'i or Commonwealth, wJikh 1 fiip- 
 pofe may very well be maintain'd wiiliout aiiy Hereditary Property in Lands, as 
 \ ou have granted i And jt were much better, in my mnui, to forego thcfe out- 
 ward things, than rcliil the Ci^■il Cjovjniment, whicii is the Ordinance of God ^ as 
 von your felf acknowledge. 
 
 F.'l think the bed way to end thisControvcrfy, will be, to defirc you to give a 
 Derinition of Civil Government, that wc ma;,' know what we mean by it ; there- 
 fore pray will you give me ancafy and plain Derinition of it ? 
 
 TV/. Well, Sir, I fliall comply with \onr Dcfiies : I thcri take Civil Govern- 
 ment to be an Ambority conferred in Gvd un one cr mo,e Peijuuf, to muLe Lau's for the 
 Bcnrfit and Proteclion of the Suljecls, and to uifiicl fnch Puntjhwents for their T'ranf-' 
 nrejlion, as they fiiaH think fit, and by the Subjefii Ol".'d!eni.e and Affjlance to proteSl thun 
 againfl foreign Enemies, and alfv to ap^'oint iihat Sha,e oj Crjil Pirpe,t) each Pcrfon in 
 that Commonnealth jh(i!l enjoy. 
 
 F. Sir, tho' wur Derinition be fomewhat lame, }'et I am pretty well contented 
 with it, only I will fliew you by and b\' wherein it is deficient. The rirft, and 
 therefore chiefefl Branch or Office of Civil Magillrates, is, to make Laws for the 
 Benefit and Proteibtion of the Subjects : Is it then a Bunch of tiiis Power, to fend 
 Soldiers or Dragoons to take away their Liberties, Lives or Eftares } This line 
 is directly contrary to their Duty, and that Trull which God hath conferred upon 
 them. Let us go on to the next Branch, the Infliaion of Punifhments for the 
 TranlgrclTion of lucli Laws : Is this a Part of Civil Government, not only to 
 fend their Soldiers and Officers to take away their Subjects Lives and Eltates, but 
 alfo to let the moft capital Oftenders or Robbers pafs unpunifli'd, when they haxe 
 done ? \i you maintain thcfe to be the Prerogatives of Civil Go\crnmcnr, or 
 that to be Ci\itGo\ernmcnt wlieire thcfe things arc commonly pra(!tifed, you may, 
 even with Mr. i/oM/, fet the great Leviathan free from all Obligation to his Sub- 
 jects, any fnrtlier than he fliall tliink rit for liis own Interefl:, and make them al- 
 ways in a State of Nature, that is, (as he fiippofe.s) of War with them ; and then 
 prav tell me, whether fucJi a State can be the Ordinance of God, or not } But 
 to come to the laft Branch ot your Derinition (and in which alone I think it dcri- 
 cicut) the appointing what Share of Propertv each Pcrfon in tiui Commonwealth 
 Ihail enjoy : Tho' 1 grjnt it may be the Prerogative of Civil Goveriiments to ap- 
 point this at firft, yet are they likcwife obliged tq maintain tliis Property, wlien 
 it is once inftituted ; and the People have as much Right ro it as any King can 
 have to his Crown, viz.. the Civil Law of that Coiintr}', or Confeiu of tlie whole 
 Nation : And therefore ii, according to King jf<jww the Fiill's Rule, a Kii.g vj'a 
 jettl&l (or limited) Kingdom vjiil baak all the Lav^s thervrf, ana dcgeiiciitt into alyrant, 
 unlefs fuch T'yrant be the 0,dmanu- of G'ld, he may ccrrainl} be fo far oppofed : 
 For -what can Pirates or Robbers do more than lu's OlKceis and Guards by his 
 Commiflion > The former can but murder Men, ra\ifli their Vv ives, burn their 
 Houfes, and take away their Lftatcs ; and if tlic latter may do fo too, prav whete 
 is the diflercnce .> Or what Satisfaction is it to me, iliat I am ruined by bjje 
 Man havii:g the King's Commilllon, or by another that ruins me without ici* 
 fince I am li.re God harh given the one no mure Authority to do it than the other. 
 Iftiien this unlimited Power be neither conferred by (jod npr Jv|an upon tiie 
 Civil M.igifirates, 1 would fain know any Reafon wiiy Tiiieves and Pirates; niay 
 bertrifled, but their Inilruments may not, that do the fame things? And why, 
 whe^Civil Authority exceeds its utmoft bounds, the State of Nature or S<.-li- 
 defeWe may not rake place ; fince the Civil Go\ernment is as much diifojved by 
 Inch violeni .^dtions, as if a foreign Lncmy had broke in, and conqiKivd the 
 Country i 
 
 But to anfwer your Query, wliethcr I think a Cnil Gowrnnicnt may not be 
 where there is no fettled Property m Liiates, and whetiier ;iie i'.afterii' Monar- 
 chies arc net Civil (iovernmcnts ?' To this 1 anfwerj that I \vi\c Artjlotle on my 
 ride, who norwithout Reafon affirms, rliar tITc Cioveninient of one Man, wheie 
 there is no Civil Ptojx-rty, and where ..il Men arc Slaves, is not Civ il Go\ ernmenr, 
 
 but
 
 IZ6 BiBLIOTHECA POLITICA. 
 
 but that of a Mafter of a great Family over his Slaves : And tho* I grant, that 
 ' they may have fome fliew of Civil Government among them, as in a JPlantation, 
 where one of the Slaves may complain to the Mafter againft another, for any In- 
 jury or Wrong done him ; yet is not this Property Civil Government, any more 
 than that of the Mafter of a feparate Family, virho looks upon himfelf as abfo- 
 lute Lord over all his Slaves, allowed him by God, only for his Benefit and Gran- 
 deur, and not he inftituted (as all Civil Powers are^ for the Good and Prefcrva- 
 tion of the Subjefts. 
 
 M. But methinks you feem herein to condemn the Government of God's czin 
 People the Jews, which no doubt was an Abfolitte Monarchy, and that rcftrained by 
 no Laws, except what God had exprefly prcfcribed them : And yet you fee, not- 
 withftanding Samuel told them, that their Kings ihould take away their Fields and 
 their Vineyards, and give them to his Servants, and take their Sons,and Daughters 
 to be his Servants or Slaves ,• yet God leaves them no Power to relift them for fo 
 X Sam.S. 1 8. doing ; but all the Remedy left them is, that they ftould cry out tn that Day, he^ 
 cnrife of the King -which they had chofen, and the Lord would not hear them; that is, there 
 was no Remedy left them but Patience. 
 
 F. I have already given you my Senfe of that Place, and I fhall fpeak more par- 
 ticularly to it, when you fhall come to thofe Texts of Scripture, that you faid 
 you would produce for Abfolute SubjeSlion and Non-rejifiame : And therefore at pre- 
 fent I {hall only here fhew you what the Earl of Clarendon, in the above mentioned 
 Survey of the Leviathan, cap. ip. hath very prudently as well as honeftJy faid con- 
 •P-'l' 74- 77- cerning this Text. " They who will deduce the Extent of the abfolute and illi- 
 " mited Power of Rings from that Declaration by Samuel, which indeed feems to 
 ." leave neither Property nor Liberty to their Subjefts, and could be only intended 
 " by Samuel to terrify them from that mutinous and fedicjous Clamour ; as it 
 " hath no Foundation from any other Part of Scripture, nor was ever praftifed or 
 " exercifed by any good King, who fucceeded over them, and was blelfed and 
 " approved by God; fo when thcfe State Empiricks (of what Degree or Quality 
 " foever) will take upon them to prefcribe a new Diet and Exercife to Sovereign 
 " Princes, and invite them to afliime new Powers and Prerogatives over the Peo- 
 " pie, by the Precepts, Warrants, and Prefcriptions of the Scriptures ; they 
 *' Ihould not prefume to make the Sacred Writ fubjcft to their own private Fancies. 
 So likewife in a Leaf or two before he fpeaks much to the fame purpofe : " That 
 Tag. 74. " what Samuel had faid was rather to terrify them from purfuing their foolifti De- 
 " mands, than to conftitute fuch a Prerogative as the Kings fliould ufe, whom 
 " God would appoint to go in and out before them ; which methinks is very raa- 
 " nifeft, in that the worft Kings that ever reigned over them never challenged or 
 " afi'umed thofe Prerogatives : Nor did the People conceive themielves liable to 
 " thofe Impofitions, as appears by the Application they made to Rehobcam, upon 
 " the Death of Solomon, that he would abate fome of that Rigor his Father had 
 ^ " exercifed towards them ; the rough Rejeftion of whicli Requeft, cojitrary to 
 •' the Advice of his wifeft Counfellors, coft him the greater Part of his Domi- 
 " nions : And when Rehohoam would by Arms have reduc'd them to Obedience, 
 " God would not fufter him, becaufe he had been in the fault himfelf." From 
 whence you may conclude, that this Great Man did not think all Rejiftance uniai^- 
 ful, in cafe of general and intolerable Opprcffions. \\ 
 
 M. I fhall give you my Opinion farther of what you have now faid, when you 
 ' have told me more plainly in what Cafes you aWow Re/iftance of the Supreme pmi^rs,. 
 and in what not. For till you have been more clear in this matter, I cannot.tell 
 what Judgment to make of your Tenets. 
 
 F. I thank you for putting me upon fo fair a Method : And tlierefore that -you 
 may not miftake me, and fuppofe that I would go about to allow Suhjecls to refifi„ 
 and take up Arms againft the Supreme Power, upon any lefs Occafion than an 
 abfolute Neceffty, and apparent Danger of being deftroyed, and ruined in' their 
 Lives, Liberties, and Eftates : Firft therefore, conlidering that the Corruption of 
 Humane Nature is fuch, that no fort of Government whatfoever can continue 
 long, without fome Liconveniences and Mifchiefs to particular Men ; nor that any 
 Man, either Prince or SubjeB, was ever Mafter of fuch perfeft Wifdom and Good- 
 nefs, as always to perform his Duty fo exactly, as never to offend : I do in the 
 firft place grant, that it would be' both iindtitiful, as well as unjufi, for SubjciSs to 
 rebel againft their Prince for his perfonal Failings or Vices : Uiidutiful, fince the 
 
 Prince
 
 Dialogue the Third. \±^ 
 
 Prince may be oftentimes an ill Man in his private Capacit)', and yet a good 
 Governor, in refpeft of the Piiblick ,• and alfo unjujt, fircc neither do we our- 
 felves cxa(h:ly perform our Duties towards the Supreme Powers (or to one ano- 
 ther) as we ought : And therefore it is highly reafonable for Subjcfts to en- 
 dure, and pafs by the perfonal Faults or Failings of Princes, in confidcrat on of 
 that Protection and Security in their Lives and Fortunes, which they do eiijoy 
 under themj ihice it hath been found by Experience with how great a Slau^hcer 
 of People, and how great a G^nfufion, and Danger of the whole Gammon- 
 wealth, evil Princes have been relilied, or turn'd out of their Thrones. And 
 therefore, I grant the private Injuries of Princes are to be pafs'd over, in confideration 
 of that great Charge they undergo; and for thofe greater Benefits we receive from 
 their Government ; but chiefly for the publick Peace of the Commonwealth, or 
 Civil Society. And therefore, I own it is very well faid by- that Mailer in 
 Politicks, Tacitus, That the ill Humours, or D'fpcjitwns of Kings are to be born zuitha/y 
 and that often Mutations oj Go-vernments are of dangerous Ccnfequence. Ard he wifely 
 introduces Ccnales fpeaking to this purpofe to tlie Rebellious T'revea .- That 
 they ought to bear with the Luxury and Avarice of Rulers, as they do v:ith imjno- 
 derate ithowers, and other unnatural Evils ; fince there -will be Vices x::hi!fi there are 
 Men, yet neither are thefe continual, but are often recommenced by the Ittervention of 
 better. * 
 
 But I will now particularize thofe Cafes wherein I do abfblutely difallow, and 
 difclaim all Refiftance in Subjefts againft the Sipreme Powers. 
 
 1. 1 deny all Refifiance to Subjects againft their Princes, or Supreme Magi- 
 ftraics, in all fuch Anions, or Prerogatives, which are abfolutely neceifary "to 
 the Exercife of their Supreme Power, viz.. of protecting and defending their 
 People i as alio againft thofe who are commiffion'd by them for the Execution of 
 fuch Powers. 
 
 2. I condemn all Rebellion againft Princes, or States, meerly on the Score of 
 Religion, or becaufe they are not cf the Religion of their People, or Subjefts, 
 if there be no pofitive Law extant, difabliiig or forbidding Princes, or orher Ma- 
 giftrates of difterent Religions than that of their People, from being admitted to 
 the Throne, or Government. 
 
 3. I look upon it as Rebellion in the People, tumnltuoufly to rife up in Arms 
 to alter, or reform the Religion of the Nation, or Kingdom, already eftablifhed 
 by Law, without the Confent of the Legiflators. 
 
 4. I difclaim all Refiftance, or Self-defence in Subjefts, upon the account that 
 the free, or publick Exercife of that Religion they profefs, is not allowed them 
 by the Legiflative Power of the Kingdom, or Nation, provided rhat fuch Su- 
 preme Powers do nor forbid, or hinder the People profeffing fuch a difterent Re- 
 ligion, to fell, or tranfport their Eftatcs, and Per/bns into any otlier Country 
 where they pleafe. 
 
 J. I deny Refiftance to Subjefts againft their Princes or Governors upon pre- 
 tence of any perfonal Vices ; as becaufe they are wicked, atheiOical, cruel, luit- 
 ful, or debauched, provided tliey generally procedt their Subjects in their Lives, 
 Liberties and Properties. 
 
 6. I deny this Rightof Refiftance to any particular Perfon lefs than the whole 
 Body, or major part of the People ; or at leaft fuch a confiderable Portion of 
 a Nation, as are able, when aflkultcd or oppreflcd in their Lives, L.bcrties or 
 Eftates, to conftitute a diftinft, and entire Kingdom or Commoiiweakh ot th.em- 
 felves. 
 
 7. I look upon it as wicked, and rebellious for any private Subjects to alVafTi- 
 nate, murder or imprifon theii Monarc.i, or other Supreme Governor, fince no 
 private Perfon whatever ouglic to lay violent Hands upon his Prince, whofe 
 Perfon ought to be facred, and in no wife to be violated, unlefs he put oft the 
 Charafter of a Prince, and actually make War upon his People. But if in this 
 Cafe he happen to be reiiited, ai.d perifli in the Attempt, he falls not as a Prince, 
 but as a common Enemy, by breaking the Original Compact with his People, 
 and entringintoaStateof War againlt them : As a Father who unjuftly makes 
 War upon his Children, may be, (as I have already proved at our rirlt Confe- 
 rence) relifted by them in the State of Nature. 
 
 But
 
 IZ8 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 ^ Bat as for all other Grievances, or Oppreffions, if they are of that Nature 
 as may ruin the whole Common-Mahh, yet not fiiddcnly, but after lome time, and 
 often repeated, I cannot allow fuch Grievances, or Oppreflions, as a fufficient 
 Caiife of Rejiftance : For as on the one hand, there is no Inconvenience fo fmall 
 but in procefs of Time it may turn to the Ruin of the Commonwealth, if it bs 
 often repeated, and exceflively multiplied ; (o on the other lide, length of Time 
 produces fo great Changes, that the Mature of thefe Encroachments or Injuries 
 are not fufficient to juUihe Refinance, and the Breach of that Peace and Unity 
 in a Commonwealth, which mult neceflarily follow by entering ir^to a State of 
 War. 
 
 To conclude : I do not in any cafe whatever allow of Rejtjlame, but only in 
 thefe three neceflary ones : When tlic Lives, Liberties, or Eltates of the whole 
 People, or the grcateft part of them, are either aftually invaded, or elfe takeu 
 iway i and when they are reduced into lb bad a Condition, that a State of War 
 is to be preferred before fuch a Peace ; and laflly, when the end of Civil Go- 
 vernment, being no longer to be obtained by it, the Commonwealth may be 
 look'd upon as dilfolved. 
 
 M. Though you have been pretty long in treating of this Matter, yet I did 
 not think it tedious ; lince I confefs you have given me honeftly enough (and 
 fo far I agree-with you) all thofe Cafes wherein you fay ic is unlawful for Sub- 
 jects to take up Arms, or refill the Supreme Powers : But I wonder you have 
 not added one Cafe more, which divers Authors, that are high enough againft 
 N'ln-rejjfiance in other things, do yet allow to be a fufficient Caufc of taking up 
 Arras, and relifting their Prince : And that is, when he actually hath, or goetli 
 about to a/iemite, or make over his Dominion and SubjecSts to fonie ibreign Prince 
 or State. 
 
 F. I am not ignorant of what you fay, but I thought it not worth fpeaking of; 
 becaufe in abfolute Monarchies (which we are now treating of) if fuch King- 
 doms are Patrimonial, and that the Monarch hath fuch an abfolute Dominion 
 over his Subjefts, as neither to let them enjoy any Liberty in their Perfons, nor 
 Properties in their Eftates, but at his Pleafure, I cannot fee any Reafon why fuch 
 a Prince may not alienate his Dominion over fuch a Kingdom and People, as 
 well as any private Man may his Property in his Eftate : Nor have the People 
 any caufe to be concerned at it, lince they can then likewife be but Slaves, and 
 enjoy nothing but at their Prince's Pleafure, as they did before ; fo that whe- 
 ther he, or a Stranger govern them, it is all one as to their Circumftances. But 
 •yet under fuch Governments as are not abfolute, where the People enjoy their 
 perfonal Liberties and Properties in their Eftates, the Cafe may be much other- 
 wife ; fince they may not be fure, that the foreign Prince, to whom their own 
 Monarch, or other Supreme Powers, hath affigned them, will maintain their 
 Liberties and Properties as the former did. And therefore not being Slaves be' 
 fore, they cannot be alienated without their own Confents, and confequently 
 they may take up Arms, and defend thcmfelves if they are able ; unlefs the 
 Prince or State, to whom they are fo alienated, will give them the like AlTurance 
 to preferve their Lives, Liberties and Properties, as their former Governors did. 
 And therefore I do conceive the People of the Iflands of Oprus and Candy might 
 very well have refufed to become Subjects to the Grand Seignior, in cafe the Veue- 
 tians fr.ould have fold or aliei.'d their Dominion over them, before he had afiu- 
 ally conquered them. But in limited, or Hereditary Kingdoms, which are fo 
 by their Fundamental Conllitution, I fuppofc, the Prince cannot, upon any ac- 
 count whatfoever, make over his Dominions to a foreign Prince without the Con- 
 fcnt of his People, and next Heir. And therefore (granting the Story to be true), 
 I doubt not but the People of this Kingdom might very well have oppofed 
 King John, if hc had gone about to have fubjcfted it to the Dominion of the 
 Emperor of Morocco, upon Condition that he would aiTilt him with an Army of 
 Moors to fubdue his Barons, and Nubility, then in Arms againll him. 
 
 M. I confefs it is not worth while to difpute about that which fo feldom hap- 
 pens, and is indeed aim oft impollible to be put in practice ; and therefore I (hall 
 not much oj pcfe you in what you have faid upon this Cafe j yet, that I may 
 be as good as my Word, and give you my Judgment concerning what you have 
 lately faid, I mutt freely tell you, that as it may happen, tliat a Prince or State 
 raaj' fometimcs abufe their Power, fo as to take away the Liberties and Eftaces 
 
 of
 
 Dialbgue the Third, tip 
 
 t>f all. their Subjects, as you have let forth, (and which I confefs is a very gf'cat 
 Mirchief } yet upon feconcl Thoughts, I think it were mucli better that this In- 
 convenience fhould be fuftered, rather than the worfe Mifchief of leaving Sub- 
 jefts to be the fole Judges, when their Liberties and Eftates are invaded, or like 
 to be taken away ; nay, every private Subjeft would be liril Judge of it, or elfe 
 the whole People could never come to pafs their Judgment upon it, which would 
 leave too great a Latitude for turbulent and rebellious Spirits to make Diflur- 
 bances in Kingdoms and Commonwealths ; efpecially, if there be any fmall 
 Grievances on the Subjects ; efpecially too, if tiiey touch at thofc things they 
 account their Hereditary Liberties and Properties. Thefe, (though never fo 
 fmall) if the People are flitftrcd to be their own Judges, (as you make them to 
 be in their own Cafe) will foon be aggravated, and blown up to intolerable Op- 
 prefllons of, and Invafionsupon their Liberties and Properties, wlien indeed they are 
 nor. This is a pernicious Doctrine j for it will be a perpetual Caufe of Quarrels, 
 Civil Wars, and Rebellions, which would turn all Commonwealths, tho' never 
 fo well conflituted, into Anarchy and Contufion. So that as you have ftated 
 this Qiieltion, you have broached a Principle highly deftruftivc to all Civil Go- 
 vernment : For if all, or any of the People, may reiifi or rebel (call it what you 
 pleafe) whenever they think thcrafclves opprelfed in their Liberties and Eftates, L. 0. 
 this is for them only to be obedient, when they think themlelves well governed ; 
 bat ftubborn and rebellious, when they believe they are not ; which would be 
 to make all Government precarious and corditional, and the People not only 
 Parties, but Judges, and Executioners too in their own Cafe, how far thefe 
 Conditions are obferved on the Governor's part ; and then the Regularity or 
 Irregularity of the Adminiftration will no longer be the Qiieftion, but the Vali- 
 cflty of the Power to command. And there wants no more to diifolve fuch a 
 Government, than for Dkk, or Tom, and every Rafcal oithe Mobile to fay, Tliis 
 or That is deftruftive to the People's Liberties and Properties, and therefore an 
 infupportable Grievance and Oppreflion. And if you will once allow any num- 
 ber of the People, tliough never fo many, to judge this, or that Law, or Order 
 of the Government, not to be for their Good, and that they may likewife reiifi 
 and right themfelves by Arms, whenever they thus fancy, they will quickly come 
 to fay, that the Government it felf is not for their Good neither. And upon this 
 ground all the Rebellions, raifed by an incenfed, and miftaken Multitude againft 
 the Government in all Ages, may eafily be jufiified ; and M^at. Tyler, and M'jf- 
 fianeUo fliall be fo far from being Rebels, that they may pafs in future Ages for 
 Heroes, and noble Aflertors of the People's Liberties. And I hope you will be- 
 lieve, I do not fpeak this out of any Liking or Approbation of Tyranny ,• or thaC 
 I defire that Princes fhould ftretch their Power to the utmoft, to invade their Sub- 
 jeds Liberties or Eftates ; but only to let you fee, how f<ir your Principles may 
 ferve the Pretences of wicked Men to fet v/hole Kingdoms together by the Ears, 
 whenever they find the People fo far difcontcnted with the Government, as to be- 
 lieve their malicious and wicked Infinuations : Of all which thofe long and cruel 
 Civil Wars, and Rebellions, which for feveral Years tormented, and almoll; mined 
 thefe three Kingdoms, are too late, and fad Examples. 
 
 F. I confefs. Sir, you have made a very pathetick Speech, and exerted, I fup- 
 pofe, the utmoft Strength of your Reafon and Eloquence on ti)is Subjeft ; for you 
 have made tlie Conlequences of this Principle, viz,. {That tht People }nay judge zihen 
 their Liberties and Properties are invaded) tO feem very dreadful. But after all, it is 
 no more than what you have urged in great part already : And the main Strength 
 of your Argument lies here, that if the People ftould take upon them but once 
 to judge when they were notorioufly injured or opprefs'd, and thereupon take 
 Arms to right themfelves; they would foon make bold to put this Power into U/c 
 and Praaice, when they had no occafionforit at all, or at leaft not fufficient to- 
 make any open Infult. But to fliew you that there is ho i^.eed of fuch an infallible 
 Judge, as you fuppofe, to be necefl'ary in a Commonwealth, any more than there 
 is in the Church ; pray tell me, Sir, would it r.ot ha\e been very convenient, if 
 Chrift had appointed an infallible 'Judge (be it the Pope, or GcKernl Coui!dl,ov both 
 together) to decide all Controverfies in Religion, and to wliofe Judgment all 
 People ought to fubmit ? 
 
 S M. I
 
 150 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 M. I cannot deny, but it would have been a very ready way to end ail 
 Difputes about Religion ; but fince God hath not thought fit to appoint any 
 fuch Judge, it were very great Prefumption in us to fet up one to pleafe our 
 Humour, fince fuch a one could have no Infallibility, unlefs it were given hira 
 from above, 
 
 F. You judge very well ; and doth it not therefore follow, that fince there is 
 no fuch infallible Judge, all Men ought to judge for themfeh es of the Truth of 
 their Religion ; and alfo in the Chriftian Religion, what Doftrines Are agreeable 
 to the Word of God, and what not ? And yet you fee that from the ill ufe of 
 this Liberty have fprung all the different Sefts and Herefies in the. World. Does 
 it therefore follow, that Men muft not make ufe of this Liberty, becaufc they 
 may abufe it ? So likewife, muft Subjefts judge in no cafe whatfoever, when the 
 Supreme Power tyrannizes over them beyond what they are able to bear ? And 
 muft they never refift, or endeavour to caft oft" this infupportable Yoke, becaufe 
 they may happen one time or other to be wanton, and believe themfelves op- 
 prefs'd when indeed they are not ? 
 
 M. I grant your Parallel would have fomewhat in it, were the Confequences 
 of every Man's judging for himfelf in Matters of Religion as fatal to the Peace 
 and Happinefs of Mankind, as your Doctrine of the Subjects judging when it 
 is fit for them to refift the Supreme Powers : For I do not at all debar them 
 from the Right of judging when they are opprefs'd, or ill ufed by them, fot 
 that may very well confift with the Publick Peace ; but I utterly difallow all 
 manner of Rcfflance by Force, becaufe it tends, not only to dilVolveall Civil Gor 
 vernment, but to difturb the common Peace and Safety of Mankind, ■ 'T)'-.rO 
 
 F. Notwithftanding your Diftinftion, the Parallel will hold in both Cafe$ ; 
 for are not Differences in Religion as fatal to the Peace and Unity of the Churcfi, 
 as the Subjefts judging when they are opprefs'd, and thereupon taking up defen-? 
 five Arms, can be to that of a Civil State ? And do not more Wars, and Quaiv 
 rels arife about Mens Differences in Religion, than from any other Caufe you 
 can name ? So that if the Peace of the Church were a fufficient Caufc for ibp* 
 pofing a certain, or infallible Judge in Religion, there would be the fame Rea- 
 fon to fuppofe it in Civil Matters too. And therefore your Argument from the 
 abufe of this Liberty of the Subjefts judging when they may refift, is of no 
 more force in one Cafe than the other : For I grant it may fo happen in a Civil 
 State, as well as in an Ecclefiaftical, that the Subjefts may rife up, and ttifift 
 their Civil, as well as Spiritual Governors, without any juft Caufe ; doth it 
 therefore follow, that God hath wholly delivered up Mankind to the dominee- 
 ring Humours of Men in Power, let them abufe it never fo groQy ? And there- 
 fore we muft not be wifer than God Almighty himfelt And when he hath not 
 appointed any certain, and infallible Judges, either in Civil or Spiritual Matters, 
 without any Contradidion, or Refiftance, we ought not to fuppofe a Neceffity 
 of fuch Judges, mecrly becaufe of fome Liconveniences, which may perhaps often 
 happen from the abufe of that Chriftian Liberty he hath given us. For then, 1 doubt, 
 you will find the Remedy would be much worfe than the Difeafe ; as if, to avoid 
 Herefies, we fhould fet up the Pope for an infallible Judge. So would it be liker 
 wife, if, to avoid Civil Wars, and Rebellions, we fliould fet up the Supreme M4gi- 
 ftrate (as Mr. HMs hath done) for a certain and irrefiftible Judge of wiiatfqevcr 
 Means are necellVry for the People's Quiet and Prefervation ; fince I have already 
 proved, that an infupportable Tyranny is not Civil Government; and that the 
 Supreme Powers can no more alter the Nature of Things, but their own Laws 
 or Edids, than they can ordain Poifon to be ufed, inftead of wholefome Foodj 
 by the People, ■ ,'•.-' 
 
 ' M. I cojifcfs what you have now faid carries fome weight with it ,• andmy 
 own carnal' Rcafon doth very much incline me to your Opinion, were it not 'for 
 two things ; the one (as Lfaid) is the horrid Rebellions that have, and may 
 r again arife in thefe Kingdoms from this Principle; which hath made Godi.fo 
 
 ftriddy forbid all Refiftance of the bighr Pov^crs, upon, any account wnatfoevec : 
 And therefore you are much miftaken when you aflert-, that Refiftance, though 
 ioi Self-defence, IS one of the Liberties that God hath left us ; fince certainly he 
 would never fo feverely have forbidden it, but that he not only knew how 
 prone Men's corrupt Natures were to Rebellion, but alfo forefaw the fat^il Con- 
 li-qu^nce of it.
 
 Dialogue the Third. I31 
 
 F. If God's Commands in Scripture be the greateft Argument you /;ive 
 agamft all Rciiftancc whatever, I doubt not but to llicw you (when wc come to 
 ii") that you, as well as others, are raiftaken in that ftriifi Interpretation of thofe 
 Places of Scripture. And as for the evil Confequenccs you fiippofc may follow 
 from this Doctrine, I doubt not likcwife but to convince you, that much worfc 
 Will follow from the irreiiltible T\ ranny ot the Supreme Powers, than e\ cr ha\'e 
 happened from t\\^ d;eadfiiUeji Reltlluim. And therefore, I delire you to take No- 
 tice, that what I have now faid is not out of any dcfign to jultifie fo horrid a 
 Crime as I grant Rebellion to be, or to incite Siibjefts to be guilty of ir ; but only 
 to hinder Civil Government from being dcitroyed, and Mankind from being 
 made miferabJe. 
 
 For I have firft aflerted, that no Refinance whatever is to be made in abfolute 
 Governments, but in thofc Cafes in which the main Ends of Civil Government 
 are vifibly deflroyed, or fo near ir, that there is no other means left but Relif- 
 tance to prevent it. And then, when things are once brought to this pafs, it is 
 i:Ot the People that make this War, but the Governors, who by their Tyranny 
 have brought the Commonwealth into this Anarchy ard Confu/ion you fo much 
 dread ; fo that it is not the People, but they tliat are the Aggrellbrs. 
 
 And as for the ill ufn that may be made of this Dodrme, to ftir up the 
 People to Rebellion, when they have no juft, or fufficient Provocation to refift : 
 This will not prove of that dangerous Confequence you miagine, if you will 
 but confider, that 1 do not allow this Refiflance in any Cafe, but when the Vio- 
 lence, or Oppredion of the Governors is fo evident, and ir.fupportable to all the 
 People that groan under it, that no indifferent Man in his Senfes will be able to 
 tlcny it ; for as long as it remains difputable, whether or no the People are fuffi- 
 ciently opprefs'd in their Liberties or Eftates, the Truft repofed in the Supreme 
 Magillrates makes them the fole Judges of the NecefTity of fuch exorbitant Attions, 
 as being intruded by the People as Men fuppoicd to be both wife and good, and 
 themfclves ignorant in divers Cafes of the true means of their ow n Prefcrvation ; 
 and the Supreme Powers remain the fole Judges, I fay, as long as the Cafe is 
 doubtful or uncertain. 
 
 B.;t fince you ha\e already acknowledged, that the People might ji'dge (if 
 fuch a Cafe fliould happen) whether the Prince, cr other .Supreme Magiiirate, 
 makes adual War upon them, I would very fain know why the People cannot 
 as plainly diftinguifh when he fends his Guards, or Dragoons, to take away their 
 Lives and Liberties, or to>turn them out of their Eftates : Ajid 'till this be done, 
 and the Tyranny fo e\ ident, general, and infuppcrtable, that it is paft all Quef- 
 tion, I grant that the People ought to have Patience, and rather fuffer many 
 Oppreffions and Hardftups, than put themfelves into a Srate of War. So that 
 I tliink it is morally impojjible, that the People can be miftaken in fo evident 
 a Cafe. Nor I believe can you fcarce fliew me one Example, either out of anr 
 ticnt or modern Hiftory, of any whole Nation or People, or the major part of 
 them, that did ever rife in Arms to call off either a Foreign or Domeftick Yoke, 
 wliich preffed too hard upon them, but wiien they had the moit unavoidable 
 and juiteft Caufes fo to do. And I believe I can (hew you ten Examples out 
 cf Hiftories, (if the Queflion were to be decided by them) for one you can 
 fliew me to the contrary. 'Tis true, fome private Men may fometimes make 
 Difturbances, or Rebellions, but 'tis commonly to their own joft Ruin and Per- 
 dition : For 'till the Miichicf be grown general, and the \'^iolcncc oi' the Rulers 
 become evident, and their Attempts to deftroy, or make Slaves of them, are 
 moil fenfible to all, or the greateft part of the People, they are commonly more 
 a great deal difpofcd to fuffer, than to right themfelves by Refiflance, well 
 knowing the Miichiefs of War, and how deflruftive it will prove, not only to 
 their Lives, but to the Welfare of their Families and Pofteritics, as well as 
 private Concerns. So that the Example of fome particular Injuftice, OpprelTion, 
 ray, abfolute Ruin of here :;nd there an unfortunate Perfon, moves them not. 
 But if once they find their Lives, Liberties and Eftates, unlverfally alfaulted, and 
 about to be taken away, who is to be blamed for it ; the Magiftrate, or the 
 People? For the former migiif have avoided it, if they had pleafed, either by 
 rot urging them to that Extremity at all, or at Icaft redreiling thofe Grievances 
 and OpprefTions before they became fo general, and infupportable, a$ not to be 
 any longer er.dured. 
 
 S a So
 
 132 Bibliotheca' Politic a. 
 
 So that, though I grant, the Ambition, or Turbiilency of- private Meil ha,v3 
 fometimes caufal great Diforders in Commonwcakhs, and Faftipns have besfv 
 fatal to States and Kingdoms,- yet whether tliis Mifchicf hath ofnicr Ljegua 
 from the People's Wantonnefs, and Defirc to caft otf tlie lawful Authorit y of their 
 Rulers ; or from the Rulers Infolence, and Endeavours to get, and exertife a .Ty- 
 rannical, Arbitrary Power over their People j that is, wheclicr Oppreffion. or 
 Difobedience gave the firll Rife to the Diforder, I leave it (as 1 faui} . to .ini-'. 
 partial Obfervers of Hiftory to determine. • , ,j;_r!;, ^ ; 
 
 But this I am fure of, whoever (either Ruler or Subjed) goes about by forc^ 
 to invade the Rights of either Prince, or People, and lays a Foundation forovet-^ 
 turning the Original Conftitution and Frame of any Civil Government^ he is 
 guilty of the greateft Crime I think a Man is capable of, being to anfwerfor 
 all thofe Mifehiefs, Bloodfhed, Rapine, and Defolations which the breaking 
 to pieces of Governments dots bring on a Country. And he who dodi-it 
 is juftly to be efteemed a common Enemy, .and .is to be; treated -SLfoeif^^ 
 ingly. ;, j':<' I . ' -iri? -, ; T.--(-) ■> ,•■•••* -.>, -,j3 ^ 
 
 But as for the Inflances you give of T-Vat.Ty/ery and MajJia/ieSfi^ I graptoijji- 
 dced it may fo happen, that a great part of the .ceuTjmon People, or Ra^l^Is, 
 may fometimes upon fudden, or falfe Apprehen/ions,: oceafioncd by fome Teal 
 Grievances or Oppreffions, fuch as arc great Ta.ves, or Gab?]?. impofe<i by th^ 
 State, take up Arms, and rebel againit .the Supreme Powcts :. Yet tiiefe Ej^^ra- 
 ples do not reach the Qiieftion in hand J thefe Infurreciions or Rebel] ieK^ yoji 
 mention, being of a much kfs number than the whole People, or the; major-part 
 of them ; and in which I flill include the Nobility and G entryi,an.d orher Laud- 
 holders, as the mofl confiderable part. And fo thofe Infarredtions were in np wife 
 ji.ftihable, efpecially in fuch a Government as ours', where no Man can b&faKed 
 but by his own Confent,. included in his Reprefcntacives ; w^hereas all tiw^ie^Rq- 
 bellions were chiefly (if not altogether) made by the meaner forir, or Scum of 
 the People, of one, or a few Countries, wliom 1 can never allpw-to make-Dif' 
 turbances i fince they, having very little to lofe, ought, in all Civil Governments 
 vvhatfoever, to be direfted and governed by thofe, in whom the Ballance of 
 the Government in Land?',' and other Riches, doth refide, and, on whom they 
 chiefly depend for their Protection ar,d Subfiflencc ,• and coqfequently ought to 
 make no Alterations in the State .witiiout their Ccnlent and Approbation. 
 
 But as fcr your other Inftancc, of the Wars raifed in thefe tiitee Kingdoms 
 againft King Charles the Firft, upon the Pretence of our Religion, Liberties and 
 Properties being invaded, it is not proper to be treated of in this place 5 liince 
 we are now difcourfing of the Power of Princes, and the Right of Snbjcfts un- 
 der abfolute, and not limited Monarchies : And I grant, that fome Refiilancp 
 may be Rebellion under abfolute Monarchies, which would .not-, be fp under 
 limited ones; yet I do ftill fuppofe that it may be lawful under fuch limited 
 Monarchy for the People to take up Arms, and .inake Refinance in defence of 
 of thofe juft Liberties and ■ Privileges which they lawfully enjo}', either by ^hf 
 Original Conftitution of the Government, or by A6ts of Grace, or Conceffiou 
 of the Prince : But this requires a more large and accurate Difcourfc, which at 
 another time I am ready to gi^•e you. Therefore, granting at prefent, thap 
 thofe Wars were downright Rebellion againfl the King ,• and alfo that they were 
 rnade under Pretence of the Principle i now afl'ert, yet doth it not at all over- 
 tlirow the Juftice of that Caufe which I now maintain ; lince (as I have already 
 more tiian once intimated) the abufe that may be fometimes made of a natural 
 Right by fome wicked, factious or hypocritical Men, ought not in the lealt to 
 prejudice the Exercife of that Right to all the reft of Mankind, who may lie 
 under a real Neceffity of making ufe of it. 
 
 To conclude : If the People may never be trufted to judge wlien their Liber- 
 tics and Properties are aftually invaded, becaufe they may happen one time or 
 other to be milfaken, and fo enter into a State of .War, without OA\.\k, to the 
 Deftruttion of Mankind, this Argument would ferve as well ag^iinft all Princes 
 and Commonwealths ; who, being in the State of Nature with each other, 
 (hould never make War for any Caufe or Provocation, how great foe\er ; becaufe 
 being Judges and Executioners too in their own Cafe, they may inoreealiiy hap- 
 pen to be miftakeu. I fuppofe you yourfelf wil], gran,c> that one, or a few 
 Men are more apt to be in an Error, than a Hundred tiicufscd- Ai-d I have 
 
 already
 
 Dialogue the Third, i jj 
 
 already proved, that where the People have never wholly given up their Liber- 
 ties and Properties unto the abfolutc Will of the Sufrcmc Powers, they are, as 
 to that, ftill in a State of Nature, and do rcfcrvc to themielves a Ri^ht of judg- 
 ingwiicn they are violently and infupportably invaded ; and confcqucntly of 
 vindicating themfclves from that Opprcffion. And tiicrefore, granting what 
 you have faid to be true, that the People may fometimes liappen to abufc this 
 natural Right of judging, and rclifling, by exerting it, when there is no real 
 and abfolucc Neceifity : So on the other fide, if they are wliolly debarred from 
 ir, becaufe they may happen fometimes to abufe it, the freeit People in the 
 World, viZj. (our felves, for Example) may ealily be reduced into a Condition 
 of abfolute Slavery and Beggary, and that without all Rcm-^dy by any humane 
 Means tlut I can think of j and wliich is the worii; MifcLicfof thefe two, I leave 
 to your felf, o^ any indifferent Man to judge. 
 
 A/y Ifyou \i'i\\ have my G][)inion in this point, I muft freely tell you, that 
 if isi hard Matter to hnd oat a Mifchicf To dcftructive to the People, and 
 whicli they flioilld' c?<change for this iniferable State of War, which you fuppofe 
 m^y. prove fo beneficial to- them i and yet I doubc, .if it be thoroughly looked in- 
 t^,-h6t only the Dbdtrir.e icfelf^ but alfo caclalUng VV'iiTs and Miferies it may pro- 
 dtaCe, would fufficicr.tiy prove the contrary; iince the xriicllcfl: Tyranny, Slavery, 
 alid Lofs of Eftates, or any tning elfc almoft, may.^be better born with in Peace 
 and Unity, than a Civil War with th«; greaelt Liberty and Plenty j feeing all 
 fuch Comfortis would quickly be devoured, -like P.lm.aoh's fat Kine, by fuch a 
 cruel Monfter feeding in their Bowels. And tlitrefore, iince Civil War is one of 
 the gi-eateft Calamities and Pt.nifliments that God ufes to fend upon a Na- 
 tion, it fcems evident to me, that the Welfare of any, State, or P.-ople requires 
 them to be obedient unto the S'-j reme Powers, thougli they be ne\ er fo great 
 Oppreiiovs, or cruel T\ rants. For when once they enter into tlus difmalState 
 of War, who can tell whether it will have an end, without almoft the tot;.l De- 
 fffuftion of the Nation, or at Icaft by bringing them into a tirwoifc Condition 
 of Slavery and Suffering, than they were before ; fincc the State of Princes or 
 other Supreme Powers, can nc\'er be fo mean and inconliderable in the VVcrld as 
 not to find, when like to be opprefs'd by fuch Lifurreiftions and Rebellions of 
 their Subjects, fufficient Affiffiance from neighbouring Princes, or States ; who 
 making the Caulc of fuch a Prince their own, will be furc to allill him to the 
 
 utmolt of their Power,- it being found true by Experience, as Tully lone ago ob- 
 r »,i « Tu-,. ^u^ ^a\:a.^A c«„.. r v: i j:„/m.. j ^i_. n i " ° ^. 
 
 ^^ _ _ „ . :greri 
 
 " facred." And farther, how ready, a way it is to fub vert the State of any 
 fuch diftracfted Kingdom, and to bring it under the Subjection of Foreigners, 
 we need not feek a plainer Proof, than by an Example no farther off than 
 h eland; where Dermot, King of Leinfte}-, being forced by his rebellious Subjcfts 
 to crave the Aid of King Hmry the Second for his Reftoration to his Kingdom, 
 his AiTiftance to recover his' Right produced that efted whicJi we now fee, viz.. 
 That the /;/// loft their Dominion, and, became fub jed: to the Crown oi Em" 
 land even to this Day. 
 
 And fuppofing, that the Subjefts might likcwifc be adifted by fome foreign 
 Prince, wlio would undertake their Deliverance, they would not be in a much 
 better Condition i fincc, if he were an abfolute Monarch himfeU; he would be 
 fure, for Example fake, as well as for their own Security, to carry as ftrifl: a 
 Hand over them, tind ufe them more fevcrely than their own Prince had done 
 before ; and, I doubt not, but if Lewis, Prince oi France, had been crowned King 
 of this Kingdom; as lie vCras very near it, toward the latter end of King 'Johns 
 Reign, but that he would have been more cruel and tyrannical than ever King 
 "yvhd had been before : So tliat they would have got nothing by tlic Bargain, but 
 a Change of Maftcrs, and a heavier Yoke impofed upon them by a Foreigner. 
 
 And (o much the Vifcount M/«« confeilcd upon his Death-bed to many of 
 the Eiigltjh Nobility, which was the Reafon of their returning again to their Alle- 
 giance to Henry the Tiiird. So that I think it had been mucii better for the Ba- 
 ron'! and Nobility of this Kingdom never to liave ftirrcd or rebelled at all againlt 
 their lawful Prince. 
 
 F. You
 
 1^4 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITlCA. 
 
 F. You fcem fo in love with Slavery, and all the Confequences of it, that it is a 
 
 hiuidrcci pities but that you {l;culd feci the fmarc of it a little while, provided no 
 Body was to fuft'er by it but your felf and thofe of your Opinion : But could you 
 fee the miferable Condition thofe poor People are in who li\'e under Arbitrary and 
 Tyrannical Government, 1 doubt not but you would be of anotiier Mind, and 
 prefer a War now and then, tho' never fo violent, before fuch a Peace ; for when 
 Men are once reduced to fo defperate a Condition, as r.either to be fccured of 
 their Lives, Liberties or Eflates, they may have fome hope to redrefs themfelves 
 by Refijlame, but need not tear to be reduced to a worfe Condition than they were 
 before ; and therefore I cannot underlland how all the Comforts of a Civil Life 
 would then be loft by a Civil War, when I have already put it as a chief part of 
 the Cafe, x\\2X Sjibjefls are never to make fuch a Refifiuiue but when tiie Sup-.eme^ 
 Poiuerj-are juft about to begin, orelfe have adually cnrer'd into a State of War 
 againft their Stibjecls : For what can any foreign Enemy do more if he conquers 
 them, than take away their Lives, Liberties and Eftates ? So that this is fo far 
 from being a State of Peace, that indeed the People are already expofed to all the 
 Calamities of V/ar ; but a War, which you fuppofe may be made without any 
 Reftjlance, whilft the Subjefts (forfooth) are bound to keep the Peace ; but much 
 fuch another Peace as would be in a Houfe into which T'hieves having broken, and 
 the Inhabitants retiring into fome upper Rcoms, there ftand upon their Guard and 
 make Refiftance ; whilft the Thieves having feized upon all they luve below, one 
 of them fiiould make fuch a Speech as this ; / pray Sirs come down andfubmit your 
 fthes to Hi, for we njfure you we imetid not to kill ycu, hut only to bind you and take atuay 
 all you have ; and is not Slavery and loft of Goods better ivith Peace and Safety, than by 
 ajfaulting m to povoke m to fire the Houfe and kill you all ? for if you once enter in- 
 to a State oj War "with m, it is very likely to end with your total DeflmEiion ; for if you 
 continue to refifi m, or think to call in Company to your Afftftance, ive can likewife call 
 in many more of otir Party to co?ne and help m ; and then expeB no Mercy. NoW 
 pray tell me, would not this be a very rational Argument to move thefe 
 People to come down and furrender themfelves to thefe Thieves, and partake of 
 the Benefits of this excellent Peace they propos'd ? and whether they would not 
 tell them, that by {hooting they would alfo call in the Neighbouring Town, who 
 might be too ftrong for all their fellow Thieves 1 Now if you will but take thefe 
 honeft People of the next Town for llich Neiglibouring Princes or States, who 
 may joyn in the Affiftance of fuch an opprefs'd People, this Simile will fully an- 
 fwcr your Argument of thofe Neighbouring Princes that may take part with an 
 oppreffing Tyrant : And as for the confequencs of fuch Affiftance, on the one fide 
 or the other, that it may happen to bring them into a worfe Condition than they 
 were before, viz,, a Subjedion to Foreigners (as I have put the Cafe_) it can be no 
 caufe to deter the People from Kefiflmg ; for if they were (as I fuppofe) reduc'd 
 to a Condition of Slav^ery before, and had loft all their Liberties and Properties, 
 how can we imagine them in a worfe Cafe than they are already ? And it is all 
 one to fuch a People, whether their own or a ftrange Prince did tjrannize over 
 and opprefs them : Nay, were I to take my Choice, I had much rather be tyran- 
 nized over and opprefs'd by a Foreigner than from my own natural Prince j fince 
 the former coming in by Force, and without any precedent Promife or Compact, 
 I he wholly at liis Mercy, who hath no Obligation upon him ; and I had much 
 rather, if I were to be a Slave, be fo to a Stranger than to my own Father, if I 
 were allured that both the one and the other would ufc jiic with like fcverity. 
 And to anfwer }our Liftance of your Irif} King, I think tliat Nation hath been fo 
 far from lofing any thing by their Sabjeftion to the Euglijl) Government, that 
 they have gained far greater Privileges and Liberties both for their Perfons and 
 Eftates, than ever they enjoyed under their own Princes ; fo that they are rather 
 the better than the worfe by the Change. And befides, the Example is not to the 
 Point we difcourfe of i the Quarrel being between two IriJIi Kings, where the 
 ftronger having injured the weaker, he called in the Englijh to revenge his Quarrel ; 
 wheftas the QiielHon here is concerning the like Acltion done by the People 
 againft their Prince. And as for your other Example of Prince Lewis, ic is un- 
 certain whether the Condition of tlie Englijh Nation would have been either bet- 
 ter or worfe under a Freuch Ring. But thus much lam furc of, that had King 
 5^t)/;// proceeded in that Tyrannical Courle againir his Barons and the reft of his 
 
 Subjeds,
 
 Dialogue the Third. %|^ 
 
 Snbjeds, they could fcarcc have bcci in a vv-orfc Condition iintfcf the French ; nay 
 the M^ors tlicmfehcs, had King Jchi aftiially furrendcred his Cro\^n to the 
 Sayiicv: Emperor, as the Hiilorians of thofe Times relate he oficred to do. 
 
 Nor can I be of your Opinioij, that it had been much better for cl;e Barrens 
 and Nobility of this Kingdom never to ha\c ftirred or refided the King at all ; 
 iince if they had not, they had ne\-cr obtained the G>v/!t Charter of our Liberties 
 from him ; andif they hadnotas vigoroiifly defended it when they had once got it, 
 I doubt not but the People of £;??/.z/V^ had been long before this time in the fame 
 Condition, as to their Liberties and Properties, as 'fbme of our Neighbouring 
 Nations ; all which is fufficient, I think, to pro\-e that kejifhime, in defpeiate and 
 unavoidable Cafes, is not attended with thofe Mifchiefs and Inconveniences you 
 fuppofc. • _ 
 
 M. I fliall not fay much more in anfwcr to your laft Difcourfe, fince it v/ouid 
 be to little purpofc, but only take notice that Similes are nor Arguments j and 
 therefore yourComparifon between TliieVes andhoneft Men doth not hold as to 
 Princes and Subjcfts ; fince fure: thete is a great deal of dffrcrencc between thofe 
 that are to be Obeyed as the Ordinance of God, and thofe who are obliged in Coa- 
 icience to be fubjeft to them, and Thieves who aft diredly contrary to God's 
 Will, and honeft Men who having no obligation to them may juftly refiftthem : 
 So that if that be falfc, the reft of the Comparifon will figniHe nothing. And as 
 for what you fay concerning Magna Cha, tn, I thinleitis not much for its credit to 
 have been extorted by Force,- and afterwards defended by Rebellion ,• tho' I will 
 not go about to impeach the Validity of it, fince fo many of our fucceeding Kings 
 have fo folemnly and voluntarily confirmed it; onty pray take notice that it is 
 wholly derived from the Grace and Boi-rity oi 6ut M-inarchs, o.n6. therefore ^'e arc 
 not torefift, tho' it may happen to be foretimes, and in feme particular Cafes, 
 broken and infringed by the King, for feme great Qdcafions and NecelSties, of 
 which we are not competent Jt.dges. 
 
 But to come to the reft of thofe evil CohfequenceS that may attend your 
 Doftrine oi Rafifiance ; I think the Benefits would be much greater to the People 
 by ftricily adhering to thofe Doftrines oi ahfolute SubjeElkn and Ncn-reffiaHce, thnn 
 by propagating yours of Rebellion ; for if the former were conftantly taught and in- 
 culcated as raoft beneficial for them, and if they were once really perfiiaded of the 
 Truth of it, and would both conftantly profefs and praftife it, it would make all 
 Princes much more gentle and mild to their Subjeftis, than otherwife at fome times 
 they are ; for now they arc ftill fcarful'tliat ihey will take the fitft Opportunity 
 tliey can to take up Arms againft them /^ and upon the leaft Grievance or Mil- 
 government, to rcfift their Authority; foe thai Princes nof needing to keep any fuch 
 couftant Guards and Standing Armies, migl« aflbrd to lay much eafier Taxes and 
 Impofitions upon them, for tho maintenance and fappert oi ihe Government, tharl 
 now they do ; and in fhort, would have much fewer Temptatioiisto Tyranny and 
 Oppreffion, could they be once allured of oheir Subj'efts abJUute Obedience and Sub- 
 jeiHon.: Whereas when they arc under thofe conftaiitFcar's and Sufpicions of A- 
 furreilions and ReieSium zgaiixQ: them upon the leaft 'Ott3.fion ; it is no wonder if 
 they are tempted Xoraetimes to.abufc this Power for their own Security. And 
 therefore we read i;i our Hiftorics, that IVilliam tl?e Cm^feror ntvcr thought him- 
 felf fccure from the Englifi whom he had newly conqilered, till fuch time as he 
 had turned raoft of the Nobility and Gentry out of their Offices and Eftates, 
 left they fliould luvc any Power left either in his Life-time, or after his Death, 
 to turn him orJiisPofterity out of the Throne, as they did the Heir of the Dmj/J/j 
 King Oiute, who with his Danhs had before conquered England, as King H^illiam 
 did afterwards with his Noyminu : So thar upon the whole Matter it fecms to mc 
 much more to conduce to the main dcfign of Civil Govertimem, viz. tlic Hnppi- 
 nefs and Peace cf Mankind in general, that Priihes arid other Sufrcme Magijlratei 
 iliould be fuftcrcd (I will not fay authorized) by Go'd, • fometimcs' to abu'lc their 
 Power to the general Opprcflion ahd enfldving of tlic ' People, without any i^f- 
 /ijlame on their iide, cxpeftingi their Deliverance wholly from him wiio can (king 
 It about in his good time, and by fuch means as fhall feem moft meet to fiini, 
 than thatSubjeftslhoulu take upon them-to be both Judges and Executioners too 
 ill their own Cafe ; and tiiereby introduce not only alVrhe Mifchiefs of Cizil IfAir, 
 and all thofe cruel Revenges 'which tiie- Wrath of an incenfed Prince may juftiy 
 iiiflid upon fuch Rebels in this Life, but ilUo the- Wrath of God, and thole 
 
 Punifliments
 
 4 
 
 176 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTICA. 
 
 PuniQiments that he hath denounced in the Holy Scriftures in the Life to come, 
 againft fuch Rebellious Subjefts as dare refift the Supreme Poirers ordained by 
 God. 
 
 F. Before I anfwer the main part of your laft Difcourfe, give me leave firft to 
 juftify my Simile ,• for tho' I grant Similes are no Arguments, yet they often ferve 
 to expofe the abfurdity of feveral things, which cither the falfe Colours of Elo- 
 quence, or the too great Authority of learned Men, might otherwife have hid 
 from our Eyes : And therefore if the Supreme Pov:ers have no Authority from the 
 revealed Will of God, or the Law of Nature, nor by the Municipal Laivs of any 
 Country, to invade their Subjefts Lives, Liberties or Eftates, they may be fo far 
 compared to Thieves and Robbers when they do ; nor are fuch violent Adions 
 of theirs to be fubmitted to as the Ordinance of God. And I fuppofe you will not 
 deny, but that a Prince or State that does thus, afts as direftly contrary to God's 
 Will as Thieves themfelves ; and confequently, allhoneft Men or Subjefts having 
 fo far no obligation to fufter or obey, may juftly refift them ; fo that if this be 
 true, all the reft of the Comparifon cumt quatuor pedihu. 
 
 But as for your Refleftions upon Magna Charta, it is you your felf, not I, that af- 
 ferted it to have been extorted by Force, and defended by Rebellion ; for it is 
 very well known to thofe who are at all converfant in our EngliJ}) Hiftories and 
 Laws, that there was nothing granted in that Charter which was not the Birth- 
 right of the Clergy, Nobility and People long before the Conqiiefl, and were com- 
 prized under the Title of King Edward's Laws, and which were after confirmed 
 by William I i as alfo more exprefly by the Grants of his Son Henry I. and King 
 Stephen ; as appears by their Charters ftill to be feen. And therefore thefe funda- 
 mental Rights and Privileges were not extorted by Force from King John, as you 
 fuppofe : The War commencing between him and his Barons, was not becauL ne 
 •would not grant them frefh Privileges which they had not before i but becaale he; 
 had not kept nor obferved the fundamental Laws of the Land, and thofe Rights 
 and Privileges which before belonged to the Clergy, Kobility and People, as well 
 by the common Law of the Land, as the Grants of former Kings. And there- 
 fore if King John, by his apparent Breach of them, forced the Nobility and 
 People to defend them, it was no Rebellion for fo doing ; nor was it ever declared 
 to be fo by any Law now extant. 
 
 But to come to the main Force of your Argument ; I confefs it were an admi- 
 rable Expedient, not only againft Rebellion, but alfo the Tyranny of Princes, to 
 Preach that they fliould not opprefs their People, nor yet that the People fhould 
 rebel againft them ; but the preaching of thefe Doftrines, or getting as many as 
 you can to believe them, will no more make Princes leave keeping Standing Armies, 
 or laying great Taxes upon their People, than conftant preaching agamft Rob- 
 bery or Murder, will take away the neceflary ufe of Gallows out of the Nation ; 
 fince we know very well, that as long as the Corruption of humane Nature con- 
 tinues, fo long muft likewife all powerful Remedies againft it. And therefore 
 your Inftance o( William the Conqueror will fignifie very little ; for I believe, had 
 all thofe learned Divines (who have of late fo much written and preached for 
 Pajjive Obedience and Non-^ejiflance) been then alive, and had exerted the utraoft of 
 their Reafon and Eloquence to prove them neceffary ; nay farther, I do not be- 
 lieve, tho' all the People oi England fhould have given it under their Hands, that 
 they would not have refiftcd or rebelled againft King William, that yet i;- would 
 have trufted them the more for all that, or have kept one Soldier the lefs for it ; 
 nor have remitted one Denier of thofe great Taxes he impofed ; for he was too 
 cunning and politick a Prince not to underftand humane Nature, which cannot 
 willingly endure great and intolerable Slavery and OpprelTion without Rciiltance, 
 if Men arc able; and therefore he very well knew, that after the forcible :?.king 
 away of fo many of the E^gHjh Nobilities Eftates, there was no way but Force to 
 keep them in Obedience : And as Princes can never be farisfied that their Subjefts 
 have been throughly paced in thefe difficult Dcftiines ; fo they can never be fe- 
 cur^hat they will not play the Jades, and kick and fling their Riders when they 
 fpur them too feverely, and prcfs too hard upon them. And therefore, I doubt 
 fuch Princes whofe Government is fevere, will always find it neceflary to ride this 
 Beaft (as you call it) the People, with ftrong Curbs and Cavifons. But befides 
 all this, there is likewife another hifirmity in the Nature of Mankind, and of 
 whidi Princes may as well, be guilty as other Men, that they are more apt to op- 
 prefs
 
 Dialogue the Third, 157 
 
 prefs and infult over thofc, whofc Principles or natural Tempers hiay be againft 
 all Refiftancc. And for this I appeal to )oiir Example of the Ihimluve Chrijiiaus, 
 who were not one joe the better ufed by the Roman Emperors, tho' they exprefly 
 difclaimed all Reliilance of thofe Emperors for Perlecution 'n\ Matters of Reli- 
 gion : And tho' fbme Neighbouring Princes are thought to have' their Sub/efts in 
 more perfed Subjeftion, and that either their kHtgion or Natural Tempys make 
 them Icfs apt to refift the Violence and OpprcffiorT' of their Monarchs, tiian the 
 Engli//}, or other Nations j yet I dcfire you to enquire, whether Taxes, a':d all 
 other Oppreffions, do not reiga as much under thofe Governments, however feu- 
 fible the Prir.ces may be of their Subjects Loyalty and Obedience. 
 
 Therefore to conclude, I fliall freely leave it to your Judgmertt, or that of any in- 
 different Perfon, which is moft agreeable Co the main Ends oi Civil Government^ 
 viz. The common Good of Mankind, and the Happinefs and Safety of each par- 
 ticular Kingdom or Commonwealth, that the Violence and Tyranny of Princes 
 (hould be fometimes refilled ; than that the People, under the pretence of this 
 irrejijhbk Po-c^er, fliould be liable to be made Beggars and Slaves whenever any 
 Prince or State had a mind to it. And I appeal to your own Confcience, if the 
 fuppofed Belief oi ihc Pajjive Obedience of fome of our Church, was not one of the 
 greateft Encouragements which the King and the Jefuited Faftion had to bring 
 in the Popilli Religion, under the colour of xhsDifpenftngPovser, Ecclefiaflical Com- 
 miflioners, and force of a Standing Army, from which unavoidable Mifchiefs 
 nothing under God but this wonderful Revolution could have refcued us : And 
 therefore I think it becomes any honefl Man to thank <jod for it, and join with 
 his Highncfsthe Prince of Oiw/g^", as the only means (now Miracles are ccafed) 
 which God hath been pleafed 'to ordain by the courfc of his Providence for our 
 Deliverance. 
 
 M. I mull confefs, I am fomewhat daggered with thofe Reafons and Argu- 
 maits. you have now given me againfl thofe Principles, which as I have always, 
 fo muft dill efteem as facred, till I am convinc'd I am in an Error ; and perhaps, 
 if I were to confult my own carnal Rcafon and natural Inclinations, I fliouldcome 
 over to your Opinion. But fince it hath pieafcd God to lay much higher Re- 
 flraints and flrifter Rules of Obedience and Subjection on us, by his revealed Will 
 in the Scripture, beyond what can be difcovered by the Light of Nature ; and 
 that ainder the higheil Penalty, wz,. Damnation; I can fee no reafon why God 
 Almighty may not grant Eternal Life upon what Conditions he pleafes, tho" never 
 fo hard and uneafy for Flefli and Blood to perform : So that if our Saviour Jefm 
 Cfery? hath commanded us to take up his Crofs and follow him, that is, to futfer 
 all forts of Injuries ajid Aflli6tions, nay Death it fclf (as he himfcif did) rather 
 than to refifl the iw/j/'^w /'(/urjv under which he lived ; I cannot fee any reafon 
 why he fliould not propofe his owp Example for our Imitation : And as he hath en- 
 joined, and expcfts from us greater Degrees of Chaftity, Charity and Humility, 
 than ewr he did from tlie Je-ais or Pagans ; fo I fee no reafon why he may not 
 iikewifee-xaft from us a greater and more, perfeft Obedience and Siibmiflion, 
 without any ReJjJ't/ince to all Soveraign Princes and States, than ever he did either 
 by the Law of Mofes, or tiut of Nature ; not but that tliere are fufficient Proofs 
 in the OJd TeflatHcnt, for the abfnlute Power of Princes againfl all Rebellion or Re~. 
 fiftauce \\\ Subjects : Tho' I confefs this Docftrme is more plainly proved by the 
 Example of our Saviour, and the Precept^ of liis Apoftles in the New T'tfiament, 
 as alfo from the Example of the Primitive Chrijltans in Obedience there- 
 unto. ' 1 
 
 V F.; I perceive you begin to diftrull your Arguments drawn from natural Reafon 
 ^d the Laws of Nature j and when you are preflcd with thc-abfurdity of this 
 Dodrinc of J ours, you fly from God's Natural to his Revealed Will, and take 
 Refuge under the Covert of the Holy Scripture, to impofc an Opinion contrary 
 to the common Scnfe and natural Notions of Mankind, not corrupted with the 
 Prejudices of Education : And therefore give me leave at prefcnt to tell you, 
 tJiat I thmk I fliall be able to prove, that the Paffive Obedience (as you call it) of 
 the Primitive Chriflians, and their Sullcrings for the Name of Chnfi, will not \t all 
 contradia that natural Right, which I fuppofe all Freemen to have, as well un- 
 der Civil Govermnent as in the State of Nature, for tlie defence of their Lives, Liber- 
 ties and Properties, unlefs where the common Good and Peace of the whole or 
 major Part of tJic People require the contrary ; And therefore the fame Reafons 
 
 T which
 
 138 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 which oblige particular Perfons to be quiet, and not to difturb the publick Peace 
 of the whole Society, for their own private Safety and Advantage i unlefs whea 
 the whole Body of the People, or the major Part of them is thus violently aiVaul- 
 ted in their Lives, Liberties and Eftates ; the fame Confiderations of the publick 
 Good of their Country (whereaf every Man is a Member) doth then as ftrongly 
 perfuade, I may fay enjoyn thenl to take up Arms and defend themfelves for the 
 Prcfervation of the whole People or Community, whofe natural and civil Rights 
 being now attack'd, can no otherwife be reftored to the fame State they were ift 
 before, but by that laft Reinedy that can be. ufed ia this Cafe, viz. J/m 
 •virepelleve. 
 
 M. I muft confefs that of all Commonwealth Hypothefesy yours is moft reafonable, 
 being coherent with it fclf, and alfo moft likely to be fwallowed by the People j 
 becaufe it flatters our corrupt Natures, to which this Chrifiian Doftrine of Paffive 
 Obedience is fo direftly oppolite; as alfo, becaufe it gives them a full Liberty^,;! 
 mean, not only the Reprefentative Body, but the. major part of them, to reafTumc 
 that Power which you pretend they never parted with ; and fo confequently all ne- 
 ceffity of fuftering (except when they pleafe to think they have juftly defervedit) 
 is taken away i and the Sufferings of the Primitive Chrifi/Mts will be rendered only 
 a tame Madnefs, and that St. Paul was very much overfeen to enjoyn this Sub' 
 jeftion to the Romans, under the Governmentof one of the moft cruel Tyrants 
 that ever fway'd that Scepter : But we have not fo learned Chnft ; and therefore 
 I am firmly perfuaded, that we ought to be ftriftly Obedient, without any Re?- 
 fiftance to thofe Civil Governors that God hath been pleafed to fet over us, let 
 them abufe their Power never fo Tyrannically. 
 
 F. I am beholden to you for your plain dealing with me in this Matter, and 
 pleafed to find that you have an Inclination to my Principles, were it not for fome 
 Texts of Scripture and Citations out of the Fathers and Church Hiftory which 
 give you a Prejudice againft them, which I hope when tliey come to be clofcly 
 examined will fignifie no more than the former. 
 
 But for the difpatching this important Controverfy, I pray give me leave to 
 propofe this eafy Method ; firft, that you would be pleafed to lay down your Au* 
 thorities out of Scripture in order ; and afterwards, to fiiew me that the ancient 
 Fathers and Primitive Church always underftood thofe Texts in die fame Senfe 
 that you do, viz^. That no Refiftance of the Supreme Powers is lawful to be ex- 
 ercifed in any Cafe whatfoever, ; 
 
 M. I approve of your Propofal, and therefore I will firft begin with thofe Proo& 
 which are exprefly againft all Rebellion or Refiftance in the Old Teftament. The 
 .T. C. B. ch. firft Governor that God fet over the Children o( Ifrael, when he brought them out 
 !• /"• 7' of the Land o( Egypt, was Mofes ; and I think I need not prove how facred and 
 irrefiftible his Authority was : This is fufficiently evident in the Rebellion of 
 Numb. \6. Korah, Datban and Abiram, againft Mufes and Aaron, when God caufed the Earth 
 to open her Mouth andfiunlhw than up. And left this fhould be thought an extraor- 
 dinary Cafe, Alofes and Aaron being extraordinary Perfons immediately appointed 
 by God, and governed by his immediate Diredion ,• the Apoftle St. Jude alledges 
 Jiide V. 1 1, this Example againft thofe in his Days, who were Turbulent and Faftious, ^o^ 
 defpifed Dominions, and /pake evil of Dignities, thai they Jhould perijh in the gainfayikg cf 
 Core ; which he could not have done, had not this Example extended to all ordi-^ 
 nary as well as extraordinary Cafes ; had it not been a lafting Teftimony of God's 
 Difpleafure againft all thofe who oppofe themfelves againlt Soveraign Powers. But 
 Mofes was not always to rule over them, and therefore God exprefly provides for 
 a Succeffion of Soveraign Powers, to which they muft all fubmit : The ordinary 
 Soveraign Power of the Jeviif) Nation, after Mofes's Death, was devolved either on 
 the High Prieft, or thofe extraordinary Perfons whom God was pleafed to raife 
 up, fuch as Jofliua and the fcveral Judges ; till in Samuel's Days it fettled in their 
 Ihid.p. S. Kings. For as for the Jewijh Sanhedrijn, whofe Power is fo much extolled by the 
 Jewijh Writers (who are all of a late Date, many Years fince the Deftruftion of 
 Jerufalem, and therefore no competent Wicneffcs of what was done fo many 
 Ages' before) it does not appear from any Teftimony of Scripture, that there was 
 fuch a Court of Judicature, till after their Return from the Babylonijh Captivity. 
 
 But yet God took care to fecure the Peace and good Government of the Na- 
 tion, by appointing fuch a Power as fhould receive the laft Appeals, and whofe 
 Sentence in all Controverfies fhould be final and uncontroulable,, as you may fee in 
 
 Deu^
 
 Dialogue the Third. I^p 
 
 Deuteronomy, chap. 17. There were indeed inferior Magiftratcs and Judges appoin-I'f«'- 17. t'. 
 ted in their feveral Tribes and Cities, which Afofes did by the Advice of yethro S. 9> »c, ii, 
 his Father-in-law, and by the Approbariow of God. But as the Si/pretue Pciver'J". g 
 was ftill referred in the Hands of Mn/es while he liv'd ; fo it is here fccnrcd to the *" ' ' * 
 High Priefi or Judges after his Death ; for it is exprefly appointed, tliat if thofe 
 inferior Judges could not determine the Controverfy, they Jhouldconwumotbe Priefisi 
 the IjTJites, that is, thePricfts of the Tribe of Levi (who by the 12th Verfe appear 
 only to be the High-Prieft) and to the Judge that Jl:a!l Oe in thofe Days ; that is, if it 
 fliall be at fiich a time when there is an extraordinary Judge raifed by God(for there 
 were not always fiich Judges in Ifrael, as is evident to any one who reads the 
 Book of Judges) tiiey fhoufd enquire of tiicm, and they Jhall jhew the Sememe of 
 Judgment; andthoujhah do according to the Sentence, luhiih they of that Place (which 
 the Lord (hall chufe) Jhall Jhew thee, and thou Jhalt olferve to do according to a!/ they Jhall 
 inform the : And wliat the Autiiority of the Chief- Priefi, or of the Judge, wlicii 
 there was one, was in thofe Days, appears from ver. 11. And the Man that -will 
 do prefumptuoufiy, and -xillmt hearken to the Priefl{thatflandeth to Minifier the, e before the 
 Lord thy God) or unto the Judge, even that Man Jhall die, and thou Jhalt piit a"xay the 
 Evil from ICrael : This is as a bfolute an Authority as the mofl abfolutc Monarch y.c.i?.f. io« 
 in the World can challenge, that Difobcdience to their lafl and final Determina- 
 tion, whatever the Caufe be, fiiall be punifli'd with Death : And what place can 
 there be for Reiiftance in fuch a Confiitution of Government as this ? "It is faid 
 indeed, ver. ii And according to the Sentence of the Law zihich they Jlmll teach thee, and 
 according to the Judgment that they Jhall tell thee, thou Jhalt do. And hence fome con- 
 clude that they were not bound to abide by their Sentence, nor were punilhable if 
 they did not, but only in fuch Cafes when they gave Sentence according to the Law of 
 God : But thefe Men do not conlider that the Matter in Controverfy is fuppofed to 
 be doubtful, and fuch as could not be determined by the inferior Courts, and 
 therefore is fubmitted to the Decilion of the Supreme Judge ; and as he dctermin'd, Ibldi^. 11, 
 fo they muft do ; and no Man, under the Penalty of Death, muff prefume to do 
 othcrwife ; which takes away all liberty of Judging from private Perfons, the' 
 this Supreme Judge might poffibly miftake in his Judgment, as all humane Judica- 
 tures arc liable to Miftakes ,• but it feems God Almighty thought it neceflary that 
 there fhould be Tome final Judgment, from whence there fliould be no Appeal, 
 notwithftandingthc poffibility of a Miftake in it. 
 
 Solikewile when CJod had appointed Jojhia to fucceed Mcfes, and had con- 
 ferred upon him all that Power that M(fe^ had before ; and that he came to give 
 his Orders to the two Tribes and an half before their Paflage over 3'"'^/-'///, you'll 
 find that they not only promis'd him perfe(fi; Obedience, as they had before pay'd 
 to Mofes; but farther alfo aifur'd him, T'hat whofoever he be that doth rebel agninfl thy Jonma 1. 18. 
 Commandment, and will not hearken unto thy Words in all that thou commandufi him, he 
 fhalibeput to Death : So that there was a Supreme and Soveraign, that is, an unac- 
 countable and irrejjfiible Power in the Jewijh Nation appointed by God himfelf ; for 
 indeed it is not poifiblc that the publick Peace and Security of any Nation fhould 
 be preferved without it. 
 
 F. You have, Sir, mcthinks taken a great deal of Pains to prove that which I 
 do not at all deny, but rather joyn with you to alfcrt, that Stubbornnefs and Dif- 
 obcdience to God's Commands is a very great Sin, and the Reb£llion thereunto is 
 likened to the Sin of Witchcraft ; as Samuel (hews to no lefs a Man than King Saiil 
 iiimfelf, when he had rebelled againft (that is, difobeyed) God in not dcflroying „ 
 the King o( the Amalekites ; and therefore it is no wonder, that in a Govern- ,-/""* 
 ment where God himfclf was the Head, and had appointed M(fes and Aaron as 
 his Lieutenants or Subftitutes under liim, the one in Civil, and the other in 
 Ecclefiaftical Matters ; that God (hould punifh their Murmurin" and Rebellion 
 againft them as done to himfelf; not that I deny but that St. j^W(? docs likcwife de- 
 nounce this Judgment of periling in the gainfaymg of Core, againft thofe wicked 
 Hereticks the Gnofiicks, who thought themfelves fet free from all Civil Subjcftion, 
 and therefore defpifid Dominions, and fpake evil of Dignities ; that is, not the Meu 
 inverted with them, but Civil Magiftracy itfelf j which they look'd upon as in- 
 confiftent with their Cliriftian Liberty. 
 
 But yet for all this, and that I grant God denounced no Icfs than the Sentence 
 of Death againft any Man that refufed to hearken to the Pricft, or unto the Judge, 
 in thofe Matters that fliould be brought before them by way of Appeal i and alfo 
 
 T 2 that
 
 140 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 that whoever would not obey 'Jojhua, but fhould rebel againlt his Command- 
 ments, fhould be put to Death ; yet can I not think that there was any Jneftfiihle 
 Po-wer, plac'd by God, in the Perfons of Mofes, Jojkia, or the Judges, or that it 
 was not poffible for the publick Peace or Security of the Nation to be preferv'd 
 without that : But indeed all thefe Perfons above nam'd, being to be obeyed as 
 God's Subftitutes or Lieutenants, as he was King of the Children of Jjrael, fo 
 likewife their Commands or Diftates were only fo far to be obferv'd as they per- 
 form'd this Commiffion ; and if they had fwervcd from it, I doubt not but they 
 might not only have been difobeyed, but alfo refilled by them : And therefore 
 pray tell me, fuppofe this Rebellion of Core had happened becaufe Mojes, making 
 himfelf a diflinft Party amongft the mix'd multitude of Strangers that came up with 
 them out of the Land oi Eg)ft, and others of his own Tribe, or whom he could 
 £wrf. 11. 58. bring overto hisFaftion, under colour of this Soveraign Powe/- (which God had 
 given him) had, inftead of leading and governing the People committed to his 
 Charge, taken upon him to haverob'd them of all thofe Goods and Riches which 
 they had brought with them out of the Land o( Egypt, and had fold the People or 
 their Children for Slaves to the Neighbouring Nations, to enrich himfelf and his 
 Family ; do you believe that the Children oUfrael had been obliged to have obey- 
 ed fuch a Leader, and not have relifted him and his Parry if there had been oc- 
 cafion ? So likewife, if Jofiua, inftead of leading God's People into the Hofy Land^ 
 had taken upon him, notwithftanding God's Commands to the contrary, to have 
 carried them again into Egypt ; can you think they had been bound to obey 
 him, and might not lawfully have refilled him, if he had gone about, by the 
 afliftancc of his Accomplices, to force them to it ? For I doubt not but if thefe 
 Subftitutes had afted contrary to that Commiffion God had given them, they 
 were no longer to be look'd upon as God's Vicegerents, no more than the now 
 Lieutenant of Ireland, the Lord Tyrcomel, ought to be obeyed, and not refifted, 
 if he (liould go about, by vertue of that Commiffion which the King hath con- 
 ferred upon him, and by the help of the Reielliom Irijh in that Kingdom, to 
 murder all the Proteftants and fet up for himfelf So likewife all the ftridt Obedi- 
 ence and Submiffion that was to be paid to the Sentence of the High-Priefl or 
 Judge, was only in relation to God himfelf, whofe Sentence it was, and who al- 
 ways revealed his Will, either to the Judge by particular Lifpiration, or to the 
 High-Pricft by the Ephod or Urhn and Thummim; and therefore we read injudgesy 
 that Deky ah, tho'aWoman, yet being a Prophetefs infpir'd by God, judged ^c^f/. 
 Now fuppofe that this Judge or High-Prieft, neglefting (like Balaam) the di- 
 •vine Infpiration, and the Diftates of that facred Oracle, had, inftead of a righteous 
 Judgment, given a Sentence in a Caufe that had come before them, whereby Ido- 
 latry, or Breach of fome great Point of the Law of Mofes, had been eftablifhcdj 
 do you think that God ever intended that this Sentence fhould have been obeyed 
 under pain of Death ? 
 
 And therefore you may find in the fecond Book of Maccabees, that when Jafon 
 and Menelam had by Bribery obtained the High-Priefthood, tho' it was then the 
 chief Authority (under the Kings of Syria) both in Ecclefiaftical and Civil Mat- 
 ters ; yet when they went about to undermine the Jemfh Religion, and feduce the 
 s A//trf/Tf.4. Peopleto Idolatry, they were not at all look'd upon as High-Priefis, btit are there 
 *• 15' called ungodly Wretches, doing nothing worthy of the High-Priefthood, but having the- Fury 
 
 of a Cruel 'tyrant and of a Savage Beaft ; and were fo far from being at all obeyed by 
 the Jews, that Jafon, Menelam and Alcimtts, who were fiiccelTively High-Priefts in 
 the room of Onioi, were, as far as the People were able, oppofed by them ; till at 
 I A'larcah. 7. \^{i Jtulcu Maccabeus taking Atms sgainRAlcimus the Sitnoniacal High-Pack, reftored 
 = 3> ^4) '5- by torce the true Worihip of God : So that you fee that the Obedience was not 
 pay'd to the Perfon of the High-Priefts, only as fuch, by vertue of this Precept in 
 Deuteronomy, but only as far as they obferved the Law of Mofes, and gave Sen- 
 tence or Judgment in all Matters according to it. And therefore it is no good 
 Argument of vours, becaufe the People were bound to obey their Sentence in 
 doubtful Cafes,' tnerefore they had an abfolute irrefiftible Power to give what 
 Judgments they pleafed, and that the People were obliged to obfcrve them under 
 ■^ pain of Death, and being guilty of Rebellion ; for that had been to have given the 
 High-Priefts and Judges a Power to havealrer'd the true Worfliip of God when- 
 ever they pleafed, and to have introduced Idolatry in the room of it. So that I 
 think none cf thefe Places will prove any more, but that God and his Lieutenants 
 
 I 
 
 were
 
 Dialogue the Third. I41 
 
 were to be obeyed ; and that it was Rebellion to rcfift them under the Je-xijh Go- 
 vernment, as long as they did not force tiie People to Idolatry, which 1 do not at 
 
 all deny. 
 
 M. Tho' you labour to wave thefe Examples and Precepts which I have now 
 cited, and will not take them for convincing ; yet let me teli you, your Exceptions 
 againft them only tend to prove that Idolatrous Kings might be refilled under the 
 Jewijh Law, which is dircttly contrary to the facred Hiftory ; as I fiiall prove very 
 clearly to vou by thefe following Teitimonics I fhall make ufc of'j ^et I think it 
 is much more plain, that when the Jevis would have a King, tlieir K.ngs were to S. R. S. p. 
 be inverted with a Supreme and Irreliftible Power ; for when they deiired a King ^ n. 
 oi Samuel, they did not de(ire a mcer nominal and titular King, but a K>::g to ^ ^^^, „ ^ 
 Judge the?n, a>id go in mid out before them, a,! d Fight their Battels, that is, a Kmg i^^ 23, * * 
 who had the Supreme and Soveraign Authority, a King who fliould iiave all that 
 Powerot Government (excepting the peculiar Aftsofthe Prieftiy Office) which 
 cither their High-Prieft or their Judge iiad before. 
 
 And therefore when Samuel tells them what {hall be the Manner of their King, i Sam. 8. <», 
 tho' what he fays doth necellarily fuppofe the Tranilation of the Soveraign and Ir- 19, :o. 
 refiftible Power to the Perfon of their King, yet it doth not fuppofe that their Fer. u. 
 King had any new Power given him, mor« than wiiat was exercifed formerly by 
 the Prielt and Judges ; he doth not deter thtm from chufing a King, becaufe a 5 (-^ ^, p^ 
 King Ihould have greater Power, and be more uncontroulable and irrefiftible _k h, 13. 
 than their other Rulers were ; for Samuel himfelf had before as Soveraign and Ir- 
 reliftible a Power as any King ; being the Supreme Judge of Ijrael, whofe Sen- 
 tence no Man could difobey or contradi6r, but he ir.curred the Penalty of Death, 
 according to the Mvfaical Law : But the Reafon why he diiluades them from 
 chufing a King, was becaufe the external Pomp and Magnificence of Kings was 
 like to be very chargeable and opprelTive to them ; He vjill take your Sons and appoint 
 them for himfelf, for his Chariots, and to be hi; Horfe-men, and fome fliall run before bis 
 Chariots. And he will appoint him Captains over 'Thoufands, and Captains over Fifties, 
 and wiUfet them to ear his Ground, and to reap his Harvefl- And thus in feveral Par- 
 ticulars he fhews them what Burdens and Exaftions they will bring upon them- 
 fclves by fetting up a King, which they were then free firom ; and if any Prince 
 fhould be exceflive in fuch Exadions, yet they had no way to help themfelves ; they 
 muft not refiftnor rebel againft him; nor expeft that, v/hatever Inconvenience they 
 might find in Kingly Government, God would relieve and deliver them from it 
 wiien once they had chofen a King : Te fhall cry out in that Day, becaufe of your King Vcr. iS- 
 that you have clxfen you ; and the Lord 'will not Ik ar you in that Day ; that is, Gcd will 
 rot alter the Govetnment for you again, how much focver you may complain of 
 it. 
 
 This, I fay, is a plain Proof, that their Kings were to be invelted witli that 
 Soveraign Power which muft not be refifted, tho' they opprefs their Subjeds to 
 maintain their own State, and x\v:. Grandeur and Magnificence of their Kingdoms. 
 But I cannot think that tliefe Words contain tiic Original Grant and Charter of 
 Regal Power, but only tlie Tranflation that was formerly in their Higli-Priefts or 
 Judges to Kings : Kings had no more Power than their other Governors had, for 
 there can be no Power greater than that which is irreliftible: But this Power in 
 the Hands of Kings was likely to be more burdenfome and opprefllve to them, 
 than it was in the Hands of their Priefts and Judges, by reafon of tlieir difllrcnt 
 way of Living ; which is the only Argument Samuel makes ufe of to difluade them 
 from transferring the Supreme and Soveraign Power to a King ; and therefore I 
 rather chufe to tranflate Mifbpat, as our Tranllators do, by the Manner of the King, 
 than with fome learned Men, by the Right of the King, thereby underftanding the 
 Original Charter of Kingly Power ; for it is not the Regal Power which Samuel 
 here blames, which was much like that which he Iiimfelf had exercifed while he 
 was Supreme Judge of Ifrael, but their Pompous way of living, which would 
 prove very opprefllve and burdenfome to them, and be apt to make them com- 
 plain, who had not been ufcd to fuch Exactions. 
 
 F. You have, 1 mult confefs, made a much fairer Expofition of this out of 
 Samuel, than divers of our high-flown Divines, who would render this Mijbpat asit is 
 \\\t\\c Heb.eiv, i.e. the Manner of the King, by Right of the King'; whereby they 
 would entitle all Kings whaifoever to an abfolute Right to all their Subjcds 
 Eftates, whenever they would take them away ; not taking notice that this V/ord 
 
 Mijhpat
 
 142 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA^ 
 
 Mijlpat is fometimes ufed not only in a good, but a bad Senfe, not for Right or 
 Pc-wer, but for an evil Cuftcm or Abufe ; and therefore you may find, in the fe- 
 cond Chapter of this Book of Samuel, that fpeaking of the Sons of Eli, -who -were 
 
 Ver. 12, 15, Som of Belial, they knew not the Lord, that the Prkfls (viz,, their) Cuftom -with the 
 
 14. People UYii, that ii.'hen any Man ofiered Sacrifice, the Priefls Servant came, uhilfi the Flejh 
 
 uas infeething, uith a Flejh-hook of three Teeth in hii Hand; and he fir 00k it into the 
 Pan, or Kettle, or Caldron, or Pot ; all that the Flejh-hook brought tip, the Priefi took for 
 himfelf : fo they did inS\\i\oh, unto all the Ifraelites that came thither. Where I defire 
 you to obferve, that that wliich is rendered in our Tranflation the Priefls Cufiom, 
 is in the Hebrew Mijhpat, which they render /J?^/'r ; fo that if this Word would do 
 it, thefe wicked Priefls had alfo a Right to take away as much of every Mans 
 Sacrifice as they pleafed for themfelves ; nay, to take it before God himfelf was 
 ferved, and the Fat burnt (according to the Rites of Sacrificing.) And by the 
 fame Rule, Kings alfo by this Word Mi/hpat fliould have a Right to take what 
 they pleas'd of the Subjcfts Eftates. 
 
 I do likewife fo far agree with you, that Samuel does not here defcribe a Tyrant, 
 but one of thofe abfolute Eaftern Princes, who made ufe of a great part of their 
 Subjeds Eflates (as they do at this day) to maintain their Standing Armies, and 
 Royal Pomp and Magnificence. So that I grant, in (liort, Samuel meant no more 
 when he thus fpake to them, but, Since youwjll have a Knig, he muft be mam- 
 tained like a King, and very great Taxes will be laid upon you for this end ; of 
 which Burden if you fhould hereafter be weary, or'would caft it off again, you 
 fhall by no means do it : For fince this King fliall obtain the Crown, not only by 
 God's Appointment, but by your own Choice or Election, it fhall not be in your 
 power again to depofe him, fince it is your own Aft : And therefore Samuel 
 tells them. That when they fhould cry unto the Lord in that Day, becaufe of the King 
 •which they had chofen, the Lord would not hear them. And as long as this King kept 
 himfelf within thefe bounds, I grant he was not to be refined. 
 
 Yet neverthelefs, this Place you have now cited, as it is very far from patro- 
 nizing Tyranny, or all the Abufes of Regal Power ; fo neither do I think it was 
 Sattmel's meaning to make the Kings o^Ifraelfo abfolute or irrefifiible, as that upon' 
 no account whatfoever the People might difobey or refifi: them. Jet them ufe this 
 Power never fo v<^ickedly, nay, contrary to God's exprefs Commands, ana the 
 Ends of all Civil Government : And therefore pray tell me ; fuppofe, infic^d of 
 thefe necelfary Burdens, which they fhould be fubjeft to when they had a King, 
 Samuel had fpoke thus to them : This King (whom you defire) fhall prove an 
 Idolater, and as cruel a Tyrant as Pharaoh, or any of the Kings of tiie Philiftines, 
 Canaanites, or any other Nations who fo long tyrannized over you ; and fhall take 
 away all your Eftates, and Li\es too, at his good pleafure, without any Crime, 
 or legal Trial ,• and in fhort, will not only himfelf ufe you for Slaves, but fell you 
 and your Children for Bondmen to the Egyptians, and other Nations, and fhall lay 
 fuch grievous Tributes and Burthens upon you, that you Ihall be fcarce able to 
 live under them. 
 
 Now can any Man think, if the Ifraelites had been really perfuaded, that their 
 King mufl have fuch an abfolute and arbitrary Power, as a neceii'ary and infepa- 
 rable Prerogative of his Crown, they would ever have been fo fond of fuc;, a Go- 
 
 Ver. 20. vernment, as to have cried out with one Confent ,• Nay, but \ix will have a King 
 over us, that we may be like other Nations : But, fure, not to tyrannize over and en- 
 flave us, hut that he may fudge us, ami go out before pu, and fight ou, Battels. Or do 
 you think, if they had had fuch a King as this, they would ever have long endured 
 him ? For that the Children of Ifael did not conceive that their Kings had fuch 
 an abfolute and arbitrary Power over them, as to opprefs them with 1 axes, and 
 to make their Yoke more grievous to them than they were able to bear, or 10 ty- 
 rannize over them at his good pleafure, appears plainly by the Story m the firftof 
 
 Chap. 12. Kings, concerning the Children oi Ifrael's allcmbling together a.t Shechtm, to make 
 Rehoboam King : And you'll find the Preliminary Conditions of his Government 
 
 Ver. 3,4. were thefe : All the Congregation of Ifrael came, and fpake unto Rehoboam, faying^ 
 Thy Father made our Toke grievous : Now therefore make thou the grievous Se>vtce of thy 
 Father, and his heavy Toke, which he put upon m, lighter, and we willferve thee. But 
 fee the Anfwci* that Rehoboam made them, according to the Wifdom of his young 
 
 Var. 10, II. Counfcllors : Aly little Finger Jhall he thicker than my Father's Loins ; and whereu. my 
 Father did lade you with a heavy Toke, I will add to your Toke ; My Father has chaftifed 
 
 you
 
 Dialogue the Third. 445 
 
 ym "with tf^iiph itit I 'iXiiU chaflife you -uith Scorpi'.ns. And mark x\'hat follou-s upon 
 'this Anfwer : So w/jenal/ Ifrztl fau; that the King hearkened- not umo them, the PexiflcVcr. i6. 
 anfivered tlx King, f'i)i»g, M'^iat Portion have tve in Da\i<:l? iifither have ive Inheritance 
 in the Son of Jelle. To your Terns, O Ifrtel : Now fee to thine own Houfe, David. 
 So Ifrael departed unto their Tents.' And it is farther faid, So Ifracl rel/elkd Ver. 19. 
 4^(iin/i the Houfe of David unto this day. Nor is this Aftion at all blamed or dif- 
 approvcd by the Scripture, or rebuked by any Prophet at that timcj for the' 
 the Word is her« tranflated, they rebelled; yet in the Hebre-jj it figniries no more 
 thza fell away from or revolted: And ic is faid before, that the King hearkened not 
 to the People : Fbr the Caufe (which may be alfo tranOated Revolution) ivas i Kings 12 
 from the Lord, that he tnrgln perfm m his Sayiitg, which he fpake by Ahijah the Shilonitc ' '■ 
 «»;fo Jeroboam, when, in the Chapter before, the Prophet promised him the King- 
 dom of the Ten Tribes, and that God would rend them out of the hand oi Solo- 
 mm (t. e. his Poftcrity) and give them unto him, who thereupon had a Right to • 
 them : And that, upon his being made King by the People, he liad alfo a Right to 
 their Obedience, is as evident ; lince to continue in a State of Rebellion towards 
 one King, and an Obligation to obey another, arc abfolutely inconfiflcnt in the 
 fameSubjed, as I have already proved at our fecond Conference. And therefore 
 I cannot but here take notice of that rational Account which the Earl ot Clarendon, 
 in his Survey of the Leviathan, which you before quoted, gives of this Revolution. 
 " Nor did the People (viz,, of Jf-ael) conceive themfelves liable to thofc Impofi- 
 " tions ; as appears by the Application they made to Rehoboam upon the Death 
 " of Solomon, that he would abate fome of that Rigour his Father had exercifed 
 " towards them, the rough Reje(^ion of which, contrary to the Advice of his 
 " wifeff Counfellors, cod: him the greatcft part of his Dominions : And when 
 " Rehoboam would by Arms have reduced them to Obedience, God would not 
 *' fufter him, becaufe he had been in the fault himfelf." 
 
 M. After this extravagant way of arguing, whenever the Subjefts of any Na- 
 tion fhall think themfelves too much opprefs'd with Taxes, or other Grievances^ 
 above what they are able to bear, if they are not eas'd by the King or Supreme 
 Magiflratcs upon the firll; Petition, they may prefently call off that Power they 
 were under, and fet up another, that would govern them upon cheaper Terms : 
 For if the People of //me/ had this Right, why may not all other Nations claim 
 the fame ? And this Doftrine, however comfortable it might be to the People, 
 I am fure it would be very mifchievous to all the Monarchies and Commonwealths 
 in the World ,• and it is likely that the Subjefts of the French King, nay States of 
 JioDand, and other Princes, would quickly take the firft Opportunity, either to 
 niake their Princes and States to tax them no more than they pleafe themfelves, or 
 dfe they may prefently cry with the Ifraelites, To thy Tents, O Ifrael. Nor can I 
 ■fee how the King and Parliament in England would be in a much better Condi- 
 tion in relation to the People they reprefent, fhould they impofe greater Taxes 
 than they thought they conld afford to pay. And this Privilege you give the Is- 
 raelites fccms to be clean contrary to what you laid down at our laft Conkrcnce, 
 wherein you excepted great Taxes and Tributes to Princes or States, as no juft 
 Caufe of Refi/tance, or taking up Arms : And therefore I think I may very well 
 maintain the old Do<^rinc about this matter, and that tho' God did rend the 
 Kingdom irom Rehoboam, and bcftow it upon the Son of Nebat, whom alfo when 
 the People had made King they were obliged to obey, becaufe it was God s Will 
 it fhould be fo, who gives and takes awav Kingdoms from whomfoever he pleafes ; 
 yet doth not this at all juftify the Rebellion oil\\cIfraelitcs, or faoboam's\](nx^z- 
 tion of his Maftcr's Kingdom ; fince God oftentimes makes ufc of this Rebellion 
 of the People to execute his Judgment upon a finful Prince and Nation : And there- . 
 -fore it is very remarkable, that after this Rebellion of the Ifraelites from the Houfo 
 oi David they never profpered ; but, by their Kings ftill falling one after another 
 into the fame Idolatry, God at lafl; was fo highly provoked againd them, that he 
 lutfered them to be carried away Captives into a flrangc Land, near two hun- 
 dred Years before the Tribes oijtidah and Benjamin ur.cicrwent the fame Fate for 
 the like Crime. 
 
 F. I hope you will not be in a pafHon, becaufe I lia\ c brought tiiis Inflance of 
 the Ifraelites Defeftion from Rehoboam, as an Example of the. Right that Subjcds 
 may have, in thofc Cafes I have put, to refill: or cart oft' thofc S.tprcine Powers 
 that God had once fet over them : For 1 do confcfs Divines ard other Authors 
 
 .tre
 
 144 . B I B L I O T H E C A, P, .O L I T I C A. 
 
 are much divided about this Aftion of the Ijraelites, fome maintain'ng it to be 
 well done, and inpurfuance to God's Will, and others holding it to be downright 
 Rebellion. And therefore I fhall not politively aflert either the one or the otiier, 
 much lefs that Subjefts may rebel whenfoever they conceive themfelves overtax'd : 
 But thus much I think I may fafely affirm, thitii the Ifraelttes had no Right, upon 
 any fcore whatfoever to refift, I cannot fee why Rehoboam might not liave made 
 them, if he had pleas'd, as errant Slaves a^ ever their Anceftors were in Egypt ; 
 and wliat he elfe meant by faying, inftead of Whips to chafiife them with Scorpions 
 (which were a fort of thorny Rods, with which the Jews corrected tlieir Slaves 
 and Malefaftors) I cannot undcrftand. And as for Taxes, tho' I confefs there is 
 no fetting any exaft Meafure to them, fince no Man can pofitively define what 
 the Exigences of a State may require ; and I think no good Subjcfts ought to deny 
 to contribute as much as ever they are able to afford, to mamtain the Govern- 
 ment they live under, as long as they receive the Proteftion of it : So, on the 
 other fide, fhould the Supreme Power of any Nation (where the People arc not 
 meer Slaves) under the pretence of laying neceffary Taxes for the Maintenance or 
 Prefervation of the Government, be conftantly exacting from the People more th^n 
 they are able to pay : As it^ for example, they fliould out of every Man's Eflate 
 take Nineteen Parts, and leave but the Twentieth for the Subfiftancc of thofethat 
 own iti I do not think, in that cafe, the People were obliged in confcience to pay 
 it, and might in fuch cafe lawfully refift thofe Officers that fhould come to levy 
 it by force. 
 
 M. I could have argued farther againft what you have now faid, concerning 
 this Right of thePeople ofReJi/ling, in cafe of extravagant or intolerable Taxes ; 
 but fince it is not to tlie Subjcft in hand, I fhall refer it to another time : And 
 therefore, to return where I left off, I fhall in the next place fliew.you, how fa- 
 cred and irrefiflible the Perfons and Authority of Kings were under tiie Jewifi Go- 
 vernment ; and there cannot be a plainer Example of this than in the Cafe o( David. 
 He was hirafelf anointed to be King after Saul's Death ; but in the mean time he 
 was grievoufiy perfecuted by Saul, who purfued him from one Place to another, 
 with a defign to take away his Life. How now doth David behave himfelf in this 
 Extremity ? What courfe doth he take to fecure himfelf from Saul? Why he 
 
 S. C. R. i8, takes the only courfe that is left to a Subjeft ; he flies for it, and hides himfelf from 
 
 J?. Saul in the Mountains and Caves of the Wildernefs, and when he found he was 
 
 difcovered in one place, he removes to another : He kept Spies upon Saul to ob- 
 ferve his Motions, not that he might meet him to give him battle, or to take him 
 at an advantage, but that he might keep out of his way, and not fall unawares 
 into his hands. 
 ^ Well, but tjiis was no thanks to David, you'll fay, becaufe he could not do 
 
 otherwife : He was too weak for Saul, and not able to fland againfl him ; and 
 therefore had no other Remedy but Flight : But yet we muft confider, that Da- 
 vid was a Man of War, he flew Goliah, and fought the Battles of Ifrael with great 
 Succefs : He was an admired and beloved Captain, which made Saul fo jealous 
 of him ; the Eyes of Ifrael were upon him for their next King, and how eaiily 
 might he have raifed a potent and formidable Rebellion againft Saul? But he 
 was fo far from this, that he invites no Man to his affiftance ; and when fome 
 came uninvited, he made no ufe of them in an oftenfiye or defenfive War againft 
 Saul : Nay, when God delivered Saul twice into JDavid's hands, that he could as 
 
 1 Sam. 14. eafily have killed him as have cut off the Skirts of his Garment at Engedi, or as have 
 
 -^- taken that Spear away which fluck on the Ground at his Bolfter, as he did in the HiU of 
 
 Hachilah ; yet he would neither touch Saul himfelf, nor fuffer any of the People 
 that were with him to do* it;, tho' they were very importimate with him to let 
 
 ;+. 4. them kill Saul ; nay, tho' they urged him witli an Argument from Providence, 
 
 26. 8. that it was an Evidence, that it was the Will of God that he fhould kill him, 
 
 becaufe God had now delivered his Enemy into his hands, according to the Promife he had 
 
 lb, p. 30. made to David. We know wliat ufe fome Men have made of this Argument of 
 Providence to juftify all the Villanies they had a mind to aft ; hwx. David, it feems, 
 did not think, that an Opportunity of doing evil gave him a Licence and Autho- 
 rity to do it. Opportunity, we fay, makes a T^iief, and it makes a Rebel and a 
 Murderer too. No Man can do any Wickednefs which he has no Opportunity 
 of doing i and if fhe Providence of God, which puts fuch Opportunities into 
 Mens hands, might juftify the Wickednefs tlicy commit, no Man can be charge- 
 able
 
 Dialogue the Third. 14^ 
 
 able with any Guilr, whatever he does ; and certainly Opportunity will as foon 
 juftifyaiiy other Sin, as Rebellion, and the Murder ot" Princes. We arc to learn 
 our Duty from the Law of God, not from his Providence ; at leafi this muft be a 
 fettled Principle, that the Providence of God will never jiiftify any Action, which 
 his Law forbids. 
 
 And therefore, notwithftanding this Opportunity which God has put into his • 
 
 hands to deftroy his Enemy, and to take the Crown for his Reward, Davtd con- 
 fiders his Duty, remembers, that the' Saul were his Enemy, and that very un- 
 juftly, yet he was fiill the Lord's Anointed. 'The Lord fo; bid, fays he, that Ijhnuld 
 do this unto my Majler, the Lord's Anointed, to flretch forth my Hand againfl him, fee- 
 ing he is the Lord f Anointed. Nay, he was ib far from taking aixiay bis Life, that his 
 Heart fmote him for cuttmgoff the Skirt ef his Garment. And we ought to obfcrve 
 the Reafon David gives, why he durft not hurt Sau/, becaufe he was, the Lord's 
 'Anointed ; which is the very Reafon the Apoftle gives in the Romans, becaufe the ^om. 13. i, 
 Porwers that are, are ordained of God, and he that rcjijleth the Power, refjleth the Ordi- '' 
 nance of God. For to be anointed of God Signifies no more than that he was made 
 King or ordained by God. For this external Unftion was only a vifible Sign of 
 God's Defignation of them to fuch an Office ; and it is certain they were as much 
 God's Anointed without this vifible Undion as with it. Cyrus is called God's Anointed, iCs. 45. i. 
 tho* he never was anointed by any Prophet, but only defigned for his King- 
 dom by Prophecy ; and we never read in Scripture, that any Kings had this ex- 
 ternal Unftion, who fucceeded in the Kingdom by Right of Inheritance, unlcfs the 
 Title and SuccefTion were doubtful ; and } et they were the Lord's Anointed too, 
 that is, were plac'd in the Throne by him. So that this is an eternal Reafon 
 againft rtfjling Sovereign Princes, that they are fet up by God, and invefted with 
 his Authority ; and therefore their Perfons and their Authority arc facred. 
 
 F. I am fo far from differing with you in what yon have faid concerning this 
 ExampieofDrtw</ towards 5Vjk/, tho' his Enemy, that I think it ought to be a / 
 
 Pattern to every finglc private Man, tho' never fo great, in a Kingdom or Com- 
 monwealth, how to comport himfelf towards the Supreme Pou-ers, if he himfelf 
 alone be unjuflly perfecuted by them either in his Life or Ei^ate, that is, to fiy 
 if he can, tho' with the Lofs of all his Eflate, rather tlian refifi. TIio' there are 
 fomc Circumftances in this Story of David, that make it evident that he did nor 
 think a defenfive War againfl thofe Cut-throats that Saul might fend to kill him 
 unlawful ; and fo much Dr. Fearn himfelf, in his firfl Difcourfe call'd Refohing of^'^^- 2- 
 Confcieme, Sec againfl: Rejijlance of the Higher Pozvers, acknowledges : For David, 
 when he fled from Saul, made himfelfCaptain of four hundred Men, which Num- 1 Sam. i:. 2. 
 ber foon encreafed to fi.x hundred, and ftill every day grew more by Additions. — T-'- '^• 
 Now why fliould he entertain thofe Men, but to defend himfelf againft the For- ' ^'"°"' '-• 
 ces of Saul? that is, to m;}ke a defenfive War, whenever he was aflaulted by 
 them. 
 
 AI. I think I can give you a fufficient Anfwer to this, and therefore you miift 
 obfcrve, that David invited none of thefe Men into him ; but they came as Vc--^'^-'^- P-)*- 
 luntecrs after a beloved Captain and General : Which fliews how formidable he 
 could eafily have made himfelf, when fuch Numbers reforted to him of their own 
 accord. 
 
 When he had them, he never ufed them forany hoflile Ads againfl Saul, or any 
 of his Forces : He never flood his ground when he heard Saul was coming, but 
 always fled, and his Men witii him ; Men who never were us'd to ily, and were 
 very ready to have ferved him againfl Saul himfelf, wotild he have permitted them. 
 And I fuppofe you will not call it a. defenfive M'^ar, to fly before an Enemy, and to 
 hide themfelves in Caves and Mountains ,• and yet this was the only defenfive IVcu- 
 which David made with all his Men about him : Nay, all that he would make, 
 and all that he could make, according to his profeflcd Principles, that it xiw not 
 la-u>ful to ftretih cut his Hand againfl the Lord's Anointed. And wlien thcfc Men are 
 purfued, as David was, by an enraged and jealous Prince, I will not charge them 
 oi Rebellion, tho' rhey fly before him by thoufands in a Company. 
 
 Yet there was fufficient Reafon why David fliouId entertain thefe Men, who 
 voluntarily reforted to him, tho' he never intended toufe them againfl i"/??//.- For 
 feme of them ferved for i)!"/!?/, to watch 5izk/'s Motions, that he might not be fur- 
 prized by him, but have timely notice to make his Efcape. And the very Pre- 
 fcncc of fuch a Number of Men about him, without any hoftiJe Ad, prefervcd 
 
 U him
 
 14^ 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 him from being feiz'd on by fome ofEcious Perfons, who otherwife might have 
 delivered him into Saul's hands. And he being anointed by Samuel to be King 
 after ^Ws Death, this was the firftSrep to his Kingdom, to have fuch a Retinue 
 of valiant Men about him ; which made his Advancement to tlie Throne more 
 eafy, and difcouraged any Oppofiticns, which might otherwife have been made 
 . againft him ; as we fee it proved in the event, and have reafon to believe that it 
 
 was thus ordered by God for that very end. It is certain that Gad the Prophet, 
 and Abiathar the Prieft, who was the only Man who efcaped the Fury of Saul, 
 when he dellroyed the Priells of the Lord, were in David's Retinue ; and that 
 David enterprized nothing, without firft asking Counfel of God : But he who had 
 anointed him to be King now draws Forces after him, which after Saul's Death 
 fhould facilitate his Advancement to the Kingdom, 
 
 F. I cannot think your Anfwer to this Objeftion fatisfadory ; for firft, it is evi- 
 I Sam. 12. I. dent, that ' when £)<7wVi was at the Cave oi AduBam, his Brethren and all his Fa- . 
 thcr's Houfe, as foon as they heard it, went down thither to him : And tho' it 
 be not exprefly faid, that he fent for any to come to his Afliftance, yet it is plain 
 he refufed none that came ; and to what purpofe fhould he make ufe of fo many 
 as 400 or 600 Men, unlefs it were to defend himfelf againft thofe Men that Saul 
 might fend againft him, lince half a fcore or twenty Perfons had been enough to 
 have ferved for Spies ?• And if he had thought himfelf obliged only to run away, 
 three or four Servants had been enough in confcience to have waited on him in 
 any neighbouring Country : But that David thought it no Sin to defend himfelf 
 from the Violence of thofe whom Saul ftiould fend to kill him, is plain from what 
 I Sam.1a.23. he fays to Abiathar, upon his Flight unto him after the Death of his Father : Abide 
 thou with me ; fear not : for he that feeketh my Life, fecketh thy Life, but -with me thou 
 jhalt be in fafeguard. And if David h^-d not meant by thefe Words to have de- 
 fended Abmthar's as well as his own Life, if affaulted, and without a poflibility 
 of efcaping, it had been very cold comfort for David to have only aflur'd him, 
 that he fhould be in fafeguard with him till the firft Aflault that fhould be made 
 upon them, but that then he {hould fliift for himfelf ; for as for his own part, he 
 ■would rather permit his Throat to be cut by the King's Officers or Soldiers than 
 refift them. 
 
 And therefore, tho' I own that it was not lawful for him to/iretch out his Hand 
 againft the Lord's Anointed ; fince I do not allow any private Subjeft to kill even 
 tyrants, unlefs in a State of aftual War or Battel, wherein they are Aggreflbrs, 
 nor then neither, if it can poflibly be avoided : Yet do I not find it at all unlaw- 
 ful for David, or any other private Man, to defend his own Life againft fuch Af- 
 faffinaies as his Prince may fend againft him ; fo it may be done without a Civil 
 War, or endangering the Peace of the Commonwealth. And fo much you your 
 felf, tho' coldly, feem to yield, when you fay, that the very Prefence of fuch a 
 number of Men about David, without any hoftile Aft, preferved him from being 
 feiz'd on by fome officious Perfons, who otherwife might have delivered him into 
 Saul's Hands : For I cannot think that David would have been at the trouble of 
 keeping fo many Men only for fhew, and a Terror to thofe officious Perfons you 
 mention, without refifting of them, if there had been occafion. 
 
 And tho' you tell me, that his being anointed by Samuel to be King after Saul's 
 Death, was the firft ftep to the Kingdom, to have fuch a Retinue of valiant Men 
 about him ; which made his Advancement to the Throne fo much the eafier, 
 and difcouraged any Oppofition which might have been made againft him, and 
 that we fee it proved fo in the Event ; and therefore have reafon to believe, that 
 it was thus ordered by God to that very End, I muft take the liberty fo far to 
 differ from you. 
 
 For firft, I defire to know by what Authority David could lift 6 or 700 Men 
 in Arms in Saul's Territories ? and whether, according to your Doftrine, they 
 were not Rebels for joining tliemfelves with one who was declared a Traytor by 
 the King ? And tho' you fay it was thus ordered by God, I grant indeed it was ; 
 yet doth it not appear that it was done by any Divine Revelation to Nathan or 
 Abiathar, but only by the ordinary Courfe of his Providence, like other things in 
 the World : And therefore it is no fair way of arguing for you to affirm, that 
 whatever David did in the matter of his own Defence, contrary to your Prin- 
 ciples, he muft needs do it by exprefs Order from God, of which the Scripture 
 is wholly filent : Much lefs doth it appear from the Story, that thefe Men whom 
 
 David
 
 Dialogue the Third, I47 
 
 David kept with him, were only to facilitate his attaining the Kingdom, as you 
 
 affirm ; iincc the Scripture mentions no fiich tiling,' only that after &/«/s Death - Sam. 2. 4, 
 
 he went up by God's Command to Hebron, with the Men that were with him i 
 
 and thitlier the Men of 'Judah came, and there they amimed David King oi<er the Houfi 
 
 q/"Judah. But 'tis no where mentioned, that thefe Men were of any ufe to David 
 
 for the obtaining of the Crown, Iincc the Tribe o( Judah would have made him 
 
 King, tho' thefe Men had not been with him : For what could 600 or x 000 Men 
 
 do againft fo vaft a Multitude as the whole Tribe of Jh'dah ? And therefore it is 
 
 evident, that thefe Forces were for no other End than his own defence. 
 
 And tho' you make very light of this State of War in which David was, in re- 
 lation to Saul ; yet pray tell me, fuppofing th.Tt the Duke o( Monmouth had really 
 been ( as he pretended ) the legitimate Son of King Charks II. but by fome par- 
 ticular Difguft of his Father, or by the Intrigues of his Competitor, the Duke of 
 Tork, had been forced to fly into Scotland, and there to have defended himfelf with 
 1000 or 1 500 of his Tenants and Followers, tho' without fighting the King's For- 
 ces that fliould have been fent againft him, but flying into the High-laiuU, and 
 had there maintain 'd himfelf, as David did, by Free Quarters or Contribution of 
 the Inhabitants, till his Father died ; vv-ould not this have been cried out upon in 
 all the Pulpits in England, as a moft Horrid Rebellion of a Son and a Subject againil: 
 his King and Father, tho' he had never done any Aft of Hoflility againft his Forces, 
 but always fled from them ? And yet he, being Heir apparent to the Crown, 
 might have pleaded as well as David, that he kept thefe Soldiers about him, only 
 to keep himfelf from being murdered by thofe officious Perfons, whom his Fathef 
 Or Uncle might fend to apprehend him, and to have fucli a Retinue of valiant 
 Men about him, as might render his Advancement to the Throne more eafy, 
 whenever his Father fhould die. /' 
 
 I fliall not urge, as a forther Proof of the I.awfalnefs of David's Refiflancc of 
 Saul's Forces, his IntcntiM'to have flaid in Keilah, and to have fortified it againft 
 Saul, had not he been iif^itied; that the Men of that City would have favcd them- i Sam. 2 j.. 
 felves by delivering him up to Sabl'; fince, I confcfs, it doth not certainly appear by 
 the Text, whether Z)^w^ would have ftaid any longer there than till Saul\\3.d ap- 
 proach'd near that Places whetlicr the Keilites would have delivered him up, or 
 not. Much lefs fhall I urge that other Example, which fome Men make ufe of, 
 of David's going to the laft Battle againft Siul with ^f/;;/j. King of the Philiftines : 
 For tho' it be plain he marcii'd with them as far as Aphek in the Tribe of Ijjacbar ; 
 yet I confcfs it is not certain, whether he really intended to have affiftcd them or 
 not, in this War againft his Country ; (ince he might either have gone over to 
 ifl«/ at the Beginning of the Battel, or elfe have flood neuter ; tho' neither of them 
 would have been very honourable, or confonanr with David's Charafter : There- 
 fore I (hall fay nothing of this, (ince the Lords of the PhiUfiines, for fear he fhould 
 prove an Adverfary to than in the Battel, ' made him retire again into the Land of ' Sam. 29, 
 the Phillflinei ; tho' he feem'd to be very much troubled to be (0 diftrufted, that '> 4. «. 
 he miglit not figiit againft the Enemies of that King, who had fo good an Opi- 
 nion of him. And tlicrefore I pray you will proceed to thofe other E.vamples you 
 have to producc'diitof the Old Teftament. 
 
 M' Well, fince"' j;"6"u are not fatisfied with this Iilftance of David, (tho' I am 
 glad you allow the Perfons, even of Tyrannical Princes, to be facrcd) therefore 
 to proceed in the Je-xijh Hiftory, Solomon, who fucceedcd David in his Kingdom, 
 did all thofe things which God had exprelly forbid the King to do. He fent ^"^.C.;?. p.37, 
 into Egypt for Horfes : He multiplied Wives, and loved many flrange Women (to- 5''- 
 gcther with the Daughter of P/'-'zrao/;) Women oi t\\z Mcabitcs, Ammonites, &c. He i Kings n. 
 multiplied Silver and Gold. And tho' God (who is the only Judge of Sovereign '• 
 Princes) was very angry with him, and threatens to rend the Kingdom from him, '°' ^^ 
 
 which was afterwards accomplifh'd in the Days of Re/uboam ; yet this did not 
 give Authority to his Subjefts to rebel. If to be under the Dircftion and Obliga- 
 tion of Laws makes a Limited Monarchy, it is certain the Kingdom of If.acl was fo. 
 There were fome things which the King was cxprefly forbid to do, as jou hive 
 already heard ; and the Law of Mofes was to be the Rule of his Government, the 
 {landing Law of his Kingdom : And therefore he was commanded, wnen he came 
 to the Throne, to write a Copy of the Law with his cnm Hand, and to read w it all his Deut. 1 7. i3, 
 Day^, that he tnight learn to fear the Lord his God, and to keep all the H'^urd) of his Laa:, 19, 20. 
 and thefe Statutes^ to do them. And yet being a Sovereign Prince, if he broke thefs 
 
 U 2 Laws,
 
 148 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITlCA. 
 
 Laws, God was his Judge and Avenger ; but he was accountable to no Earthly 
 Tribunal. Nor do we find, cho' there were fo many wicked and idolatrous Kiags 
 of Judah, who broke all the Laws of God given them by Mofes, that ever ^py 
 of the Priefts or Prophets ftirred up the People to rebel againft them for it, . ,, ,! 
 F. Neither of thefe Liflances do reach the Cafe in hand ; for I grant, that nei- 
 ther the Breach or Non-obfervance of thefe Precepts enjoined the Kings of ifri^t 
 by God, nor yet their open Idolatry, were a fufEcient Citjfe for their taking uf 
 Arms, or relilting their Kings in fo doing ; fince thefe were Offences only agaiixft 
 God, and in which the People had nothing to do, thofe being no part of that 
 • tacit or implicit Compad of Proteftion and Prefervation, that goeth along with 
 all Kingdoms and Supreme Powers whatfoever. And I have already excepted, QU^ 
 of the Caufes of Re/ftance, or taking up Arms, the Prince's being of a differ^^xU 
 Religion from that of his Subjefts. And tho' I mufl own, that the Kings of u5'>>^^2 
 were under the Direction or Obligation of the Law of Mofes, and fo were litmtif 
 Monavchs ; yet this Limitation was not from the People, but from God, wlip|e 
 Bulinefs it was to revenge the Breach of it as often as they oftended, and if th,eX 
 broke thofe Laws, God only was their Judge and Avenger (as you your felf.Vf^fjf 
 well obferve) who never failed feverely to punifli this Breach of his Laws. .,"' 
 
 Yet were not the People of the yews always fo nice and temperate as you raafiS 
 
 them: For, befides the Example of i^/jc^c/zw, which I iaave formerly^ made ufe i^ 
 
 Chap.^y.;-/. you will find in the fecond of Chronicles concerning Amauahy who when he turne^ 
 
 away trom following the Lord, 'They (ziz. the People) made a Conffimfy (igairi/ipi^ 
 
 in Jerufalem, and he fled to Lachifh ; but they Jem to LacHifh after him, and JlewTiiin 
 
 there, and made his Son Uzziah King in his ftead. Nor do we read -that any we^g 
 
 punifh'd for killing him, as Amaz,iah put to Death the Servants of his Father King 
 
 ymjh, for confpiring againft him, as it is related in the tenth Chapter of the fecond 
 
 Chap. 21.10. Book of Kings: And you'll find in the fame Book, that the City oiLihia revol^^ii 
 
 (which fiire is the higheft degree of Refiftance) from that wicked King yehorajftf 
 
 Ver. 4. <J. who had llain all his Brethren with theSword, and walked in the way of the Kings of 
 
 Ifrael, as did the Hoiife o/Ahab, and wrought that wlruh was evil in the fight of ih& 
 
 Lord, Sec. And therefore it is laid expreily in tlie Text, that the City of hibJxL' 
 
 revolted from his Hand, becaufe he had forfaken the God of his Fatlms... I bring rfop 
 
 thefe Ihftances to juftify Rebellion, but to let you fee that it was fometimes prjp-f 
 
 tifed amongft the fews, tho' you affirm the contrary. 
 
 a Chron. 16. But much more lawful was the Refiflame, which A^ariah, and the 80 Priells 
 
 that were with him, made againft King Uzziah, when he would have burnt In-^ 
 
 cenfe in the Temple. Pray turn with me to the Place, and read what is thej;e 
 
 Ver. 18. faid : And they (viz. the Priefts) withflocd Uzziah the King, and faid unto him., Jt 
 
 apfertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn Incenfe unto the Lord, but to the Priefis theSom] 
 
 of Aaron, timt are confecrated to bum Incenfe. Go out of the San ^Mary, for thou hafi^ 
 
 trefpaffed, neither Jhall it be for thine Honour, dec. And when he perfifted therein, 
 
 Vi/ie ."^.Chry- and took the Cenfer in his Hand to burn Incenfe, and that thereupon the Le^rofy 
 
 foft. E.log.i arofe in his Forehead, the Priefts thruft him out of the Temple. The LXa, 
 
 ^^ ^"'P^"" ^ render it, eqv^aav hV Or iuv, i.e. they refified him. yofephus hys, they drove him 
 
 where' you'll o"^ ^" haftc. So that you fee they went fomewhat farther than SoLmons Queftion, 
 
 find, that he U^jo may fay to a King, what doefi. thou ? And, which is more remaikable, tbey' 
 
 both owns vvithftood him before the Leprofy rofe upon his Foreliead ; and no doubt but they 
 
 and juftifies ^^^^^ould have done the fame to him, whether that Judgment had happen'd or not.- 
 
 this Refir- ^ j-^^^ j^^ ^^gj^j. ^ijQm (.Q ufurp the Priefts Office ; it not being fo much as lawful' 
 
 Hiirh-Prieft. fot him, that was no Prieft, to fet his Foot within the Temple. 
 
 But if you look into the Hiftory of the Kings oi IfraeUztx tlieir Divifion from 
 fudah, they are fo far from teaching us thefe LcUbns oiPaffive Obedience and Non- 
 rejifiance, that you will fcarce find any other manner of Succefllon amongft them * 
 but the killing of one King, and the fetting up another ; and Jehu, for rebelling^ 
 z Kings 10, againft and deftroying the Houfe of Ahab, had the Crown entaixed by God's Pro- ' 
 30. mife to his Pofterity unto the fourth Generation. And tho' I do not produce any' 
 
 of thefe Examples as fit for our Imitation at this day (fuice what Jehu did was don'i' 
 by God's exprefs Warrant and Command) yet I think they arefufficicnt Evidences, 
 that neither the Perfon nor Power of the Kin^s of ^Judah or Ifrael were always 
 look'd upon as fo facred and irrefiftible by their Subjcfts, as you fuppofe. 
 
 M. I am glad you are fo ingenuous to confefs, that moft of thefe Examples you 
 have brought of the Reftftame and Murders committed by the ^evj! and Ifraelites 
 
 upon 
 
 I
 
 Dialogue the Third, 14^ 
 
 upon their Kings were not lawful, or can be propofed for the imitation of Chri- 
 ftian Si;bje(5ts ; and if fo, pray make what other iife of them you plcafc, fince a 
 faBoy ad Jm >ion valet Cuifequentin : I cannct deny but that the Succcffion of the 
 Kings of ^«<?/, Sikct Nadal/, the Son of Jeroboam, was very confufed, God ftir- 5. c.i?. *. 
 ring upfome or other to rebel agairfl: them and make them away, as a Punifh- ;y. 
 ment tor their former Rebellion and Idolatry .• Thus Bnnfia killed Nad^ib the Son ' f^'"'^.' 'f- 
 oijetobonm, and reigned in his ftcad ; and for this, and his other Sins, God -5' -'5' ^'• 
 threatncd Evil againft Baajha, and againft his Houfe ; Zimri i\t\v Elah the Son of ''''''^''" ^^" ?* 
 Baa/J:a, but he did not long enjoy the Kingdom which he had ufur]^ed by Treafon 
 and Murder, for he reigning but fe\en Days in T)rz,a, which being beficged and 
 taken by Ow/v, hi vjmt to tlx Palate ^ and bnrncd the Kings Hotife ove, hhn icith Fire ir ,0 
 and died, ■_'■[ \. ' ''- v.-'>-^ .^ -■- y^]o ^'' 
 
 Tiws Example Jezebel threat/i^d Jehu with. Had Zimri Peace u-hojlrx his Mufter ? 2 Khigi s>i 
 And yet J\ladab and Elah were both of them very wicked Princes ; and if that ji- 
 would juftify Tfeafon and Murder, both BaaJ}:a and Zimri had been innocent ; 
 but as for the Example of j^^-At/s killing hisMafter King Joram, (you fay) it was 
 by the particular Command of God, and is no more to be produced as an Ex- 
 ample for Rebellion, and the Murder of i'rinces by the General of their Armies, 
 than that becaufc the Children of Ifrael had a Power given them by God, to extir- 
 pate afld dcilroy tiiofc feven Nations, whofe Countries God had given them to 
 inherit, therefore they had a like Right to dcftroy all other Nations whatfoever, 
 that lay near them • And therefore thof^ Aftions in .'Scripture, whicii are feme- 
 limes commanded by God, for the bringing about the great defigns of his Provi- 
 dence, t>vthofe humane Means that may feem unjuil to us, are not to be produ- 
 ced for -Authorities^ nor ailcdged as Examples. \ 
 
 Fi I fo far agree with you, and do by no means allow that particular private 
 Men,'of what Condition foever they are, Q^oi-.ld dillurb' tfie Commonwealth and 
 murd'er their la^'.ful Princes, rho' Wicked cr Idolatrous, only to fatisfy their own 
 private Zeal or Ambition, and to fet up themfelves, who perhaps are altogether 
 as bad or worfe than him they depofe or Inake away. But yet I think I might 
 very -well produce thek, to convince you tiiat there were no better Examples for 
 Loyalty or Padlve Obedience among the Jev:s than other Nations ; and there- 
 fore that your Examples out of the Scripture do hitherto prove infignificant ; yet 
 I cannot but take notice of one paflage, wherein, by following the ordinary Englijb * 
 Tranflation, you fall into a great miftake, where you make Baaflia to be ilain by 
 Zimri, becaufe he killed Nadab ; which as it is there rendered in the Englijh is 
 falfe, for the Words in our Tranflation are, becaufe he killed him, viz. Jercbcam, to 
 whom it there immediately relates ; which is falfe, for Baafia did not kill 'Jero- 
 hoam, but Nadab his Son : Neither was it fuitable to God's Juftice to dellroy 
 Baajlia for tJiat which he himfelf had ordained him to do ; for God, by Jehu the 
 Prophet, faid to Baajha; Forafmuch cu I exalted thee out cf the Duft, and made thee 
 Prince ner my People Ifrael, and thou haft vjalLed in the -way o/" Jeroboam, and haft 
 made my Petfle Ifrael to Sin, to provoke me t6 anger by their Sins : And therefore the 
 Text concludes this Narration with thefe Words, l%citthe Word of the Lord came 
 flgaittft Baaflia, and againft his Houfe, even for all the Evil -which he did in the fight of 
 the Lord, in provoking him to ange:- -with th; vivrk of his Hands in being like the Houfe of 
 Jeroboam. But the Words wliich immediately follbw, and becaufe he killed him 
 (i. e. Je^ibuam) cannot be tnily rendered in our Englijh Tranflation, for the Reafon 
 already given j and therefore the beft Criticks upon this Place tranllate it thus, 
 leaving out and, therefore he {viz. the Lord) fmote him ; (i. c. Nadab) by the Hand 
 c/Baa(hai whereas our Tranflation makes the Scripture to contradict itfclf I 
 have no more to obfcrve from this Hillory of the Kings and Chronicles ; and 
 therefore pray proceed to what other Teftimonics you have to produce. 
 
 M. Well, I think I can make it much more plain from other Examples and Pre- 
 
 !y and tyrannically, even to the Deftruition of the whole Nation. Now the Pro- 
 phet feremiah had given them an exprcfs Command ,• Seek the Peace of the City j^^ jg, j. 
 vihither I have cat fed you to be carried aivay Captives, and pray to the Lord for it ; for in ' 
 the Pence thereof youjhall have Peace : Whicii made it a neccllary Duty to be fubjeft 
 to thefe Powers under whofe Government they lived. And accordingly we rind 
 
 that
 
 I^'O BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 Efther 6. 2. that Mordecnt difcovered the T'reafon of Bigthana and Tcrefh, two of the Kings Cham- 
 S. C. R. p. lierlains, the Keepers of the Door, who fought to lay hand on the King Aliafuerus ; and 
 *°' *^' how numerous and powerful the Jews were at this time, and what great diftur- 
 bance they could have given to the Empire^ appears evidently from the Book of 
 Efther. ..,.:'"': ; -i,; -psh 
 
 King Ahafuerm, upon the fuggeftions o^ Haman, had granted a Decree for, the 
 Deftruftion of the whole People of the "Jews ; which was fent into all the Pro- 
 vinces, written and feal'd with the King's Ring. This Decree could never be re- 
 verfed again, for that was contrary to the Laws of the Medes and Perjians.i And 
 therefore when Efther had found Favour with the King, all that could be done 
 for the Jervs, was to grant another Decree for them to defend themfelves ,• which 
 
 Efller 6. M, accordingly was done ; and the effeft of it was, That the Jews at Shufa.n flew. ioq, 
 
 i^» 17- Men, and the jews of the other Provinces flew 7J000, and refted fi-om their Enemiis : 
 
 Without this Decree Mordecai did not think it lawful to refift (which yet was % 
 Cafe of as great Extremity and barbarous Cruelty as could ever happen) .which 
 made him put Efther upon fo hazardous an Attempt, as to venture into the. King's 
 Prefence without being call'd, which was Death by their Law, unlefs the King 
 
 Efiher 4. 11. fl^ould graciouily hold out the Golden Scepter to them ; yet when the Jevjs nad 
 obtained this Decree, they were able to defend themfelves and to deftroy . their 
 Enemies : Which is as famous an Example of Pajftve Obedience as can be met with 
 in any Hiflory. 
 
 T)an 5. iS, And pray fee here what the Prophet Daniel acknowledges to Belte/hazz.ar. T'hf 
 
 '^' mcft high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy Father a Kingdom, and Majefty, and Glory, 
 
 and Honour : And for the Majefty that he gave him, all People, Nations and Languages 
 trembled and feared before him : Whom he would he flew, and whom he would he kept 
 alive, and wlmm he would he fet up, and whom he would he pulled down. And if thefe 
 Heathen Kings received fuch a Power from God, as the Prophet here affirms, St. 
 Paul has made the Application of it, that he that refifteth, refifteth the Ordinance of 
 God : And I think thefe Examples may ferve out of the Old Teftament, and there- 
 fore I fhall conclude with the Saying of the Wife Man, who was both a Prophet 
 
 "Eul. 8, 1, 5, and a King : IVhere the JVord of a King is, there is Powers and who may fay jinto himy 
 
 4* What doeft thou? 
 
 F. Tho' this laft Proof be the ftrongeft you have yet brought, yet I think it 
 • will not reach the Point in queftion ; to prove that no Refftance whatfoever, tho' for 
 faving the Lives of a whole Nation, can be lawful. I grant indeed, that the Com- 
 mand of the ^ro^het J eroniah, of praying for the Peace of the City whit tier they were 
 carried away Captives, was to be obeyed, being obliged to do it, not only by the 
 Laws of Nature, and in regard of thofe Benefits of Proteftion, and enjoying the 
 free Exercife of their Religion and Liberties without being made Slaves, tho' they 
 had been carried Captives ; which was no more than removing them out of one 
 Country and fettling them in another, according to the Cuftom of the Eaftern 
 Princes of thofe Times ; when they would, by removing the beft and greateft of 
 the People out of a conquer'd Country, prevent their rebelling againft them, as 
 they had done before ; but that they enjoyed a Property in their Lands and 
 Eftates after their Captivity, is certain, by the Prophets commanding them to 
 build and plant Vineyards in the Country of Babylon, during the 70 Years Cap- 
 tivity foretold by him from God. So likewife I grant it to be a neceflary Duty in 
 Subjefts, tho' Strangers, to be Faithful and Obedient to thofe Princes and States 
 under whofe Governments they live ; and therefore Mordecai no doubt perform'd 
 his Duty, when he difcovered the Treafon of the King's Chamberlains that 
 thought to kill him. 
 
 But to come to your main Argument, that it was unlawful for the whole Na- 
 tion of the 'Jews to refilt thofe who were impowered, by the Decree of King 
 Ahafuetm, to maflacre and deftroy them, I fhall not difpute with you about the 
 Matter of Fad, as you have related it, but only in this particular i that whereas 
 
 Efiher %. ii. vou fuppofe, till the King had ifiued out a fecpnd Decree, wherein he granted the 
 Jews which weie in every City to gather themfelves together, and to ftandfor their Lives, 
 to deftroy, to flay, and caufe to perijh all the Powej- of the People and Province that Jhould 
 affault them, &c. and to take the Spoil of them for a Prey ; without which Decree, 
 you fay, Mordecai did not think it lawful to refifi:, tho' it was a Cafe of as gre^^t Ex- 
 tremity as could ever happen ; and that therefore Efther was put upon fo hazardous 
 an Attempt, as to venture to obtain this Decree, tho' with the Peril of her Life ; 
 
 but
 
 Dialogue the Third. i^\ 
 
 but that when they had once obtain'd ir, they were tlien, and not before, enabled 
 
 to defend thcmfclves, and deftroy their Enemies. In anfwcr to which, I miift needs 
 
 tell you, that you do not fairly reprefent the latter part of this Story j for it no 
 
 where appears in the Text (tho' you are pleafcd to add it) that Mordecai did not 
 
 think it lawful for the Jews to refill till this Decree was obtained ; for it is only 
 
 there faid, "That he fern Efther to the King, and cufoon atjhe came into his Prefence, jhefe'U 
 
 down at his Feet , and befought him with "Tears to put away the Mifchtef 0/ Haraan the Aga- 
 
 gitc. (Pray read the Words) Andjhe faid, ij it fleafes the Khig, and if I have found pniir %,^ 
 
 favour in his fight, and the thing feems right before the Ktng, and I^Jbe pleafing in his Eyes, 
 
 let it be written to reverfe the Letters devifed by Haman the Son of Hammcdatha the 
 
 Agagitc, which he wrote to dejiroy the Jews which are in all the King's Provinces. By 
 
 which you may fee that Ejlher's Rcquefl: was not for a Liberty to defend thcm- 
 
 felves, (as you fuppofe) but only to try if fiie could get the King to reverfe the 
 
 firft Decree obtained by Haman to deftroy them. But bccaufe tlie King's Decree, 
 
 when once ilVued our, was not to be reverfed j therefore he iflued rliis fecond De- qj ,, 
 
 crec, to give the Jews a Legal or Civil Power to gather themfelves together, and ' 
 
 Hand upon their Defence againft all that Ihould alfault them ; which was fo far 
 
 obeyed, that the Rulers of the Provinces and other Officers of the King, inftead 
 
 of deftroying, helped the Jews, becaufe (fays the Text) the fear of Mord':ca.i fell 
 
 upon them. 
 
 So that tho' I own this Decree gave them a legal Power to ftand upon their de- 
 fence i and did likewife hinder the King's Officers from heading tlie People, and 
 putting the firft Decree for their Deftruftion in Execution, as otherwife they 
 would have done, had it not been for tins laft, and for that great Power which 
 they perceived Mordecai had at Court ; yet doth it not therefore follow, that it 
 was before that abfolutcly unlawful for the whole Jewijh Nation to have defended 
 their Lives againil thofe Officers or others who would have gone about to de- 
 ftroy them, and have totally extirpated their Nation. So that I take this Decree 
 not to confer any new Right in the People of the Jews to defend themfelves, but 
 only to be a Confirmation of that natural Right of Self-defence, which all Nations, 
 and every particular Member of Mankind have to preferve themfelves : And tho*. 
 I grant that particular Perfons are often obliged to give up this Right for the 
 publick Peace and Safety of the Commonwealth ; yet doth not this Law extend to '' 
 
 whole Nations, or fuch Bodies of People without which the Commonwealth 
 cannot well fubfift:. 
 
 And therefore I leave it to any unprejudiced Perfon, to judge whether it had 
 not been better that the Jews ftiould have thus refifted and faved their Lives, 
 tho' without this fecond Decree, which only difcouraged the King's Officers and 
 others from falling upon them, than that all God's peculiar People fhould have 
 lain at the Mercy of their Enemies, to be deftroyed according to the firft cruel 
 Decree. 
 
 But farther to convince you that the Jews, after the Captivity, did not think 
 it unlawful to make ufe ofdcfenfive Arms againft cruel and persecuting Tyrants, 
 who went about to deftroy their Religion and Nation ; it is apparent from the 
 famous Example of the Prieft Mattathias, with Judas Maccabeus and the reft of ^^^,;,^ ^^a 
 his Sons, who fucceflively headed the People of the Jews in that obftinate and .-,„,{ ficonl 
 noble Rcfiftance which they made againft Antiochus Eptphanes, tho' then their So- Bwb of /Ae 
 veraign, who when he liad prophaned the Temple, and would have forced the ^'^a<^"'"^"' 
 Jews to renounce their Circumcilion, and to have facrificcd to Idols, under pain of 
 Death ; tlicy joyned together and refolved to defend themfelves, and to ftand up 
 for their Religion and Nation, then ready to be deftroyed : And ) ou rind by the 
 Hiftory, as it is related in the Books of the Maaabees nvAJofephus, that God did 
 blefs thofe Arms with Succcfs, which they had taken up in their own defence, 
 againft a Prince infinitely more Powerful than themfelves, who, with his Prcde- 
 cclfors, had been their Soveraigns for above 130 Years. And tho Antiochus died 
 long before the end of the War, yet did they ftill profecutc it againft his Suc- 
 ceflors : Nor did they ever make Peace witli them, till Jonathan, Brother of Judas 
 (who had before recovered and purified the Temple) was acknowledged High- 
 Prieft by Alexander the pretended Son of Epiphanes, and that they had caft oft" that 
 Yoke of Subjection which they were under to the Kings of Syria, and had fettled 
 the Government of their Nation upon the Princes of the Afnonaan Race, in gra- 
 titude of that Deliveiar.ee they fo juftly owed to tlicir Piety and Courage ; and 
 
 which
 
 ICZ BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 which continued in this Family till the Conqueft of Judea by Po7npey, after io6 
 Years free Enjoyment of it : So that it is plain, the Jevcs, before the coming of 
 Chrifl, both Priefls and People, did not think it unlawful to defend their Lives 
 and Religion, in cafe of great Extremity ; and that our Saviour Chrifl hath any 
 where, by his Gofpel, retrenched whole Nations of that Liberty, lies upon you 
 to prove. 
 
 , • But to conclude ; as for the Text you have cited out of the Proverbs, that will 
 do you as little Service ^ for tho' I grant, it is true, that no Man can fay to an ab- 
 folute King or Monarch, M'^hat dofi thou ? i. e. call him to account as his Su- 
 perior i yet doth it not therefore follow, that a whole People or Nation have no 
 Power to defend themfelves, in any Cafe whatfoever, agaiaft his unjuft Violence 
 or Tyranny ; this not being the Aft of a Superiors, bur an Equal (as I have al- 
 ready faid) nor any Political, but a Natural Power. 
 
 M. I confefs this is the notableft Example of Refiftance that you have brought 
 yet. But I think it may be eafily anfwered, if we fnppofe with jf/ephm and other 
 Authors, that tho' Alexander the Great was certainly polTefled of Pakftme, by 
 Right of Conqueft, and the SubmifTion of the High-Pricft 'Jaddm unto him ; yet 
 his chief Captains confpiring together, made fuch a fcambling Divilion of the Em- 
 pire among themfelves as they could, every one almoft feeking how he might 
 fupprefs the reft, and attain the whole alone for himfelf ; fo as thereupon the "Jews 
 were as free from the Macedonians, as any other of their borderuig Neighbours ; 
 none of the faid Captains having any lawful Intereft or Title to Judah : But that 
 which turned to the Benefit of fome others, brought a great Detriment (for want 
 of Ability) unto them j for one of the faid Captains, via- Amiochm, having got- 
 ten to himfelf a very great Kingdom in Syria ; and another, viz,. Ptolomy, in Egypt, 
 the jffii'j dwelling betweixt them both, were miferably (on every fide) vexed by 
 them : Sometimes the Egyptians, by Oppreflion and Force, brought them under 
 their Subjection, and impofed great Tributes upon them ; and fometimes the Syri~ 
 ans growing mightier than the Egyptians, did likewife greatly aiRid: them ; efpe- 
 cially in the Reign of Antiochm Epiphanes, whofe Invafion and Government was 
 I Mace. I. - moft unjuft and Tyrannical : He Jhed innocent Blood on every fide of the SanBuary ; 
 37. fpoiledthe Temple, ereEiingin it the Abomination of the Gentiles, andcaufedit to k named 
 
 the Temple of Jupiter Ctlympius. Not to mention the Prophanation of the Law, and 
 unfpeakable Cruelties exercifed upon thofe who refofed to offer Sacrifice unto 
 Idols ; until Mattathias, moved with the monftrous Cruelty and Tyranny of thd 
 faid Amiochm, made open Refiftance, the Government of that Tyrant being not then 
 either generally received by SubmifTion, or fettled by Continuance : So that after 
 the Time of Alexander the Great, the yewijh Nation was governed by their own 
 High-Priefts and Sanhedrim, and lived according to their own Laws in all Mat- 
 ters both Civil and Ecclefiaftical ; tho', more often, I ovm, with a Subordination 
 to the Soveraignty of the Kings oi Egypt, till this Invafion of their Religion and 
 Liberties by Antiochus : So that they had a legal Right to the free Exercife of their 
 Religion, which could not, without the highell: Violence and Injuftice, be taken 
 from them. 
 
 F. Notwithftanding what you have now faid concerning this Aftion, I doubt 
 not, but if you will confider Jifephus a little better, as alfo the two Books of the 
 Maccabees, you will find, that not only Antiochus Epiphanes, but alfo Antiahus the 
 Great and Seleucus Philopater, were true and lawful Monarchs of Cxlo-Syria, and 
 confequently of Palefline. And tho' I grant there had been Wars between Antiochus 
 the Great and Ptolomy Philopater, concerning the Dominion of that Country ; yet 
 Co}. 3.4. it is plain out o( Jofephus's Antiquities, Lib. 12. That Antiochus had recoiiquer'd 
 all this Country from the Egyptians, tho' he afterwards parted with half of the 
 Tribute of it to Ptolomy Epiphanes King of Egypt, as a Dowry witii Chipatra his 
 Daughter; yet furely he retained the Supreme Dominion of it to himfelf j for we 
 C4/1. 5. find in the fecond Book oi Maccabees, that Seleucus Philopater fupplied all the Cofts 
 
 of the Sacrifices out of his own Revenues ; that is, of thofe Sacrifices that were 
 offered for the Health of the King, as they were afterwards for the Roman Em- 
 ferors : And we find in the beginning of both the Books of the Maccabees, that the 
 King of Syria had Power to make and unmake the High-Prieft whenever he pleafed, 
 as having the Dominion over Coelo-Syria and Phoenicia; over which, as appears by 
 the fecoiid Chapter of the fecond Book of Maccabees, Seleucus liad made ApoSonius 
 Governor under him ; fo that there cannot be more certain Marks of Soveraign 
 
 Majefty
 
 Dialogue the Third. I^:^ 
 
 Majcfty extrcifcd by the G.eat Turk over any of thofe Tributary Princes or Go- 
 vernors', which he places and difplaces at his plcafurc. And therefore, it is appa- 
 rent, notwitlillanding what you have faid to the contrary, out of I know not whac 
 Authors, tliat the Go\ crnment of Amiochm Epiphums was an unjuft Ufurpation ; 
 for, bating this Tyranny in the excrcife of it, he had a jufter Title than ever 
 Alexander the Great had ; fince, befides Conqiieft, he had your own Right of 
 Prefcription by three Dcfcents : And I have GiOtim (bcfidcs other more antient 
 Authors) on my lide in tliis matter. And pray now fee Grot/us's Opinion, in his 
 firll Book de J. B. & P. cap. 4. wliich I will read into Englijh ; and I think will { 7. 
 make fufficiently for my Opinion. 
 
 " The Faft of the Maccabees may feem like to this, (viz,, the Example 0^ David 
 " before going) for that feme do defend thefe Arms by this Pretence, as if An- 
 *' tiochm were not their King, but an Invader, I fuppcle to be vain ; fince no 
 " where in all the Hiftory of the Maccabees, Antiochm is called by any other 
 *' Name but that of the K.i:ig ; and that defervedly, fince tlie Jcirs had long fince 
 •* acknowledged tlie Empire of tlie Mactdouians, in whofe Right Antiochiis had 
 *' fuccecded ; for that the Law forbids a Stranger to be fet over the People is 
 " only to be underftood of a voluntary Eleftion, and not of that which the People 
 *' were forced to fubmit to by a Neceffity of the Times. But what others fay, 
 ** that tht'Jews then ufed the Right ot a People, who were in tiieir own Power, is 
 *' not true. For firflof all, thc^^^-f being conquered by Nebuchadf2ez.z,ay, by the 
 ** Right of War, obeyed by the fame Right the Medes and Pc-rfiuns, as Succef- 
 " fors to the Caldeans, whofe whole Empire devolved upon the Macedonians, (with 
 ** which Juftin likcwife agrees in iiis 36th Book: ) Hence the Jeua are faid by ' 
 ** Tacitm, to liave been, during the Empire of l:he Medes and -Perfians, Vilijjhna 
 ** pars Scrvientium. Neither did they covenant any thing with Alexander, and his 
 *' Succeflors, but fubmitted themfelves to their Dominion without any Condi- 
 " tions, as they had been under that of Darim before. But if the ye-ait were 
 *' fometimes permitted to obferve their own Riglns and Laws, that was mccrly 
 ** precarious, proceeding from the Beneficence of thofe Kings, and not from any 
 *' Law fuperinduced on their Empire. Therefore there is nothing which can 
 •' defend the Maccabees in this matter, befide the moft extreme ar.d moft certain 
 *' Danger, (viz,.) as long as they fo contained themfelves within the bounds of 
 *' Self-defence ,• and that according to David's Example, they retired into defart 
 *' Places for their Security j nor took Arms until they were fet upon." So far 
 Grotim. 
 
 M. I fhall not fartlier difpute this Point, though I thought I had very good 
 Authority on my fide ; but I think I have a better Apology to make for this 
 Action of theirs, viz,. That God might very well, either by an exprefs Revela- 
 tion, or at leaft a Divine Impulfe of his Holy Spirit, command or excite 
 Maitathias, and his ^Sons the Maccabees, to take Arms in defence of tiiofc Pii\ i- 
 Icges, which had been fo often confirmed to them, 'till at laff it pleafed God 
 to rcflore the Jevjs to an abfolute Liberty for fome Years, under their own 
 Princes ; which they abuling, by Cruelty and Ambition, tyrannizing over their 
 Subjc6ts, and murdering their Brothers, it was no wonder that God was pleafed 
 to take away the Scepter from them, and confer it upon the Romans, who gave it 
 under them to Herod, the Son of Antipater, the Idiimean. And therefore you can 
 with no more Julh'ce urge this Example of the Maccabees, to prove Subjects may 
 rcfift the Supreme Powers, than to alledge the Eximplc of Jehu as an Autho- 
 rity for Rebellion : Since, as I faid before, whatfocver God is pleafed to bring 
 about by humane Means, but yet by his particular Precept or Revelation, is 
 to be flill look\I upon as an Exception from the general Rules of Non-rcfiftancc 
 and Pallive Obedience- 
 
 F. I confefs what you fay would fully anfwer my Objeftion, could you as 
 evidently make out, fiom the Hiftory of the Maccabees, or Jiifepl.w, that thcle 
 Maccabean Captains did at all aft in thofe Wars they made, by any exprefs Pre- 
 cept, or Divine Revelation from God, as without any juft (Grounds you fuppofe 
 it.^ And therefore, I dcfire you would fliew me, if you can, any Teitimony out 
 of the Books of the Maccabees, or Jofephtti, to prove that they aited tJuis by ver- 
 tue of any fuch Divine Infpiration, and then I am contented to yield the Caufe ; 
 which, if you cannot do (as I think you can't) I mull look upon my fclf as to 
 
 X have
 
 15*4 BiBLlOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 have had the better in this Controverfy, concerning the Right that Subjeds had 
 to refill, in Cafe of Neceflity, before the coming of Chrill. 
 
 M. Yet for all that, fome of the Fathers, and modern Commentators on thefe 
 Books of the Maccabees, do hold, thatTuch wonderful Vidtories, as were ob- 
 tained by 'Judas and his Brethren, could not have been without the miraculous 
 Providence of God, and confcquently a Divine Infpiration affifting them ; efpe- 
 cially confidering the flrange Judgment that we read fell upon Antiochm for his 
 Impiety ; and that Judas had oftentimes Divine Revelations, appears by that 
 Dream or Vifion, mentioned in the laft Chapter of the fecond of Maccabees ; of 
 Jeremiah the Prophet's giving him a Golden Sword, and in giving it, fpeakingthus, 
 V. i6. Take this Holy Sword, a Gift from God, with which thou Jhah wound the Adiierfaries : 
 Which Dream, if it were fent from God, as is highly probable, fufEciently con- 
 firms the commonly received Opinion, that this Reiiftance cf the Maccabees was 
 by Divine Warrant, or Infpiration : And whenever you can fliew me, fince the 
 coming of Chrift, any Reiiftance fo miraculoufly abetted as this was, I will grant 
 it alfo to be lawful. 
 
 F. I do join IlVue with you in this, and muft ftill fuppofe (until yo'i give me 
 better Evidence to the contrary) that the Jews, under the Conduct of the Mac 
 cabees, did not take up Arms againll Antiochm, and his Succeflors, by vettue of 
 any Divine Infpiration to Mattathioi, or any of his Sons : For it appears plainly, 
 as well by the Scripture, as by Jofephms Teftimonyj that there was no more 
 Divine Revelation after Malacbi; neither do the Books of the Maccabees, Jofephusy 
 Sulpitius SeveiHi, or any other antient Ecdefiaftical Writer, mention thefe Mac- 
 ' cabees as Men infpired by God. I grant, indeed, they might be excited by fome 
 divine Impulfe of God's Spirit to do what they did : But this is fo far from be- 
 ing at all miraculous, that I do fuppofe that divers great and good Men have 
 been, in our latter Times of Reformation, ftirred up by the fame Divine Spirit 
 to undertake, and perform extraordinary things, for the Reformation of Religion, 
 and the Deliverance of God's Church and People. And therefore, as for the 
 Vifton, or Dream, which you mention, it doth not appear, that it was any 
 more than an ordinary Dream ; and if this might pafs for a Proof of a Divine 
 Revelation, I could quote you many fuch Dreams as this, out of the Lives of 
 Luther, Calvin, and divers others of the firft Reformers ; whom I fuppofe you 
 will not maintain to have had any exprefs Revelation to do what they did, con- 
 trary to the Civil and Eccleliaftick Laws of thofe Princes and States under 
 which they lived. And 'tis true thefe Books are not held Canonical ; yet 
 they were always efteemed in the Church as facred Writing, as written, the' 
 not by infpired, yet by pious Men : And though they are not received iu mat- 
 ters of Faith and Dofcrine, yet you know very well th^ are commanded to be 
 read in our Churches, as containing excellent Precepts, and Exam;/!cs in mat- 
 ters of Morality ; and though therefore, though perhaps they would not be a 
 good Authority to a Presbyterian, yet, I hope, we of the Church of England can- 
 not refufe them as Rules of Morality. But I think we are now come to the 
 laft Inftances that can be brought before the coming of Clirift ; and therefore 
 pray will you now proceed with your Qiiotations out of the New Teltariient, 
 which, I fuppofe, you have ready for me. 
 
 M. I confefs I am not able, in a Story fo imperfedly related as this of the 
 Maccabees, to prove they had God's exprefs Warrant for this Refiftance ,• and you, 
 on the other fide, produce but a negative Argument, that they had not (viz..) 
 becaufe neither Jofcphm, nor the Book of the Maccabees exprefly mention any fuch 
 thing : And yet for all that Mattathias might, (for ought that you, or I know) 
 have afted in this matter by Divine Revelation ; fince, as the Rabbins fuppofe, 
 there was for a long time after the Times of the Prophets, a lower fort of Re- 
 velation given by God to lorae particular Men called Batcol, that is, the Daughter 
 of the Voice, which ieems to have been fome private or inward Voice, by which 
 God revealed his Will in fome particular Cafes, And we read that long after 
 this, Jofephus relates, that Hircanus, the laft good High-Prieft of the Maccabean 
 Race, had the Gift of Prophecy by Divine Revelation : And why his great Grand- 
 father might not have it likewife, I fee no Reafon. Befides all this, there might 
 be other Rcafons that God might allow to the People of the Jnus a greater Li- 
 berty of Reiiftance, even without Civil Autliority, to revenge the Prophanation 
 
 of
 
 Dialogue the Third, ic-c^ 
 
 of his Temple, and Religion, being the Place where he was pleafed particularly 
 to place his Name, than arc allowed to us Chriftians at this Day, who have * 
 
 no fuch viiible Temple, nor are under fuch fevcrc Obligations to extirpate Ido- 
 latry. So that what Mattathia.fy and the People of the Jexus afted in this matter 
 they might do it .by the Right of Zealots, for the defence of the Law of Mofes-y 
 even as Phiiieas did, who, by killing Zimri and CosLi for Fornication and Idola- 
 try, did ihat which in another occafion, and at another time, would have been 
 downright Murder. 
 
 But be it as it will, I think we Chrifiiaiis are by the Laws of the Gofpel tied 
 to a ftrictcr Subjcftion to the Supreme Powers, (if it be pofTible) than Che Je-j:s 
 thcmfelves were ; and whatfoever they might have done under Antiochus for their 
 own Defence, and to avoid Perfecution, yet Jefus Chriil doth now require higher 
 things of us ; and hath by his own E.\ample, as well as Precept, forbidden us 
 to rejifi the Supreme Powers for any Perfecution for Religion whatfoever ; fince 
 he hath ordained his Religion to be propagated, and defended by Sufferings 
 and Perfualions, and not by force of Arms, againft the Will of the Supreme 
 Powers ,• and if not for Religion, the moft weighty of all Concerns, furcly not 
 for any temporal thing whatfoever. But the Proof of this requires more time 
 than this Evening will afford, without trefpafllng too much upon your, as well 
 as my own Repofe. And therefore, I fiiould be glad of another Evening's Con- 
 verfation with you, to free your Mind, if it were poflible, from this dangeroui 
 Error, and to bring you over to the true Belief, and Practice of the Primitive 
 Chriilians, and of our Mother, the Church of England, who treads exadly in 
 their Steps. 
 
 F. I humbly thank you for your great Kindnefs to me, and the Pains you have 
 taken ; as alfo for what you intend to take for the better Information of my Con- 
 fcience. And therefore, if you pleafe, and that you have no other occafion to 
 draw you forth out of your Lodgings, I will wait upoa you' again to-morrow 
 in the Evening about Seven j and fliall think it a vgry proper Work for the 
 Lord's Day, to have my Confcience better informed by thofe Teftimonies, Which 
 you fay you will bring out of the New Teibment, and Writings of the Pri- 
 mitive Fathers, and Church Hiftorians, for my Inflruftion : And if you can out 
 of them prove to me, that ail Reffiame -whatever is unlavcful, I promife you, upon 
 the Word of an honclt Man, to become a Profelite to this Dodrine.' 
 
 A/. I humbly thank you. Sir, for your great Candour and Ingenuity : ' And 
 though I am no profcfs'd Divine, yet I hope, by the help of the Scripture, and 
 thofe Quotations that I can produce out of the Fathers, as alfo from the con- 
 flant Pradtice of the Primitive Church, to prove thefe Doftrines of Paflive Obe- 
 dience and Non-refiftance to be the true, antient and apoftolical Belief But 
 it is now late, and I will not trouble you any longer to-night, therefore fhall 
 take my leave of you. And fo. Sir, your humble Servant. 
 
 F. Dear Sir, good Night j yours moil heartily. Well, to-morrow I will wait 
 upon you, as I appointed. 
 M. Pray be fure to come at your Hour ; for I'll exped you. 
 
 X a ®fb!(0'
 
 156 
 
 215it)Uot]^eca ^olttica 
 
 D I A L O G U E IV. 
 
 Whether Ahfolute Non-re fiflance of the Su- 
 preme PoToers be enjoined by the DoBrine 
 of the Gofpely and "was the anttent PraBice 
 of the Primithe Church, and the confiant 
 DoBrine of our Reformed Church of Eng- 
 land. 
 
 \ 
 
 S.C.R.ch 
 P-43- 
 
 Ih'ti, 44. 
 AUtt. 5. 
 
 I?' 
 
 ^■C i^-^ ^'**'i ^■(t '^'i ^'1 ^-i ^'i 
 
 e i%-i&XQ&Si B 
 
 as Civil Knowledge. 
 
 M.mmmMm§ our Semnt, Sir : I fee you are better than your Word, 
 T^ 05X5OC<jX5Q p fince you come fomewhat before the time appointed. 
 
 F. I do not deferve any great Commendation for it ; 
 for this Evening being a time of leifure, I Jiad nothing 
 elfe to do but to wait on you : And indeed I was impatient 
 'till I was with you ; fince I defire nothing more, than to 
 receive Satisfaftion in this weighty Controverfy ; fince I 
 know how great a Mafter you are both in Divine, as well 
 And therefore, I befeech you to proceed in the Method 
 I at iirft propofed, by giving me thefe places of Scripture out of the New Tef- 
 tament, which you fuppofe, prove your Doftrine ; and in the next place fliew 
 me, that they were always underllood by the antient Fathers, as well as the 
 Pradice of the whole Primitive Church, in that Senle. 
 
 M. I very well approve of your Method ; and therefore, to go on where we 
 left 0$, I Ihall, in the firft Place, lay down fome plain, and eafy Propofitions, as 
 the Grounds of our future Difcourfe, which, I hope, you will have no Reafonto 
 deny. 
 
 Firft therefore, I fuppofe, that our Saviour's Kingdom not being of this 
 World, he came not to alter the Civil Government or Polity of it, (as you have 
 already aflerted.) And therefore did not alter any of thofc Rights of Sovereign 
 Powers, and thofe Meafures of Obedience and Subjediion which were before 
 fixed and determined by God himfelf: Neither hath given the People (either 
 ■ confidered as particular Men, or as a collective Body) any Power or Right to 
 relift, or rebel againft fuch Supreme Magiftratcs, though they never fo much 
 abiife their Power, by their t)rannical Government, either by perfccuting the 
 true Religion, or by any other Violences and Opprellions whatfocver. 
 
 And our Saviour himfelf tells us. That he came not to de/lroy the Law, and tlx 
 Prophet r, hut to fulf I it ;' that ifi, to fulfil the antient Types and Prophecies in his 
 own Pcrfon, to perfeft an External and Ceremonial, by a Real and Evangelical 
 Righteoufnefe ; to perfeft the moral Laws with new Inflances and Degrees of 
 
 Virtue
 
 Dialogue the Fourth, 197 
 
 Virtue and Obedience i but he abrogated no moral Law, and therefore not 
 the Laws of Obedience and Subjcdion to Princes, which have ahvays been 
 reduced to the Fifth Commandment. Pray tell me how you approve of this 
 J)o<ftrine ? 
 
 /^ I do readily agree to the grcateft part of it ; but yet as our Saviour hath 
 not been pleafed exprcfly to enjoin us to refill the Supreme Powers, when they 
 manifeftly break and tranfgrefs all the Ends of Civil Government, and confc- 
 quently tliilolve it ; fo on the, other fide, he came not to deflroy tliofe natural 
 Rights, which Mankind enjoyed before his coming, of defending thcmfelves; 
 and providing for their own Happine/s and Security, when their Civil Gover- 
 nors either could not, or would not protect them. And as I grant, that our 
 Saviour made no Alteration in Civil Governments, by abridging the Rights of 
 Sovereign Powers fo likewife hath he not conferred upon them any new Rights 
 or Prerogatives of Jf/?/q)/ffg, or enjlwjing their Subjeths, without any Contradic- 
 tion or Refiftance \ and confequently hath altered nothing in thofe natural Rights, 
 or Means which the People had before his coming, of Ju'ndering the Supreme 
 Powers from perverting thofe main Ends of Government, the Happinefs and Prc- 
 fervation of the People. And that this Liberty doih not any way deflroy thofe 
 Rights or Prerogatives which are neceflary for their own Security, and the well- ' 
 
 governing of thpir People, I have, I think, fufEciently proved in our lafl, Conver- 
 fation. So that, luilels you can now fhew me, by luch exprefs Authorities, as 
 that I can have no reafonable ground to deny it, I hope you will pardon me, if 
 I cannot believe, that Chrift by his coming into the World has taken away; or 
 abridged that natural Right which Mankind before enjoyed (even after the In- 
 ftitution ot Civil Government) of Refillance or Self-defence, in Cafes of Extremity, * 
 
 againft thofe who exercife nothing of that Supreme Power, with which God 
 hath invelT:ed them, but the meet Title. For had the Intent of our Saviour's 
 coming been for this End, he had, inllead of freeing us from the Yoke of the Law, 
 laid a much heavier upon our Necks, if the Doftrines of Paffive Obedience and 
 Ron-reliflance are to be taken in that large Senfe, and unlimited Extent, that 
 their Aflerters have been pleafed to give them. So that though I grant our Sa- 
 viour came to perfefl, and not to abrogate the moral Law, with new Inflances 
 of Virtue and Obedience, and tlierefore hath not abrogated any Laws of Obe- 
 dience and SiibjeAion to Princes ; fo hath lie neither abrogated the great Law of 
 Nature, of Self-defence in the People, when they are univerfally afl'auited, or 
 opprcfs'd in their Lives, Liberties or Properties. 
 
 And tho' I grant Obedience to Princes hath been reduced to the Fifth Com- 
 mandment j yet neitiier doth that, by commanding us to honour our Father and 
 Mother, forbid all Refiftance of Children to the violent and unreafonable A(5tions 
 of their Parents, much Icfs of thofe whom they may command, or fct on to kill 
 or ruin us, as I have, I think, fufEciently proved at our firit Conference. And 
 therefore, I pray, proceed to your Proofs themfelves, and fhew me, that they 
 prove as much as you have affirmed. 
 
 M. Before I come to my Proofs, I pray give me leave to obferve to you, by 
 way of Introduction, tliat as our Saviour hath left the Government of the World 
 as he found it, fo he hath, befides all this, gi\'en fuch admirable Laws, as will 
 both teach Princes to govern, and Subjects to obey better, which is the mofl ef-^.C. /?. p4iJ. 
 feftual way to fecure the publick Peace and Happinefs, to prevent the Oppref- ^ 
 
 fion of Subjefts, and Rebellion againft Princes : lint hehasnotinterpofed in new 
 modelling the Governments of the World, which is not of fuch Confequence as 
 fome Men imagine. It is not the external Form of Government, but the fatherly 
 Care, Prudence and Jufticc of Governors, with the dutiful Obedience of Sub- 
 jefts, which can make any People happy. If Pnnces and Subjects prove good 
 Chriflians, they may be happy under moft forms of Government ; if they be 
 not, they can be fo under none. Had our Saviour given Subjects Liberty to re- 
 (ift, to depofe, to murder tyrannical Princes, he had done them no kindnefs at 
 all : For to givc'Liberty to Subje(5ts to refill, is only to proclaim an univerfal 
 Licence to Faftions and Seditions, and Civil Wars : And ii any Man can think 
 this fuch a mighty BlefTmg to the World, yet methinks it is not a Blefling proper 
 for the Prince of Peace to give. 
 
 But he who inftrufts Princes to rule as God's Minifters and Vicegerents, and 
 to exprefs a fatherly Care and Concern for the Happinefs of their Sibjects, and 
 
 that
 
 198 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 Uid. p. 47- that teaches Subj'efts to reverence and obey their Prince as the Image of God, and 
 quietly to fiibmit, and yield to his Authority, and that inforces thefe Laws both 
 on Princes and Subjeds in the Name and Authority ot" God ; and from the Con- 
 lideration of the future Judgment, when Princes, who abufe their Power, fliall 
 give an account of it to their great Mafter, and when Subjefts who refift, (hall 
 receive to themfclves Damnation ; and thofe who patiently fuft'er for God's fake 
 fhall have their Injuries redrefs'd, and their Obedience rewarded : I fay, fuch 
 a Perfon as this, takes a more efteftual Courfe to reform the Abufes of Civil 
 Power, and to preferve good Government in the World, than all your wife Poli- 
 Ibld. p. 47. ticians, and State-menders, who think to reform the Government of the World by 
 fome State-fpells and Charms, without reforming thofe who govern, and thofe 
 who are governed. This our Saviour hath done, and this is the befi: thing that could 
 Rid. p. 48. be done ; nay, this was all that he could do in this Matter. He never ufurp'd 
 any Civil Power and Authority, and therefore could not new model the Govern- 
 ments of the World : He never ofters any external Force and Compulfion to make 
 Men obey his Laws, and therefore never forces Princes to rule well, nor Sub- 
 it&.s to obey. But he has taken the fame care of the Government of the World, 
 as he has done of the other Duties of Piety and Virtue, that is, he has given 
 very good Laws, and threatned thofe who break them with eternal Punilh- 
 ments ; and as the Laws and Religion of our Saviour prevail, fo will the Go- 
 vernments of the World mend without altering the Model and Conftitution 
 of them : But I come now to thofe places of Scripture I have to urge againft 
 your Opinion. 
 
 F. I pray. Sir, pardon me, if I interrupt you ; and beg leave to make fome 
 Remarks upon this Preface you have now made. I will not deny, but you have 
 fpoken fome honeft Truths in what you have now faid, though not without a 
 Mixture of divers Miftakes : For though I grant that Jefus Chrifl: hath not 
 interpofcd in new modelling the Governments of the World, fo he hath likewife 
 given Princes no Authority to alter thofe which they find ready made, and mo- 
 delled to their Hands, in thofe Countries wherein God hath placed them at the 
 Helm. And though you tell me thofe Models of Government are not of fuch 
 confequence as fome Men imagine, yet I hope you ought to have a better Opi- 
 nion of this oi England; fince it is only to this Frame of Government, that you'll 
 own we owe all our Freedom and Happinefs above divers other Nations, our 
 Neighbours : Since, if it were not for our Laws, and Original Conftitutions to 
 the contrary, I do not fee why we may not be made as abfolute Slaves as any 
 in Turkey, whenever the King pleafes. I grant indeed, that it is the fatherly Care, 
 Prudence, and Juftice of Governors that can make any People happy : But I de- 
 fire you to fhew me how many Governments there are in the World where 
 Princes exercife this fatherly Care as they ought, without any known Laws ; or 
 where Subjeds exprefs a dutiful Love and Obedience to their Governors (unlefs 
 fervile Fear muft be called fo) whilft they find themfelves miferable Slaves and 
 Beggars. 
 
 I alfo yield, that if Princes and Subjefts are good Chriftians, they may be 
 happy under moft forms of Government ; and if not, they can be happy under 
 none* is true in thisSenfe, if you take Happinefs for the Hopes of a future Life: 
 But otherwife there have been divers Princes who have been very good Chris- 
 tians, and yet by carelefnefs of their Aftairs have governed their Subjefts very 
 ill : And likewife, I know fome Subjefts, who have been very loyal to their 
 Prince, and very good Chriftians, and yet have been made very miferable i as 
 Witnefs the Proteftants in Hungary and France. 
 
 But as I do not fuppofe, that our Saviour hath given Subjefts Liberty to 
 refill tyrannical Princes upon every flight Occafion, much lefs to depofe or murder 
 them ; yet will it not follow, that if he hath given Liberty to Subjects to refift 
 in fome Cafes, it would only ferve to proclaim an univerfal Licence to Se- 
 ditions, and Civil Wars : Since I do not fuppofe fuch Wars to be lawful, but 
 when the People are in as miferable Condition as a State of War can bring them 
 to : And if our Saviour had not allowed them this Power, no rational Man 
 would think it a Blefling proper for the Prinqe of Peace to give, or to come 
 into the World to introduce Slavery, and the arbitrary Power of the Sword. 
 
 Though I grant he infirufts Princes to rule as God's Minillers and Vicegerents, 
 and to exprefs a fatherly Care and Concern for the Happinefs of their Subjefts ; 
 
 and
 
 Dialogue the Fourth. l^^ 
 
 and that he likcwife teaches Subjeds to obey their Princes : Yet you know too 
 well, how fcldom tlicfc Inftriiftions have all thofe good Eftcfts either with the 
 Princes, cr People- And therefore, as on the People's fide, befides thofe Obliga- 
 tions of Confciencc you fpeak of, there are likewife ordained temporal Punifli- 
 ments to keep Subjects to their Duty ; fo likewife there is often need of fomething 
 elfe befides meer Confcience and Honour, to keep Princes from tyrannizing over 
 their Subjeds. 
 
 And though I fuppofc the Confideration of a future Judgment may go a great 
 way with fome Princes, to make them perform that great TrnfL God hath given 
 them ; yet pray tell me, have you not read (if not known) fome Princes in the 
 World of late Times, who liavc either believed no fuch thing as eternal Damna- 
 tion, orat leaftiuvefound a way by niceDiftinftions, or Equivocations, to evade 
 all Laws, Oaths, and Promifes whatfoevcr ? And what Satisfaction is it to me, 
 or how doth it fjrve to alleviate my Mifery, when I am made a SIavL% and a Beg- 
 gar, that thofe that had the Rule over me will be damned for io dojng? But you 
 tell me, that I muft quietly and patiently fufter this for God's fake, and that then 
 we fliall have our Injuries redrcfs'd, and Obedience rewarded. I grant indeed 
 that a fingle Perfon may be rewarded in this kind, for preferring the Commou 
 jQooA or Quiet of the Nation before his own Private Interefl; : But that whole 
 Kations, and Bodies of People, are obliged by the like Rule, I utterly deny, fincc 
 I do not find where our Saviour either enjoins or requires fuch an abfolute Sub- 
 jeftion at their hands i and if he doth not, it is no better than Will-worfliip to 
 pay it, and therefore it ftill lies upon you to prove it to me. 
 
 To conclude; I think it may be a more eft'cdnal Courfe, to preferve the main 
 Ends of Government, for the People fometimes to refifl the infupponable T'yyanny 
 and Violence of the Supreme Powers in thofe Cafes of Extremity I have already 
 put, than to let thofe, who have got the Power over us in their hands, do what- 
 foevcr they pleafe with it, to our Ruin, without any controul. And alfo, I defire 
 you to confider, whether the Fear of fucii Refiftance from Siibjeds, when thus 
 outraged and opprefs'd, may not often be a more powerful State-fpell or Charm 
 Cas you call it) to keep the Supreme Powers in their Duty, than thofe many 
 Sermons, and other Difcourfes that have been lately preach'd and publifh'd, that 
 their Pcmer is mcjijitble ; and that therefore, all their Subjefts are bound to endure 
 whatfoevcr Tyranny they have a mind to exercife upon them. In fliort, I ab- 
 folutely agree with you, that as our Saviour never ufurp'd any Civil Power, or 
 Authority, and therefore did not new model the Governments of the World ; fo 
 hath he alio left Subjcds a Right- to maintain whatfoevcr Models, or Forms of 
 Government, God hath been pleafed to eftablifli among them, when they are in 
 danger to be altered, or invaded, either by a Domeftick Tyranny, or Foreign 
 Force. And without this Right of Refiflance, for you to tell us, "That Jefm 
 Chrifl hath given very good LaiuSy and threatned thofe that break them with eternal 
 Piinifiments ; and that cu the Laws, and Religion of our Saviour prevail, that fo the 
 Government of the World vjill mend uitlmit any more ado ; is altogether as reafonable, 
 as to preach, that becaufe Chrift hatli given us good Laws, and threatens ever- 
 lafting Punifhmcnts to tliofe that break them, therefore they are fufficient to keep 
 Men from robbing and murdering their Neighbours ; and that all Men giving up 
 their Natural Rights of reiifting fuch Robbers, and defending themfelves^gainfl: 
 them, fhould wholly rely upon the Efficacy of the Commandment againfl'Steal-' 
 ing, or elfe on tiic more powerful Motive with fuch People, of ajudge, and a Gal* 
 lows, fliould let them do with us what they plealc, whenever we fall under their 
 Power : And therefore, I delirc you would give me fome better Proofs, that our 
 Saviour hath enjoined all Mankiiul an abfolute Subjection to the Supreme Pow- ' 
 ers under pain of Damnation, without any Refiftance in any Cafe whatfoeyer : 
 But I pray pardon this Digreffion, which your own long Preface extorted from 
 me. 
 
 M. I fhall not further difputc this matter with you ; and therefore to obferve 
 your Commands, I {hall begin with that Divine Anfwer of our Saviour to the 
 Pharifees and Herodians, when they confulted together to entangle him in his Talk. 
 They came to him with great Ceremony and Addrefs, faying, Mafler, ixe know S.C.P.*.^9- 
 that thou art true, and teachefi the IVay of God in Truth, neither carejt thou for any ''!b "' 
 Man ; for thou regardefl not the Pafun of Men. 'tell rn therefore, what thinkeft thu ? ' 
 
 It
 
 1^0 BiBLlOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 Is it lawful to give Tribute to Cafar, or not? They thought it impoflible that 
 he fhould give any Anfwer to this, which would not make him obnoxious either 
 to the Roman Emperors, if he denied that the Jews might lawfully pay Tribute 
 to C^f'ti; or to the Pharifees, and People, if he affirmed that they might ; for 
 there was a very potent Fadiion among them, who thought it unlawful for the 
 Jews to own the Authority, or Ufurpations of any Foreign Prince, or to pay 
 •Deut. 17. 15- Tribute to him as to their King, they being expreiiy forbidden by the Law, ta 
 II. /•. jc. fct a Strange) over them for their King, who was not their Brother, that is, who 
 was not a natural Jew. And it Teems they could not diilinguifli between their 
 own voluntary Ad in chufing a Stranger for their King ( which was indeed for- 
 bid by their Law) and their fubraitting to a Foreign Prince, when they were 
 conquered by him. Our Saviour, who knew rhcir wicked Intention in all this, 
 that they did not come with an honeft Delign to be inftrufted in their Duty, but 
 to feek ati Advantage againft him, exprefles fome Indignation at it, fp7}y tempt ye 
 me, ye Hypocrites ? But yet to return them an Anfwer to their Qiieftion, he bids 
 them Ihew him the Tribute Money , that is , the Money in which they us'd to 
 pay Tribute, and enquired, whofc Image and Superfcription it had. For Coining 
 of Money was then as certain a Mark of Soveraignty, as making Laws, or the 
 Power of the Sword. Well, they acknowledge that the Image and Superfcrip- 
 tion on the Tribute Money was Cafar's ; upon which, he replies. Render there^ 
 fore unto Cxfar, the things that are Cx fir's ; and unto God, the things that are God's, 
 The plain meaning of which Anfwer is this ; that iince by the very Impreflion on 
 their Money, it is evident, that Cafar is the Soveraign Lord, they muft render 
 unto him all the Rights of Soveraignty ,- among which. Tribute is one, as St. 
 II. /•. 51. Paul tells us : Render therefore unto all their Dues, 'Tribute to ■vchom Tribute it due, Cuf 
 Rom. 13.7. torn to vchom Cufiom, Fear to -whom Fear, Honour to -whom Honour. Whatever then is 
 due to Soveraign Princes , and doth not interfere with their Duty to God , that 
 they muft give to Cafar, who at this time was their Soveraign. 
 
 And though our Saviour commands us, only in general, to render to Csfar the 
 things that are CsfarV, without telling us, what Cafar's things are ,• this is fo far 
 from making his Anfwer ambiguous, and of no ufe in this prefent Controverfv, 
 that it fuggefts to us three plain and natural Confequences, which are fufficient 
 to end tliis whole Difpute. Firfl, Thar our Saviour did not intend to make any 
 Alteration in the Rights of Soveraignty ; but what Rights he found Soveraign 
 Princes polTcfs'd of, he leaves them in the quiet Pofleflion of; for had he intended 
 to make any Ciiange in this matter, he would not have given fuch a general Rule, 
 to render to Cxfar the things that are CxfarV, without fpecifying what thefe things 
 S.C.R. p. 56. are. Secondly, And therefore he leaves them to the known Laws of the Empire, 
 to determine what is Cafar's Right ; that is, whatever is eflential to the Notion 
 of Soveraign Power, whatever the Laws and Cuftoms of Nations determine to 
 be Cafar's Right, that they muft render to him ; for he would make no alteration 
 in this matter. So that Subjeftion to Princes, and Non-refiftance, is as plainly 
 determin'd by our Saviour in this Law of paying Tribute ; for Subjeftion, and 
 Non-reliftance, are as elTcntial a Right of Soveraign Power, and as infeparable 
 from the Notion of it , as any thing can be ,• and fo it is acknowledged by the 
 Laws and Cuftoms of Nations, and is fo determin'd by the Apoftle St. Paul, as I 
 Ihall fliew hereafter. Thirdly, I obferve farther, that when our Saviour joins our 
 Duty to our Prince with our Duty to our God, Render to Csefar the things that are 
 Csfar'j, and to God the things that are God's, he excepts nothing from Cafar's Right, 
 which by the Laws of Nations is due to Soveraign Princes, but what is a Vio- 
 lation of, and an Encroachment on God's Right and Soveraignty ; that is, we 
 Tb. f. 57. muft pay all that Obedience and Subjeftion to Princes, which is confiftent with 
 our Duty to God. This is the only Limit our Saviour fets to our Duty to Prin- 
 ces. This, I hope, is fufficient for the Explication of our Saviour's Anfwer to 
 the Pharrfees and Herodians, which evidently contains the Doftrine of Obedience 
 and Subjection to Princes, cnforc'd on us by the Authority of our Saviour him- 
 fclf. 
 
 F. I fnall not difpute, tliat this Inftance of our Saviour did enjoin xhejews to 
 pay Tribute, and render all thofe Rights and Dues to Cafar , as the Supreme 
 Power , which are necelfary to its Eflence : But you feem to me to ftretch this 
 Prerogative a great deal too far, when you thus fuppofe an abfolute Subjection to 
 
 Princes,
 
 Dialogue the Fourth. \6\ 
 
 Princes, without any RcMancc, to be as plainly cnjoin'd by our Saviour in. this 
 Law, as paying Tribute. For the Rcafoii you give for it, viz.. that SubjeSlion, 
 and Non-,ef fiance, are as ejfmial a Right vf Soveraign Power, and cu itifeparaLle Jrom 
 the Notion of it, as any can be, and that it is fo aclmxdedged by the Laws and Cttfionis of 
 Nations, is the thing which I deny, and which having been the SubjccSt of our Jail 
 Converfation , is ftill to be proved : And 1 tliink I have there fufficiently prov'd, 
 that abfoluce Non-rcfiftance is no ellential Right of Soveraign Power, nor infepa- 
 rable from the Notion of it : Since by alfcrting it , no juft Right of Soveraign 
 Power will be thereby dc/lroyed, or taken away, but rather confirm 'd. And that 
 I may make it out yet plainer by a familiar Inftance : A General of an Army 
 hath an abfolute Power over the Lives of his Soldiers that tranfgrcfs his Rules of 
 War, or Military Difcipline : But fuppofc that in a mad or drunken Fit he fliould 
 command fome Troops of his Guards to cut the' Throats of all the reft of the 
 Army, and they fhould be fuch obedient Coxcombs as to go about to put this 
 Order in Execution , doth it therefore derogate from the Abfolutenefs of his 
 Power as General, if the Army will not ftand Itill, and let three or four hundred 
 Fellows take away all thcijr Lives ? But tiiat this Principle of Pajjlve Obedience in 
 your Sen/e, of fuffcring Princes, or other Supreme Powers, to deftroy or enfiave 
 them, is fo far from being acknowledged by the Laws and Cuftoms of all Nations, 
 that, as I think I ha\ e proved it to be contrary to the Laws of Nature and Rea- 
 fon ; fo I doubt not but I can much eaiier make it put by the Laws and Cuftoms 
 of all Nations, as well barbarous as civiliz'd , to be both unrcafonable and ira- 
 prafticable. And that it is otherwifc determin'd by St. Paul, 1 defire you to prove 
 to me, when you come tO; make ufe of the 15 th to the Romans, fo much inlifted 
 upop by thofc of your Opinion. 
 
 But before I make an end witli this Text we arc now upon, I cannot but take 
 notice of your laft Aflertion, That by rendring to Cxfar the things -which are CarfarV, 
 God excepts nothing from Ca'far'j Right, which by the Laws of Nations is due to Soveraign. 
 Princes, but what is a Violation of, and Encroachment on God's Right and Soveraigmy ; 
 that is, we mufi pay all that Obedience and SubjeElion to Princes, which is conjifient with oar 
 Duty to God. , Now if this be the only Limit that our Saviour fits to our Duty to Princes 
 (cuyoufuppofe) I wonder by what Law the Learned Do[tor,from whom you borrow this Prin- 
 ciple, cu alfo thofe other Clergymen of the Church of England, could jufiify their reftiftng to 
 read the King's late Proclamation of Indulgence, or Toleration : For if the King {as they own 
 in the Oath of Supremacy) is the only Supreme Governor of his Do?7iinions, in all Ihings, 
 or Caufes whatfiever ; he muft likewife be the Cafar here meant in this Textj and 
 confequently an Active, not PalTive Obedience, ought to have been paid to this 
 Declaration. Since you fay, that Obedience is by the Law of Nations due to 
 Soveraign Princes, to whom we muft pay all that Obedience and SubjVdion 
 which is conliftent with our Duty to God ,• and I hope you will not fay, that this 
 Declaration was inconliftent with that Duty, or was any Violation or Encroach- 
 ment upon God's Rights of Sovcraignty. 
 
 M. As for your laft Obfcrvation upon thofe Clergymen who refufed to read the 
 Declaration, I muft confcfs, I have, according to my Civil Law Maxims, noEx- 
 cufe ready for them ; fince with us it is always true, in this as well as other abfo- 
 lute Monarchies, Qiiicquid Rtgi placuit, Legis habet Vigorem. Much lefs can I re- 
 concile it with that unbounded Supremacy which tlie Oatii of Allegiance, as alfo 
 the Opinions of moft modern Judges, have placed in the King in all Ecclefiaftical 
 Matters : But indeed, I can leaft of ail reconcile it with this Aflertion you now 
 mention ; which, I confefs, I have taken from divers Sermons and Treatifcs, that 
 have been Prcach'd and Punted of late by our City Divines ; to wJiom I Ihall 
 leave it to anfwer this Objeftion. But to proceed with the Deiign in hand, I fliall S.C.R.p. J7. 
 come in the next place to prove an abfolute Subjcftion, without Refiftance,, to be 
 due to the Soveraign Power, from our Saviour's Rebuke to St. Peter, when he 
 drew his Sword, and ftruek a Servant of the High-Prieft, and fmote off his Ear ; 
 which is as plain a Declaration againft Refiftance, as Words can make it : TTjen Mit- iff- r- 
 faid Jefm unto hint, put up thy Sword unto his place ; for all they that take the Sword, jhatl 
 pertjh by the Sword. For the underftanding of which, we muft conlider upon what 
 occafion St. Peter drew his Sword ; for we muft not tlnnk tliat our Saviour doth 
 abfolutely forbid the ufe of the Sword ; which is to' deftroy all Civil Governments, Ir- p- '''>• 
 and the Power of Princes, and to proclaun Lnpunity to all the Villanics that 
 
 Y ar<:
 
 l6Z BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 are committed in the World. The Sword is neceflary to punifh Wickednefs, and 
 to protect the Innocent : Even in the Hands of Princes it is an Inftrument of Juf- 
 Rom. 13. 4- tice, as St. Paul tells us : That they bear not the Sword in vain ; liit are the Mi- 
 nifters of God, Revengers to execute Wrath ztpon him that doth Evil. In tlie Hands of 
 private Perfons it maybe lawfully ufed in Self-defence : Thus our Saviour, a little 
 before his Crucifixion, gave Commiffion to his Difciplcs to funufli themfelves 
 Luke 22. 16. with Swords, though they parted with their Garments for the Piirchafe. Which 
 we fuppofe was not defigned as a meer modifh, and fafliionable thing, but to de- 
 fend themfelves from the private Aflaults of Robbers, and fuch like common 
 Enemies, who, as Jofephpn tells us, were very numerous at that time : For no 
 Ibid. p. 59. Man ivanteth Authority to defend his Life againfl him, -who hath no Authority to take it 
 away. 
 
 But the Cafe of St. Peter was very different : He drew his Sword indeed in his 
 Mafter^s Defence , but againft a lawful Authority. The Officers of the Chief 
 Priefls and Pharifces, came with Judai to the Place where Jefus was, to feizc on 
 him. This was a lawful Authority, tho' employed upon a very unjuft Errand ; 
 but Authority muft not be refilled, tho' in defence of the greateft Innocence. 
 Men who draw their Swords againft lawful Powers, fhall perifli with the Sword j 
 which doth not figiiify what the Event fhall always be, but what is the Defert 
 and Merit of the Adion. Rebels may fometimes be profperous, but they always 
 deferve Puniihment ; and if they efcape the Sword in this World, St. Paul tells 
 us, they fliall receive Damnation in the next. What can be faid mote exprefly 
 ■*. p. 59, (?o. againft Refiftancc than this ? St. Peter never could have drawn his Sword in a 
 better Caufe, never in the Defence of a more facred Perfon : If we may defbnd 
 opprcfled Innocence againft a lawful Authority, if we may oppofe unjuft and il- 
 legal Violence, if any Obligations of Friendfhip, Gratitude, or Religion icfelf, 
 could juftify Refiftance, St. Peter had not met with this Rebuke. But though it 
 was a very unjuft Aftion, yet it was done by a juft Authority ; and lawful Pow- 
 ers muft not be refifted, though it were in defence of the Saviour of the World : 
 And if St. Peter might not ufe the Sword in defence of Chrift's Perfon, there is 
 much lefs pretence to fight for his Religion i for though fome call this fightirtg 
 for Religion, it is only fighting for themfelves. Men may keep their Religion if 
 they pleafe, in defpite of earthly Powers ; and therefore no, Powers can hurt Rc-> 
 ligion, though they may perfecute the Profeffors of it : And therefore when Men 
 take up Arms to avoid Perfecution, it is not in defence of Religion, but of them- 
 felves J that is, to avoid their fuffering for Religion. And if St. Peter might hot 
 fight to preferve Chrift himfelf, certainly neither he , nor we, ought to take up 
 Arms to defend ourfelves from Perfecution. Chrift was the firft Martyr for his 
 own Religion ; his Perfon was infinitely more facred and inviolable, than any one 
 of us can pretend to be. And if St. Peter muft not fight for Chrift, certainly we 
 muft not fight for ourfelves, though we abfurdly enough call it fighting for our 
 Religion. And who were thefe Powers St. Peter refifted ? They were only the 
 Servants and Officers of the High-Prieft. The High-Prieft did not appear there 
 lb. p. 6z. himfelf, much lefs Pilate, much lefs Ca:far ; and yet our Saviour rebukes St. Peter 
 for refifting the inferior Officers , though they offered the moft unjaft and illegal 
 Violence. It feems he did not underftand our modern Diftirdions between the 
 Perfon, and the Authority of the Prince ; that though his Perfon be facred, and 
 muft not be touched, yet his Minifters, who aft by his Authority, may be op- 
 posed. We may fight his Navies, and demolifh his Garrifons, and kill his Sub- 
 ]t&.s, who fight tor him, though we muft not touch his Perfon, But he is a mock 
 Prince, whofe Authority is confin'd to his own Perfon, who can do nothing more 
 than what he can do with his two Hands ; which cannot anfwer the ends of Go- 
 vernment. A Prince is not meerly a Natural, but a Political Perfon, and hisPer- 
 fonal Authority reaches as far as his Commiflion doth. His Officers and Mini- 
 fters of State, and Commanders and Soldiers, are his Ends, and Eyes, and Ears, 
 and Legs ; and he who refifteth thofe who aft by his Commiflion , may as pro- 
 perly be faid to refift the Perfonal Authority of the Prince, as if he himfelf were 
 prelent in his Natural Perfon, as well as by his Authority. Thus our Saviour ic 
 feems thought, when lie rebuk'd St, Peter for ftriking a Servant of the High Prieft, 
 4nd fmitjng oft' his Ear. 
 
 F. la
 
 Dialogue the Fourth. 1^3 
 
 F- In anfv^'cr to this Place, whicli you lia\c now brought to prove, that the Re- 
 f fiance that St. Peter would have made on our Saviour's belalf, was abfolutcly un- 
 lawful, I fliall nor infift, as fome do, that Ciirift came into the World on purpofc 
 to be a Sacrifice tor Sin, and that therefore it was incoiififtent with his Delign, 
 and the Perfon he undertook, to re/ift and oppofe, had it been never fo lawful to 
 refift : Tho' our Saviour nimfclf, by the Words which St. "John relates him to have J""" i3. xi, 
 Ipoken to St. Peter, fcems to favour this Interpretation, when, after he had bid 
 him put his Sword into tlic Scabbard, lie adds, T^/je Cup u7j«7j my Futher bath ghen 
 me, Jl^all I not drtnk it ? And fo likewife the Anfwer h£ gave Pilate, who asked 
 him whether he was a King } T'honfayeft that I am a King ; to this end ivn^ I bom, John iS. 37. 
 and for this cnufe came I into the World, that Ifiould bear uitneft unto the 'truth. Nor 
 yet fliall I go about to interpret thefe Words, Fur they that take the S~<i:ordjhall perijh 
 by the Sxmd, in that Senfe wliicii Grotim puts upon it, tho' quite difterent from 
 yours, as if it were not dcfigned as a Rebuke to St. Peter, but lor the Encourage- 
 ment of liis Difciplcs, and being indeed a Prophecy, that the ^e-xs, who now came 
 againft him with Swords and Sta\es, fliould pcrifh by the Sword of tlie Romans^ 
 who fliould be the Avengers of Chrift's Death : But I fball take it in the fame 
 Senfc as you do, as a Rebuke to St. Peter, for going about to refili: a lawful Au- 
 thority, tho' employ 'd upon a very unjuft Errand. Yet will it not prove that the 
 Supreme Powers may not be refilled in any cafe, or by any Perfon whatfoever, let 
 them ufe their Power never fo cruelly or tyrannically againfl: their Subjects. 1 
 grant ii.deed, it proves what I have never denied, that a private Perfon, tho' in- 
 nocent, ought not to refift the Civil Officers that come to feize him, for a Crime 
 whereof he is accufed before a lawful Autiiority ; for this is not only unlawful by 
 the Command of Chnft, but aifo by the Law of Nature and Nations. For in 
 England it is not only penal for a Man to refift the Officers of Jufiice that come to 
 feize him, tho' he be innocent of the Crime whereof he is accus'd, but alfo to with- 
 draw himfclf from Jufiice by flight. And tho' upon Trial he be found innocent, 
 yet if he fled for the fame, he fliall forfeit all his Goods, and that veryjuftly, be- 
 caufe no Man ought to fufpe<ft the publick Juilice, or to withdraw himielf from the 
 Trial of the Laws. Now to apply this to the Cafe of our Saviour, tho' the Adion 
 which thefe Priefis and Soldiers came about was in it fclf unjuft ; yet was it not fo 
 either in refpedt of thefe Officers themfelves, who afted by a lawful Authority; 
 nor yet was it unjuft or unlawful in refped of the High Prieft and Sanhedrim, who 
 fent them : For lince it beIoiifi;'d to them alone to judge of a Prophet, who they 
 fuppofed taught contrary to the Law of Mofes, fince they did believe our Saviour 
 to be fuch a Prophet, it was in refpec^t of them neither unjuft nor unlawful to feize 
 him, and bring him before them, to give an account of his Doftrine : And they 
 might likewife do this either by day or by night, with the help of more or fewer 
 Men, according as tiiey fliouId think fit ; fince they feared the People might refcue 
 him ; efpecially fince they look'd upon him as one who went about to make him- 
 fclf King of the Jeixs, in oppofition to Cj:far ; and therefore wliilft they lay under 
 this Miftake, they were under as high an Obligation, as an erroneous Confcience 
 could lay upon thein, of fcizing iiim, and bringing him before tiie High Prieft and 
 the Governor. For if they had believed him to be the true Mefjiah, and confe- 
 quently the King of their Nation, it had been impofliblc that they fliould ever 
 have gone about to put him to Death. Which likewife our Saviour himfelf ac- 
 knowledges, when praying for them that crucified him, he faid. Father, furgive L:ikci^. ■^n. 
 them, for they know not -what they do. 
 
 I fjicak not this toexcufe the Pricfts, ox Sanhedrim, for condemning our Saviour 
 to Death, or for ufing all the Pov/er they had with Pilate to have iiun executed ; 
 fince I grant their Ignorance being in great part wilful, at leaft not invincible, 
 they had no juft Excufe not to believe in him, after fo many Miracles he had 
 wrought in the fight cf all tiie World : But only to prove that which 1 fuppofc 
 you will not deny, that Magiftrates," even whilft they a6t unjuftly, are not to be 
 rcfifted in the Execution of publick Juftice ; no, not to refcue an innocent Man 
 by force from the Hand of Jufiice, after he is condemned : Since the falfe or un- 
 juft Sentences of Judges ag^nft particular Perfons arc to be taken forjuft in com- 
 mon acceptation, till they be repealed ; according to that Maxim in your Civil 
 Law, Prator, dum iniquum decernit, ius dicit. And therefore our Sa\'iour coming 
 to fulfil all Righteoufncfs, and to be the exa6t Pattern of Divine and Moral 
 Actions, could not do lefs than rebuke St. Peter, for making ufe of the Sword 
 
 Y 3 again ft
 
 1^4 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 againft a lawful Authority. But what is this to the Cafes that I have put of the 
 Rejifimce of whole Nations, or great Bodies of Men, againft an unjult Force and 
 and deitruftive Violence upon their Perfons and Eftates, by thofe who pretend to 
 aft as the Supreme Pozvers, tho' contrary to all Laws natural and di'vine, and who 
 have no Pretence to aft as they do, but only their unjuft and arbitrary Wills back'd 
 by Power. And that there is a great difterence in thefe two, I will clearly fiiew 
 you, 6*001 your own Conceflion, that no Man wantcth Authority to dejeud his Life 
 agaiiijl him that hath no Authority to take it avjay ; and therefore I fq^pofe St. Paul 
 
 Ach II. might, only with the help of thofe that were with him, not only have defended 
 his Life againfl thofe whom w-efind (in the 25 th of the Atis) were by Order of the 
 High-Prieft, and Chief of the Jezvs, to have lain in wait to kill Paul by the wa)^, but 
 alfo againft any that FeJIm the Goverr.or himfclf flionld have fent for the fame end : 
 
 Acli 15. \6. Since he there declares, T'hat it is not the Manner {i.e. Law) of the Romans, to deliver 
 any Alan to die before that he that is aaifed have the Accufers face to face, and have licence to 
 nnfvcerfor himfelf concerning the Crijue laid againjl him. And therefore as Cafar could give 
 Feftm no Commi/Tion to murder Men, To neither did God bellow on the Emperor 
 any Authority to commit Murder, or to authorize others to do it. And if a 
 lingle Perfon 'might do this, certainly much more a whole Nation, Country, or 
 City, may juftify fuch a Rejiflance, where their Lives, Liberties and Eftates lie at 
 flake, from the Violence or Tyranny of the Supreme Powers ; and therefore I do 
 not fee, but that I may very well grant the Liftance you have put to be conclu- 
 five againft this Refinance made by St. Peter on our Saviour's behalf: So that it 
 doth not reach the Cafe in hand, that all Refiftance of Supreme Powers is unlawful. 
 So that unlefs Princes and their inferior Officers receive Authority from God to 
 commit Murders, every Man may defend himfelf againft them, when they go 
 about to take away their Lives by Violence contrary to Law. And therefore I 
 fee no Reafon, from any thing that you have hitherto faid, to believe that Chrift 
 did not allow this Diftinftion, between the Perfun and Authority of the Prince, to be 
 good in fome Cafes ; or, tho" his Perfon fhould be facred, yet that his Minifters, 
 who aft not by his Regal Authority, but his Perfonal and Tyrannical Will, may 
 be oppofed. Nor can I find any Confequence from what you lay. That he is a mock 
 Prince whofe Authority is confined to his own Perfon^ who can do nothing more than what 
 he can do with his own Hands ; fince no Man in his Wits aflerts an}- fuch thing : For 
 I grant, that an Alfolute Prince hath Power to make Laws, and to command them 
 to be put in execution, which do not contradift the Laws of God and Nature ; 
 and a Limited Prince hath likewife a Right to command in all things, that do not 
 exprefly contradift God's Natural and Revealed Laws, and alfo thofe Pofitive 
 Laws of his Country (which he is not the fole Maker of) that do not contradift 
 the former : And if he can do this, I think he is endued with an Authority fuffi- 
 cient to anfwer all the Ends of Government, without fuppofing that he muft needs 
 have an irrefiftible Power (and without which he cannot anfwer thofe Ends) to 
 murder and enflavc whomfoever he will. I grant indeed, a Prince is not meerly 
 a Natural, but a Political Perfon ; but certainly his Perfonal Authority, as King, 
 doth not reach as far as his Commillion, or that he who refifts thofe who aft by 
 his CommifiTion, may be faid in all Cafes to refift his Regal Authority : Since at 
 this rate the poor Proteftants in Leland, at the beginning of the laft Lifo Rebel- 
 lion, had been in a very woeful Condition, if it had happen 'd (which was not 
 impoflible) that King Charles the Firft fliould really have granted a Commiflion 
 to Sir Phelim Oneal to dcftroy thcmj whicli no Man could then certainly tell but 
 that he had, lince Sir Phelim publickly fhewed fuch a Commiffion, and ftillaflerted 
 the Truth of it, till he came upon the Gallows. But tliis is only by the by, and 
 in anfwer to what you have now faid to tliis matter. So that there is no need of 
 fuppofing what our Saviour intended one way or other in this matter ,• fince he 
 did not rebuke St. Peter for reiifting the inferior Officers, becaufe they offered an 
 unjuft and illegal Violence ; but becaufe he refifted thofe who afted by a true and 
 legal CommifTion from the High-Prieft and Sanhedrim, who fuppofed our Saviour 
 to be a falfe Prophet. 
 
 M. If this Diftinftion of yours were true, it would render the Example of 
 Chrift's Suftering, in obedience to the Supreme Powers, tho' unjuftly, yet without 
 
 S.C.F.f. Refiftance, of no efleft to us ; whereas I am firmly perfuaded, that Ciirift took 
 
 Si. fuch a mean and futiering a Perfon upon him, becaufe it was moft agreeable to the 
 
 Religion which he prcach'd, and of which he was to be an Example ; and there- 
 fore.
 
 Dinlogtie the Fourth » \^^ 
 
 fore, tho' Chrift fuffcrcd for other Reafons, and to other Ends and Piirpofcs than 
 we do or can fuftcr, } ct his Siirtvrings arc an Example to us, becaufe God chcfe 
 to fave and redeem us b)- theSufFcrings of his Son, not only that he might expiate 
 our Sins by his Blood, but alfo that he miglit be an Example to us of Mceknefs, 
 and Patience, and Snbmiflion to the Divine Will, and Siibjcdion to Go\ernment, 
 even in the moft unjiift and infamous Sufferings. We may conlider farther, that 
 Chrifi's Sufferings, in obedience to the Will and Appointment of God, do not 
 make him unlit to be our Example : For tho' God has not fo percmpcorilv dc--^'- P- Si; 
 creed that all Chriflians fhould fiiffer, as he <ii\(\ that Chrifl fliould fnft^cr ; yet when- 
 ever we are called to it (as we always are, when we cannot avoid fuffering with- 
 out refijVmg a laTxiftil Authorit)) our Suflerings are as much the Eflefts of God's De- 
 cree and Appointment, as the Sufferings of Chrift were ,• and in fuch Cafes every 
 Chriftian may and ought to fay, as liis Lord did, T^he Cup iLhicb my Father hath 
 given me, Jhnll 1 mt drink it .<* 
 
 Thus St. Peter cxprcfly tells tlie Chriftiai:s to whom lie wrote, and gi\ es it as a 
 Reafon why they (hould fuffer patiently, even for doing well : Fur even hereunto i P^'- -• ir* 
 vjereyou cal/ed, becaufe Chrifl aljofujfered for m, leaving us an Example, that we Jhould 
 foUvw hiffleps. Now caUii'g, in the New Tcftament, fignifies the Choice and Elec- 
 tion of God, and always iuppofes a Divine Decree, Appointment, and Conflitu- 
 tion, as the Foundation of it. Thus St. Paul tells us-, that the Gifts and Calling ^--'w- 1 1. -9- 
 (icXvjff/f) of God are without Repentance ,• that is, that Decree he made to chufe 
 the Polfcrity oi Ab,aham for his People, which ft.iU entitled all thofc of them to ^^^ P- 83- 
 theBlelfingsofthe Gofpel, who would believe in Chrift. Thus the State of Chnftia- 
 nity is our Calling, and Holy Calling, becaufe it is the Way and Means Godhatii clio- - '^"'* '• 9* 
 fen and appointed for the Salvation of Mankind : And Chriftians are often ftiled ^' '* 
 the Called, becaufe God has now decreed to chufe all the fincerc Difciples of Chrift, 
 as he formerly did the Pofterity of ^^>v//)rt;», to be his peculiar People ; and 
 throttghout the Scriptures of the New Tcftament, God is never faid to call, nor 
 any one to he called of God, but with refpeft to fome Divine Decree and Conftitu- 
 tion. And thcre^bre when St. Peter tells the Chriftians, tliat they are called to 
 fuffer, it fignifies that God hath appointed them to it by his pofitive Will and 
 Decree. 
 
 This St. Paul difconrfes more at large in his Epiftle to the Romans, and com- 
 forts them under their Sufferings, from this very Confideration : That the Suf- 
 ferings which tiiey underwent were not the Effc<fts of meer Chance and Accident, 
 nor of the Wickednefs and Injuftice cf Men, nor barely of God's Permiffion-, but 
 of his Decree and Appointment ; and tiierefore they might certainly conclude, 
 that whatever their Sufferings were, they Oiould turn to their good. And ue know, Rom, 8. iSj 
 that all things work together for good to them that love Cod, to them that are called according -9i jO- 
 to his purpofe : Thof'e who arc called, that is, to fufter (which is the Argnment the ^''* P* ',*'. i 
 Apoftle is difcourfing ai) according to his Will and Appointment. And a little after 
 he goes on, and fays : And fuch Perfons who arc thus appointed, who are thus called ^■' P* ^^ 
 by God to fuffer, fliall be fure to conquer, and to receive the Reward of Conquerors. 
 For thus the Apoftle adds : For lUhom he did foreknow, he alfo did predeflinau; to be 
 conformed to the Image of his Son, that he mtght be the frfl-born amohgjl many Brethren. 
 This Conformity to the Image of ChiiTt in tliis place doth plainly fignify a Con- 
 formity to him in Sufferings, as is evident from die whole fcope of this Place. 
 Some Perfons it feems there are, whom God doth predeftinate or fueapfioint to 
 be conlbrmed to the Suficrings of Chrift ; for this' is not the aftual Portion of all 
 Chriftians, though it is the Condition of our Difciplefhip. 
 
 So that though God hath not made us Slaves and Vaflais to the Humour of//-. p.SiJ. 
 every Tyrant, yet all tlic Afflittions and Sufivrings of Chriftians, efpecially thofe 
 which befal them on the account of Religion, are as particularly ordered and de- 
 termined by God, as the Sr;fferings of Chrift himfelf were ; and therefore there is 
 no ditterence upon this account between the Sufferings of Chrift and the Sufferings 
 of his Difciples ; and thercfcre though Chrift came into the World on purpofe to 
 fuffer, in obedience to the Divine Will, this doth not m.tke him ever tlie lefs fit 
 to bean Example to us. Nay, this Obedience to the Will of God, in fulfcring the 
 hardeft things from the moft unjuit and tyrannical Powers, is an Example to us of 
 the fame patient Suffering, and Snbmiflion to the Will of God. 
 
 It is true, none of us in particular can iu'.ow, tiiat God hath decreed, tiiat we ^' • P' S^' 
 fhall fuffer fuch or fuch things, and from Inch or fticJi hands, as our Saviour did : 
 
 But
 
 l66 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 But yet this we know, that it is God's Will and Pleafure, that we ftiould patient- 
 ly endure thofe Sutterings, which we cannot avoid without Sin ; and fince he hath 
 forbid us by exprefs Laws to refift the Higher Powers, whatever Sufferings can- 
 not be avoided without Refijlance, it is God's Will and Pleafure that we fhould 
 fubrait to them. And fince none of thefe Sufferings, which are unavoidable to us, 
 befal us without the particular Decree and Appointment of God, we have rea- 
 fon, in imitation of our Great Mafter, to fubmit to them with the fame Cheer- 
 fulnefs and Self-refignation as he did. 
 
 There is fomething indeed in the Example of our Saviour, which in our Cir- 
 cumftanccs we are not bound to imitate ; for he punctually knowing what God's 
 Will and Pleafure was concerning him, voluntarily chofe that Condition, which 
 he fo well knew God had allotted for him. He freely chofe a mean and fervile_ 
 Fortune, he chofe Suffering and Death ; when his Time of offering up himfelf 
 was come, he went up to Jeyiijakm on purpofe to die there : But we are not 
 bound to chufe Poverty, and Difgrace, and Suffering ; we are not bound volun- 
 tarily to deliver up our felves into the hands of Tyrants and Perfecutors, who 
 thirft after our Blood. We may and ought to ufe all jufl and honeft Arts to make 
 our Condition eafy and comfortable in theWorld, and to avoid the Rage and Fury 
 of bloody Men, becaufe we cannot tell, that it is the Will and Appointment of 
 
 lb. p. 88,89. God that we fhall fufter, till our Sufferings are unavoidable ; and then when we 
 muft either fuffer or fin, when we muff either renounce our Religion, or refift the 
 Supreme Powers ; we muft embrace Sufferings and Death, as that Portion which 
 God hath allotted for us. 
 
 I {hall only here obferve what a mighty Security this is to all good Chriftians, 
 how abfolute or tyrannical foever the Power be under which they live ; that they 
 are fafe in God's hands, and all the Powers of Men and Devils cannot touch them, 
 till God by a poficive Decree appoints and orders their Sufferings. There could 
 not be greater nor more abfolute Tyrants than the Roman Emperors were at this 
 time ; and yet they had no Power over the meanell Chriftian, but by an exprefs 
 CommifTion from Heaven. This is the fpecial Privilege of the Chriftian Church 
 above the reft of Mankind, that they are God's feculiar Care and Charge ; that he 
 doth not permit any Sufferings or Perfecutions to befal them, but what he himfelf 
 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 wnat he 
 can over-rule to wife and good Ends j but it is a greater Happinefs to have our 
 Condition immediately allotted by God. God may permit a great many Evils to 
 befal us in Anger and Difpleafure ; but when he takes us into his immediate Pro- 
 teftion, and under his own Government, whatever Evils he appoints for us, who- 
 ever arc the Inftruments of them, they are certainly for our good. And therefore 
 
 B.p.90. there is no fuch Danger in the Doftrine oi Nonrrefiftance, as fome Men imagine : 
 How abfolute foever this may be thought to render Princes, lincere Chriftians can 
 fuffer nothing by it, for they fhall fuffer nothing more i.or kfs than what God ap- 
 points for them to fuffer : But as for the Abfurdity you think you have brought 
 me to, by granting that no Man wants Authority to defend his own Life againfl 
 him who hath no Authority to take it away, tliat does not extend to Supreme 
 Pou-ers i fince, tho' I grant they have no Authority to take away Mens Lives con- 
 trary to Law ; yet does it not follow rhac we may rejifi and cppofe xhem, if they 
 do. This I abfolutely deny, becaufe God hatli exprelly commanded us not to 
 
 Jh. p. 190, refift them ; and I fee no Inconfiliency between thefe two Propofitions, that ^ 
 
 '?'• Prince hath no legal Authority 10 take away Mens Lives againft Law, and yet 
 
 that he muft not be refifted wiien he ooes fo ; for both the Laws of God and of 
 our Country fuppofe thefe two to be very confiftcnt. 
 
 F. To anfuer this long Speech of yours, the beft way may be to fliew you, 
 firft, how far I agree with you, and wherein I muft differ from you ; and I will 
 alfo tell you what Reafons I have for it. In the firft place I grant, that though 
 our Saviour was indeed the Mejjicts, and true King of the Jews, yet was he not 
 fuch a Meffioi as they expetted, nor was he to have a Temporal, but Spiritual 
 Dominion'; and therefore would not be fuch a King, though the Jews would 
 have made hini fo. I likewife yield, that Chrift fubmitted to the moft unjuft Sen- 
 tence, and to the moft ignominious and painful Death, rather than he would rejift 
 the Higher Powers ; though he could eafily have called for Legions of Angels to his 
 rcfcuc : As alfp that he rebuked Peter, when he drew his Sword in his defence, 
 
 and
 
 Dialogue the Fourth. tC'J 
 
 and tells PiLite the Reafon why he was fo eafily apprehended, and without any 
 Rcfiftance or Oppofition. My Kingdom (laid he) ts not of thu IVorld .- if my Kingdom 
 iveie of this IVorld, then zcon/d my Servants fgkt, that IJhould not be deliveycd to the Jews ; 
 but now is my Kingdom not from hence. All whicli plainly fhews, that our Saviour's 
 Subjcftion was no matter of Force or Conftraint, bccauic he wanted Power to rejifl; 
 but it was matte r of Choice, that which was moft fuitable to the Nature of his 
 Kingdom, which was not to' be propagated by carnal Weapons, but by SLifferings : 
 Yet though it may not be propagated, fure it may be defended by force, in fome 
 cafes 5 as, if wc were invaded by a foreign Power, who made War upon the ac- 
 count of Religion ; and alfo in tliofe Kingdoms or Commonwcaltlis, where Chrif- 
 tianity or the true Profcflion of the Gofpel is eftablifiied by Law, and makes a 
 part, not only of the Ecclefiaftical, but Civil Conftitution of a Nation. In thefe 
 cafes, if thofe who pretend to the fole Legiflativc Power (but have it not) fhould 
 go about to alter the National Religion by force, and put Men to death contrary 
 to the former Laws and Conftitutions of that Kingdom, I think fuch illegal Powers 
 may lawfully be refifted by the People, they having as much Right to the free 
 Exercife and Enjoyment of their eftablifh'd Religion, as they ha\e to their Liber- 
 ties, Properties,' or any other Civil Rights ; fince by this legal Eftablifhment Re- 
 ligion becomes a parr of tlie Civil Conilitution of the Kingdom, and fo may be 
 maintained by the fame means as other Rights. 
 
 2dly, I grant, that in all other Cafes our Saviour hath fo far propofed his Suf- 
 ferings to us for our Imitation, as we are engaged by our Baptifmal Vow to fuffer 
 in the fame Caufe for which he himfelf fiiffcred, that is, for the bearing witnefs, 
 "That y^fus is the Chnfi, or true Mejfai, and Son of God. And this the Apoflle calls 
 (fpeaking of Chrift himfelf) the witneffing before Pontius Pilate a good Confejfion. 
 The like I alfo hold of all fuch Truths, as are the neceflary Confequences of this 
 great Doftrine. 
 
 ■^dl), I farther grant, that when God calls any Perfon to fuffer for the Tefti- 
 mony of his Truth, by the Cruelty of thofe who are the Supreme Poxuers (as the 
 Apoffles and Primitive Chriftians were by a particular Providence) that then thofe 
 Powers are not to be reft/led, but patiently fubmitted to by Chriftians at this day ,• 
 whenever it proves neceflary for the fame great Ends for which Chrift at firft en- 
 joined it, viz.. for bearing witnefs to the Truth of the Gofpt'l, and for the further 
 Propagation thereof by our conftant Sufferings and Example, according to that 
 Saying of the Primitive Fathers, Sangi^is Martyrum femen Ecckjiai. Yet is not this 
 abfolute Submiflion to the Supreme Povcers, in Matters of Religion, due by the 
 Lnw of Nature, or that delivered to Mofes'; but (if at all) purely from the exprefs 
 Command or Example ot Chrift. So that all the difficulty lies in difcovering, when 
 we arc thus called by our Saviour to fufter and bear witnefs to the Truth, though 
 with the Lofs of our Lives, and all that is dear to .us. 
 
 And therefore, if I fhould grant, that whenever we lie under the like Circum- 
 ftances of giving this Teftimony as the Primitive Chriftians then did, and that ic 
 may ferve as much for the fame Ends defigii'd thereby by God, we are alfo under 
 the fame Obligations ; otherwife I think we are lawfully difchargcd from it. As 
 for example ; fuppofc the King ftiould, inftcad of a Papifl, have turned Mahome-' 
 toit, and, to propagate or fet up his own abominable Supcrftition here, fliould 
 have fent for, from Turkey or Alorocco, a great Army of Turb or Moors, and by 
 them would force all the Chriftians in England to turn Mahometans, by the fame 
 Methods of Dragooning Men and feizing their Eftates, as x}l\q French King hath 
 cxercifed upon his Protcftant Subjefts ; can any reafonable Man believe, that we 
 lie under the fame Obligation thus to ftifter in a Country where the People are all 
 Chriftians, as we were if we had happen'd to be converted in a Country where 
 almoft all or tiie greater part of tliem were Mahotnetans or Heathens, and where the 
 Mafjometan or Pagan Religion hath been formany Ages the cftabliflicd Religion of 
 that Nation and Government. 
 
 For in our Cafe, there is no fartlicr occafion to bear witnefs to the Truth by 
 patient fuffering for it; nor yet of propagating it by our Martyrdom; fincc 
 all the People amongft whom wc live arc fufficiently convinced of the Truth of 
 it : Nor can it be reafonable that our Saviour fliould give up whole Nations to 
 be thus dcftroyed, at the Will of one, oi" a few Men, only to do that of which 
 there is no need : For tiicn JeftuChr/Ji ha.d delivered us up to be meet Slaves and 
 Vaflals to the Will and Humour of every wicked Tyrant, (which ; <* i feem to 
 
 difap-
 
 l68 BiBLIOTHECA PoLrTICA. 
 
 difapprove) without performing any of thofc great Ends, for which he at firft en- 
 joined this Submiflion : And tho' I grant that the AfHiftions and Sufferings of 
 Chriftians, on the account of Religion, are as particularly ordered and determined 
 by God, as thofe of Chrifl himfclf ,• yet, it is only as they may be fubfcrvient to 
 higher Ends, viz,, the Propagation of his Religion, and the Good and Peace of 
 Mankind ; which I think cannot be well promoted by fuppoling an irrefiftible 
 Power in the Prince or State, of rooting Chriftianity quite out of a Nation or 
 Country, after it is fettled by Law, and become the National Religion thereof^ 
 and of enflaving all the People of it whenever he pleafes : And this I take to 
 be the true Bounds and Limits ot our Submiffion to the Supreme Powers in Mat- 
 ters of Religion. Butfuppofing, not granting at prcfent, that Cbvift hath laid any 
 more ftridTt Commands of SubmilTion upon us in thofe Matters ; yet fince he came 
 not into the World to put us into a more miferablc Condition in other things, 
 than we were before his coming ; nor to take away or abridge us of any of tjiofe 
 Natural or Civil Rights that we enjoy as Men or Subjefts ; therefore if the 
 People had a Right before Chrifl, to defend their Lives, Liberties or Properties 
 againft the violent Allaults and Oppreffions of Princes or States, they have ftill 
 the fame Liberty left entire in all Cafes, which remain not excepted by the ex- 
 prefs Precepts or Example of Chrift ; fince it is a general Rule in all pofitive 
 Laws, that whatever is not excepted or altered by a fubfequent Law, remains the 
 fame as it was before in all other Cafes, which are not fo particularly excepted : 
 And therefore tho' I fhould grant that it were now unlawful in any Cafe to refift 
 the Supreme Powers, who perfecute or put Men to Death for bearing witn'efs to 
 
 ■ Chrift's true Religion ; yet doth it not therefore follow that it were unlawful to 
 refill in any other Cafe whatfoever, though it were in the defence of our Lives, 
 Liberties or Properties; fince fuch Defence was lawful (as I have already proved) 
 before C/;>7/?'s coming, and is not exprefly forbidden by any Place of Scripture, oc 
 Command of Chrift or his Apoflles. , . , 
 
 And without the Confiderations of thefe great Ends that yefm Chrifl had to en- 
 join his Followers an abfolute Submiffion to the Supreme Powers in fome Cafes, 
 (tho' not in all) were to fuppofe, that inllead of a merciful Saviour, he h.^ only 
 come into the World to patronize Tyranny, and' to render the Condition of Man- 
 kind much more miferable than it was under the Lawof Mq/e^, or in the State of 
 Nature ; and feems to fuppofe, that inftead of commiferating Men's Sufferings, 
 he only took delight to make them more miferable. Nor will it be any Comfort or 
 Security to Chriflians, when they are once made Slaves under an arbitrary tyran- 
 nical Power, "That they are fafe in God's Hand, and that all the Powers of Men or Devih 
 cannot touch them, till God by a fofitive Decree appoint and order their Sujfertngs : For if 
 this were a good Argument againft all Refiftance, it would be fo likewife againft 
 refifting Pirates or Robbers ; fince whatever we fuffer from them is by God's po- 
 fitive Decree, who thus orders all our Sufferings even from them : And yet I think 
 (fince Men are not now to be faved by Miracles) he hath likewife alfo ordained 
 Refiftance as the only humane Means to prevent their Malice and Violence, or 
 efcape out of their Hands when we fall under them. Nor are the fame Ends 
 unlawful againft any other humane Powers, but what God himfelf hath or- 
 dained. 
 
 And therefore it is a very crude Aflertion, to fay, that though there could not 
 be more abfolute Tyrants than the Roinan Emperors, yet that they had no Power 
 againft the meancft Chriftian, but by an exprefs Commiffion from Heaven ,• where- 
 as I never knew as yet (and I would be very glad you could (hew me) where this 
 exprefs Commiffion is to be found, whereby Princes, or other Supreme Powers, 
 are authoris'd to perfecute, enllave, or take away the Lives of the meaneft Chri- 
 ftians barely for Matters of Opinion, or Faults that do not immediately concern 
 the publick Qiiiet and Safety : And as you have talk'd a great deal of the great 
 Security it is to the JVorld, that no Evil can happen to us but what Cod permits ; and that 
 he permits nothing but what he can over-rule to wife and good Ends ; and that Gcd may per- 
 mit a great many Evils to befal us in his Anger and Difpleafure ; and that whatever Evils 
 he appoints for us, they are certainly for our good ; and that therefore there is no Jiich Danger 
 in the Do&rine of Non-reliftance m fome Men imagine ; becatife fincere Chriflians can 
 
 • fuffer nothing by it, fime they jhall fuffer nothing more or lefs than what God appoints 
 them to fuffer. All thefe Arguments might as well be ufed for not refifting Pirates 
 
 or
 
 'Dialogue the Fourth. i6p 
 
 or Thieves, or not endeavouring to divert or oppofe a Ri\xr that had run be- 
 yond its Banks, but to let it go where it lifts, to the dLftruftion of a whole 
 Countr)', becaufe foriboch, Jincere Chrijlians can fiiffer nothing by it, for they can 
 fuffer mthiiig more or lejs than God appoints them to fufer; indeed a wondrous lift; of 
 Confolation. And therefore, iinlefs you can prove tliatall Tyranny is ordained 
 by God for our good ,• and that therefore wc are obliged under pain of ever- 
 lafting Damnation to fubmit to it ; :^.\\ tliat you have fpoken concerning the 
 Example and Sufferings of Ch-ifi lignirie juft nothing ; fo that I think the Abfur- 
 dity ftill lies at your Door ; iincc if Chriji has not exprelly forbidden all Re- 
 fiftanccofthe unjuft Violence of Fiinces, (as I do not rind he has by any of the 
 Texts you have yet brought) every Maamay fidl defend his Life agamfi him who you 
 grant hath no Authority to take it'anay ; and as for its bting forbidden by the Laws 
 of our Country, I fhall anfwer that wliiin you urge thoie Laws to me. 
 
 M. I hope 1 (hall be able to prove that by and by, but in the mean time give 
 me leave to obferve, that itfcems very I'lrange to me, that you fhould own Chn/i 
 hath obliged his Difciples to fubmit witliout any Refiftance, in fomc Cafes, to the 
 Supreme Po.vers, when they ptrfecute them and put them to Death for Religion; 
 and that they might not take up Arms in the dclence ef their Religion, which is 
 the greateft concern that Men ouglit to have in this World ; and yet that they 
 might do it for much lefs conlideuibk Matters, vix,. their Lives, Liberties or 
 Eftates, whicn fure ought to be of much lefs importance than the Glory of God, 
 which is chiefly maintained by his true Worfhip. But I fee you have found a Salvo 
 for this, and will not allow Princes the irrefiftible Power of Perfecution, when the 
 Religion is once fettled by Law ; that is, when the Ciiriftians were lirong enough 
 torefift, which certainly would be no thanks at all for their SubraiHio'i, iince Men, 
 who are weak and unable to refift, muit needs cbey and fotfer ; which were mat- 
 ter of Force, and not of Duty : Whereas we hnd by I'erru/lian, and all the Eccle- 
 fiaftical Hiftorians, that though the Chnftians were ftrong and numerous enough 
 in the ^o»m;z Empire, yet they chofe ratlier to dye than to refift, as I ftiall fnuw 
 you more particularly anon, when 1 come to thofe Qiiotations ; but I will, if 
 you plcafe, now proceed to the two lalt Texts I have to cite to you out of St. 
 fait/ and Sr. Peter. 
 
 F. That we may not confound things one with anothef, I pray give me leave 
 now to anfwer what you have objefted againft what L faid laft, before you pro- 
 ceed to any frefh places of Scripture ; for though, in the firft place, I doubt whe- 
 ther the Non-refiflance., wiiicli ^fertidliau and other Primiiive Fathers fo ftridly 
 preached up, was founded upon any exprefs Command of our Saviour or his 
 Apoftles ; yet granting at prefcnt that Chnftand his Apoftles enjoyn'd it both by 
 tlieir Example and Precept, yet this does not reach tlie Cafe now before us ; for 
 there may be very good Reafons why our Saviour might enjoyn an abfolute Sub- 
 mifllon to the Supreme Powers without any Refiftance, though they pcrfecute us, 
 nay put us to Death, for Matters of R^hgion ; and jet he may allow us greater 
 Liberty for the detencc of our Lives^ Liberties and Eftates, when aflaulted by the 
 unjuft Violence of the Supreme Powers. 
 
 For Firfl, Our Saviour ordained his Religion to be furtable to his Perfon, tos. 
 a meek, humble, fuftcring Meffiah, ito be an Example of a meek and fufferinfj 
 Religion. Secondly, Our Religion is a thing that no Power in the World can take 
 from us ; Perfecution indeed may increafe it and render it more fervent, but can 
 never diminifh it, if it be real. And God hath exprefly promis'd fo great a Re- 
 ward in another Life for our Sufferings for it in this, that it will infinitely oucwcigh 
 all that ever wc can futl^er on that account. And La/ily,- Our Saviour Chrift 
 was picafed to crdain his Dodrinc to be propagated by Miracles and Sufferings, 
 to diftinguifh it from all the falfc Religions that had been in the World before his, 
 or that fliould be fet up in oppoiicion to u afterwards ; lince neither tlie Pagan nor 
 Mahometan Superftitions, nor yet tne Je-jjiJ/j Religion, can ftiew the like ; to fubfift, 
 nay encreafe for above three hundred Ye.-.rs under fuch great and cruel Pcrfecu- 
 tions; nor yet is the Glory of God at all diminifli'd, but rarher increas'd under 
 Perfecution, fince none . re then hrm to it, but fuch as are rcjlly perfi;aded of its 
 Truth, and that tiiey ought to futl^r the worft that can bcf..il tliem, ratfier than 
 forfake it. 
 
 Z And
 
 I'yo B I B L I O T H EC. A- P O L I T I C A. 
 
 And certainly nothing can tend more to the Glory of God, than to fee it fub- 
 fift and increafc under a cruel and bloody Perfecution ; yet there is not the fame 
 reafcn that we fhould fufter Perfecution after Religion is become the fettled Con- 
 flitution of a Nation ; becaufc then every Man hath the fame Right to it as he 
 hath to his Property or Freedom ,• and tho' a Man may part with either the one 
 or the other, yet is he not obliged to give them up by Force, and whe- 
 ther he will or no ; fo likewife neither that Right which he hath to enjoy his Re- 
 ligion according to the Laws of his Country. And therefore I do not refolve the 
 Obligation to Nvii-reffiance in Matters of Religion, into tlic being the major pait 
 in a Kingdom, as you fuppofc i for if the Government of England were Popifti, 
 that is, the Legiflative part of it, and the major part of the common People were 
 Protcftants ; perhaps in that Cai'e they were under all the Obligations of endu- 
 ring Perfecution without Refiftance, as they were under tlie Heathen Emperors ; 
 but indeed the Primitive Chriftians were obliged to Non-refiftance, becaufe they 
 lived under a Government in which Chriftianity was forbid, and Paganifm eftab- 
 lilhed by Law. 
 
 And though it is true Conflamihe made feveral Laws, enjoyning the free Exer- 
 cife of the Chriftian Religion, and forbidding the Heathen Sacrifices, and that 
 the Pagan Temples fhould be fhut up j yet was not the Chriilian Religion, for all 
 that, the fole Religion of the State ,• tlie very Senators of Rome, and tlie majorpart 
 of the common People, continuing Pagans flill. So that it feems the Chriftian Re- 
 ligion was all this wiiile rather eftabliftied together with Heathenifm, tlian that this 
 was wholly forbid ; fince all Civil Offices and Preferments were equally conferred 
 upon Pagans as well as Chriftians, if they deferved them ; and therefore it was no 
 hard matter for 'Julian the Apoftate to revoke fo many of thofe Edifts his Uncle: 
 had made in favour of Chrillianity, and to abrogate thofe which had been pub- 
 lifli'd againft the publick Sacrifices to the Heathen Gods, and fhutting up their 
 Temples : So that no wonder if they were now again under the fame Obhgations 
 to fufer, a? they were before Conflantines Time ; fince the Chriftian Religion 
 was never the only one eftabliflied by Law, fo as to exclude the open Profeffion 
 of any other, till the Time of T'hecdofini ; after which (as alfo fome time be- 
 fore) according as the Chriftian Religion increas'd, and as they got greater Pri- 
 vileges from the Emperors, fo were they more ftout and boidi in ftanding up 
 for- and defending the juft : Rights of their Religion, whenever they thought 
 them invaded by the Anan or other Heretical Emperors, as I iliaJl fhew 
 jou by feveral Inftances oyt of Church Hiftory, when we ciome to k j but. 
 .you may now,- if you pleafe, proceed to the reft of thofe places of Scripture 
 which you have to produce againft this Doftrine of Refiftmce in thofe Cafe I have 
 pxit. 
 
 M' I have maiiy things ftiU to objed againft your laft Difcourfe, but fince it- 
 grows late, I fhail now confine my felf to the Do&rine of the. Apoftles concer- 
 S. C. R.p. ning Non-refiftance ; not as if the Authority and Example of our Saviour were 
 c. 4. p. 100. not fuflicient of it felf to make a Law, but ftood in need of the Confirmation and[ 
 additional Auth.ority of his own Apoftles, but we might juflly fufpeft ourfelvesj 
 miftaken in the meaning of our Saviour's. Words, or in the intention and defign.of 
 '^ his Sufterings, had none of his Apoftles, who were immediately inftcufted bjfe 
 himfeftj and acquainted with the moft facred Myfteues of iiis Kingdom^. sV.fia 
 preached aiiy fuch Doftrine, as this of abfolute Subje(?don to Princes. And'ohece- 
 fore to give you the more abundant Aflurance of this, Lfliall plainly fhc\Ajrjyow! 
 that the Apoftles taught the fame Doftrine, and imitated the Example of thetr- 
 great Mafter. I fliall begin with St. Paul, who hath as fully declared himlclf ill. 
 Rom.i-^. 1, 1. this Matter, as it is polGble any Man can do by Words. Let. enjery Soul bt.JuhjeSkj 
 niito the biger Pouers, for there is m Poiuer but of God, the Poiuers tliat be are ordained, of 
 God : IVhofoever therefore rej\fietb the Power, reffieth. the Ordinance of God, and they thati 
 reffl PiaU receive to tlmnfehef Da?nnatioii' ^ v.Aw-. 
 
 This is a very exprefs Teftimpny againft Refiftance, and therefore I fhall con-: 
 fider it at large; for there have been various Arts us'd to prevcrt every Word ofi 
 it, and to make this Text fpeak quite contrary to the defign and intention, of. the 
 Apoftle in it : And therefore I fhall divide the Words into three general, Parts. 
 Firfi, Tlie Doftrine the Apoftle inftrutts him in ; Let every Soul be Jiibjeci to the 
 higher Poivers. Secondly, The reafon whereby he proves and inforces this Do(5trine ; 
 For there is no Po-^er but of God ; the Pouers that be are ordained of God. Whoever there- 
 fore
 
 Dialogue the Fourth. i^^t 
 
 fore rcfifleth the Povcey refifleth the Ordinance of God. The Puniftmetit of fiich Refiftancej 
 and they that reffl Jhall receive to thcnrfeh'es Darmation. I fljall begin witli tlie 
 Doftrinc, "fhht e^e;-y Soul mufl he fubjecl to the higher Poiuers ; and here are three Ivid. p, lo; 
 Things to be explained. Firfi, W ho are contained under this general Exprcfllon 
 of eve)j Sottl Secondly, Who are meant by the higher Pouters. " Thirdly, What is 
 meant by being fdjeSI. Fnji, Who are cOfltaincd ui-der this general Fxpreflion 
 o( every Soul; which, by an ordinary Hcbraifm, (i^m^Q^ every Man .- For Man is a 
 componndcd Creature of Body and Soul, and cither patt of hijm is very often irt' 
 Scripture put for the whole, fometimes Flefli, and fomctimes Soul fignifies the 
 Man ; and when every Soul is oppos'd to the higher Powers, it mufl lignifc all 
 Men, of what Rank or Condition foever tliey be, who are not invcflcd with thi^ 
 higher PouTir. And again, the defign of the Apoftle^.as you fhall hear more 
 particularly by and by, was to forbid all Refiftance ofSoveraigii Princes,- and 
 had he known of any Man, of number of Men, who might lawfully rcfift,- h'cf 
 cueht not to have cxprefsVl it in fuch general Terms, as to forbid all withoue 
 Exception. ' '^J j ■ '■ ^- ' ■■::H;i-!,:. 
 
 And therefore I ffiall no\^>' a little more clofcly exattlfne your main Argument, or 
 irtdfeed Foiiftdaritm of all thfet you haie urged for Re/iftance, viz,. That tlio* it 
 is anlawftil for private ot pdrticular Men to refift the Siipt'eme Pov/ers ,• yet that 
 it doth' not extend unco the-whole or major part of a Poople or Nation, when- 
 ever they are outragioufly oj^brefs'd or ' Aflaultcd by the higher Powers, beyond 
 what they fuppofe they a'rii able to bda'r; whereas ths Anodie here comm'aitds /;.,/, pi^^, 
 eve)y Soul to be fubjeEl ; and therefore if tile whole Body of the People be fubjedt to ' ^'' 
 God, they muft alfo be fnbjeft to the Prince too, becaufe iie adts by God's Au- 
 thority and Commiirion. Were a Sovcraign Prinze the People's. CrvjaiL>re, that 
 might §e a good Maxim, Rex major Jtr>r»lis, fed nnnbr. t^niver/if. That the King ^ 
 greater than any particular Suhjcif, hut lefi than AH together ; but if he be God'^ Mi- 
 niftcr, he is upon that account as much greater than all as God is-. 
 
 And that the whole Body of the People altogether, as well as one by one,- are /ii</. p< io4» 
 equally concern'd in this Command of being fubjcd: to the higher Powviis, is evi-^ 
 dent from this Confidcration, that nothing Icfs than this will fecure the Peace and 
 Tranquility of humane Societies. Tiie Reliftance of (ingle Perfons is more dange- 
 rous to thcmfelves than to the Prince ; but a powerful Combination of Rebels Is fo** 
 midable to the moft puilfant Monarchs; The greater the number of Subjefts that 
 rebel againfl their Prince, the more do they diftrofs his Government and threaten 
 his Crown and Dignity ; and if his Perfon and Authority be facred, the greater 
 the Violence is Which is offered to him, -thegreattir is the Crime. ■ • 
 
 Had the Apoftlc exhorted the Roman's after this manner,; "' Let no private and ^'''"^- ?• '=4, 
 " and fingle Man be fo fodifh as tO' rebel againft his Ph'nce, who will be too '"'''■ 
 " ftrong for him ; but if youcan raife Tufficicnt Forces to Appofe' againfl: him, if 
 ** you can afl confcnt to dcpo^ and murtter him, th'is is a very innocent and /uftifi- 
 ** able, nay, and hcroical Atdiievcmoijr, which becomes a Frec-lioni People: How 
 would this have fecured thcr Peace and Qiiiet of the World .' How would tliis 
 agree with what follows, that Princes are advanced by God, and that to refift 
 out Prince is to rclill; the Ortfinancc of G^d, and that fucli Men (hall be (evercly 
 puni(h'd for it in this World or the next ? For can (he Apoftle be thought ablb- 
 lutely to condemn Re(iftaTice, if he makes it only I'liiVawful to rehft when he want 
 Power to conquer ? whiclrydt is all that can be made of it, if by every Soul the 
 Apollle means duly partiralgr Men, 'not the united Force and Power of all the 
 Subjcds. ' -■ 
 
 Nor can there be any Reafon aflign'd why the Apofllefliould lay fo drift a Com- nn p, lotf, 
 mand on particular Chrifinians to be fiibjeft to the higher Powers, v\ hich doth not 
 equally concern whole Nations: For if it can ever be lawful lor a wliolc Nation 
 to rcfift a Prince, it may in the fame Circumftances be equally lawful for a parti- 
 cular Man to doit; if a Nation may confpire againft a Prince who invades their 
 Rights, their Liberties or their Religion ; wliy mly not any Man by the fame 
 reafon refift a Prince when his iingle Rights and Liberties are invaded f It is not /■;,/ __ ,3^^ 
 fofafc and pnidcnt indeed for a private Man to rcfift, as tor great and powerful 
 Numbers : But this makes Re(i(iance only a Matter of Difcietion, not of Con- 
 fcicncc. If it be lawful for the whole Body of a Nation to refilt in dich Cafes, 
 it muft be equally lawful for a particular Man to do it ; but he doth it at his own 
 
 Z 3 ' Peril,
 
 I7Z BiBLIOTHECA P O L I T I C A. 
 
 Peril, when he hath only his own firgie Force to oppofc againft his Prince ; fo that 
 our Apoftle miift forbid Relifcance in ail Men or none ; for iingle Perfons do not ufc 
 to relift or rcbcl,or there is no great danger to the Pubiick if they do; but the Au- 
 thority of Princes, and the Security of pubiick Government, is only endangered 
 by a Combination of Rebels, when the whole Kacion, or any coniiderable Parr, 
 for Numbers, Power and Intereit, take Arras againft their Prince- If Refiftance of 
 our Prince be a Sin, it is not the kfs, but the greater Sin, the greater and more, 
 formidable the Rcfiftance is ; and it wpuld very much unbccomc the Gravity and 
 Sacredi-icfs of an Apoftolical Precept, to enjoyn Subjedion to a few private Chri- 
 ftians, who dare not, who cannot refift alone ; but to leave a powerful Combi- 
 Ihhi. p. 107. nation of Rebels at liberty to relift ; fo that every Soul muft fignifie ail Subjttis, 
 whether fingle or united i for whatever is unlawful for every fingle Perfon, conlide- 
 dered as a Subjed, is unlawfi.l for them all together i for tl)e whole Nation, is as. 
 much a Subject to the higher Powers as any fingle Man. Thus I am fure it is in 
 our Government, where Lords and Commons alfembled in Parliament own tliem- 
 felves the Subjeds of the King, and have by pubiick Laws difclaimed all .Power o( 
 railing any War, either oftenfive or defenfive againit, the King. - ; a" 
 
 Let us now confider what is meant by the Higher Powers, (ilnaidig uVEpe^aVw^^i^ 
 which fignifies the Supreme Power in any Nation, in whomfoever u is placed,- 
 whether in the King, as in Monarchical Governments, or in the Nobles, as in 
 Ariftocratical, or in the People, as Democracies. At the time of writing this Epiftle' 
 the Supreme Power was in the Roman Emperors ; and therefore when St. Paitl^ 
 i Vet. z. 13. commands the Roman Chriftians to be fubjeft to the higher Powers, the plain mea- 
 ning is, that they fliould be fubjed to the Roman Emperor. And thus St. Peter 
 explains it; Be fubjeti to every Ordinance of Man for the Lord's fake, whether to the 
 King as Supreme, wirwEpi^ovr/, the Word us'd in this Text, as to him wl|0 hathi 
 a fupereminent Power, and is above all others, as alfo unto Governors that are 
 fent by him, &c. From which Text Epiphanim proves that fubordinate Magiftxates 
 under the King are ordained of God ; and therefore that the Power of Under 
 Officers, fince it is the Ordinance of God, ought no more to be rcfifted than the 
 King's, from whom it is derived. 
 
 F. I hope I fliall not be very tedious in anfwering your long Speech, /Ince a 
 fmall fliare of natural Reafon and Grammar will do it ; therefore, 10 be as fliorc 
 as I can, I do freely acknowledge, that not only private Men, but whole Nations, 
 are, by this Precept of St. Paul, to be fubjefl to the higher P,owers, without any 
 Rebellion againft them, as well as particular Perfons, as far as they are Powers 
 ordained by God. And therefore it is ncceflary that you fhould confider what is 
 the true fignification of the Word ftaff'*, which if it be once difcovered, you will 
 find it carries its own limitation along with it ,• for it excludes both the Ufurpan 
 tion of the Supreme Power, and alfo the illegal and wicked Exercife of it ; and of 
 this Opinion is the learned Dr. Sanderfon in his Lectures of the Obligation of 
 humane Laws ; where, in his fifth LeSure, §. 12. (as I remember) he fpeaksto 
 this purpofe, in anfwer to an Objeftion, "That then all thofe -who have the pouter of the 
 Sword ; that is, of compelling thofe who are under their Power to perform their Commands^ 
 otight then to be obeyed in Confcience. His Anfwer is to this purpofe ; *' That the 
 *' Power he means,and on which aloneliesthe Obligation of Confcience, is not that 
 *' Power which the Greeh call Ivvcuiig, that is, natural or phyfical Power or Force; 
 *' or eile that which is only defailo, by which any one is able to do whatever he 
 *' pleafes without any hindrance ; but that Power which they call eiii<rix, that is, 
 *' lawful Power, or of Right ; to wit, that which belongs to lum that hath it by 
 " the Law of Nature, Nations, or Civil Conftitutions, by reafon of the Perfon 
 *' who bears it, and in refpeft of thofe who are to be fubjed to it. To this 
 *' fixulee, or lawful Authority, the Apoftle doth now fo much prefs an exad Obe- 
 *' dience, that he names it five times in the fpace of three Verfes, but fays not 
 *' one word of this ^wv«fA'f, or Force. So far he. And ii our Tranflators of this 
 Place had rendered the Word eiii(ym, Authorities, inftead of Powers, as they have 
 render'd it in other Places, and as they were fain to do in the firft of Peter, ch. 
 3. ver. 22. where c'Wwv and SuvafAcwv coming together in the fame Verfe, they 
 render the former Word by Authorities, and the latter by Powers, which if 
 they had conftantly done, they had efiedually prevented the falfe application 
 of tliis Text i fince no Man in his Wits can imagine, that when a Prince 
 
 (for.
 
 Dialogue the Fourth, 175 
 
 (for Example) dcftroys, opprcfles and cnflaves his SubjeSs, he afts thus as a 
 
 lawful Power or Authority ; or tiut belongs to him (zs Dr. Smderfon very well ex-*' 
 
 preffes it) by any natural or municipal Laws ; much Icfs can be the ^it» ^inTtuii 
 
 true or juft Authorities or Powers which are Here meant by St. Paul to be ordained 
 
 by God ; and that thefc Words may be fo render 'd^inftead of the Powers that are, yj r ■ 
 
 appears from Plato, who more than once hath 8!r« »p%;i for vera Potejlas, true Suituu!'*'* 
 
 Power or Authority. 
 
 So that it this Text were to be underfiood in your Senfe, this Place of Scrip- 
 ture would ferve to countenance and defend all the Tyranny, Cruelty and Op- 
 preflion which the molt wicked Tyrants can commit i all wiiich muif be ordai- 
 ned by God, by vertue of this equivocal Word Power. But that you may the 
 better fee tlie abfurdity of this Interpretation, pray let us put thefe things into the 
 Text inrrcad of Powers, and fee how it wiU run then. There is no Tyranny, \^i- 
 clence or Oppreflion committed by Princes, or their fubordinate Officers, but 
 what is ordained by God. WJicfoever therefore relili^ this Pov/er, refifts the 
 Ordinance of God. You'll fay, perhaps, that this is not your meaning, yet is it 
 the true Scnfe that mnll arife from your Interpretation of this Place j whereas it 
 implies no more tiian God's approving all julr and lawful Governments, and con- 
 firming from Heaven thofc moral Duties of Submiffion, Obedience and Non-re* 
 fiftancc, which were always due, and muft ever be, to lawful Authority ; that is» 
 fuchas are agreeable to the Laws of God and Nature, whicli you plainly fee are 
 not due to mier Force, Violence or Cruelty ,• for that is abfolutely excluded out of 
 the Text, which will by no means admit of it : The higher Powers or Authorities 
 ordained by God having no Commiffion from iiim for any of thefe wicked Pur- 
 pofes. 
 
 M I doubt, for all your. Confidence, that you very much miftake the fenfe of ^. c. Ai^i 
 thefe Words i for in the hril place your (or rather your Doctor's) Criticifm be- 19- 
 tween ihidu and Svvxjjlis, will not do, for they both lignirie the fame thing in Scrip- 
 ture, either Force and Power, or Authority, s>t i'yw eSB5-<«6viffefx./« u%6 rmq ; I -will 
 not be h-ought untkr tlx Pouer of any things i Cor. 6. 12. mult ligiiihe Force, and l^- 
 v«fA/f muft fignifie Authority and Dignity. Tims Efbef. i. 11. 'Tx^pavw T«ff*j} 
 «ip%>if, ***' iinfficeg Kui Svvajji,eoig Hxi xup/oTJiTef, which are feveral Names and Degrees 
 of Dignity and Authority as well as Power. And in the fecond place you 
 do much more roiftake, when you fuppofe by this Word Powers to be meant 
 only, the true or juft Exercife of Civil Authority, whereas the «/ tuiairm are the 
 ct ii^JM^Q'^Tc?, the Perfons themfelves who exereife Authority and Dominion, the 
 o/«p%ovT£f, the Rulers, v. 5. the Minifters of God which bear the Sw6rd, a/. 4. in 
 St. Peter, the Bw<A£uj and 'Hysfxdvef, the King and his Governors and MagiftrateS^ 
 I Pet, c. 2. ■:'. 13, 14, And therefore I muft tell you, you do very ill to feparate the 
 Power or Authority from the Perfons intrufted with it.- ■ 
 
 But fuppofe I fhould grant you that thisWordf'Esff/a doth here fignifie the Exercife ^r c / c^ , 
 of Authority, yet doth it not lignirie the right and lav/ful ule of this Power, but the , - i.* 
 Right to exercife this Authority ; whether well or ill, 'tis all one, as to the Sub- 
 miffion due to it ; becaufe no Rehftancc can be lawful for want of a fupetior Jurif- 
 di&ion over it. The truth of this is evident from ^ohn 19. 10, 11. Pilate fays 
 to 'Jefm, hiou-fi thou not that eZiUciuv l%w, / have Power to crudfie thee, and have Power- 
 to releafe thee ; Jefus grants it, and anfwers, ax «/%£? eiHciav nSeiu'cev nxr t^^ts, ei 
 tt-ii, &c. "ihou coiilde/i have no Power again fl me, except it were given thee from al/ove; 
 And therefore I Ihall reduce your Argument into the form of a Syllogifm, that you ^i''^- ij^- 
 may more plainly fee the abfurdity of it. 
 
 Powers not ordained by God, may be refifted without danger of Damnation. 
 
 But Powers excrcifed tyrannically, are not ordained of God j 
 
 Therefore we are not forbidden to relift them. 
 
 In this Sjllogifm the Minor is not true i for though Tyranny be not the Ordi- 
 nance of God, yet the Power or Authority (of which this Tyranny is but an 
 Abufc) is of divine Inftitution ; for tho' tiie Supreme Power is commanded to rule 
 juif ly, yet is it withal enabled to aft otherwife ; for the good or ill ufc of it is left 
 indilicrent, in refpett of the Subjedts Subjection, though not of the Magiflrates com- 
 manding or acting Power : So that the Abufe of this Power doth not make void the 
 Authority, tliough afting contrary to the Laws of God or Nature. The Obli- 
 gation not CO relift the Supreme Powers receiving not any Validity from theit 
 
 Juftice^
 
 174 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITlCA. 
 
 Juftice, nor is it weakened or annulled by their Violence or Injuftice. Saul 
 was God's Anointed, and Pilate had his Authority from above, notwithftanding 
 their high Abufe of it. 
 
 So that upon the whole matter, I incline to believe, that the Reafon which 
 made St. Paul call the Magiftrates by the ahftraH: Poutrs, was this : He wrote 
 to Chriftians living in the Roman Empire ; and it was the Cuftom of the Lr.tin 
 Tongue to call Perfons endued with Power, Potefiates. You may obfcrve -it in 
 lb. p. 153. Vlt'^it, L. quid fit. D. de JEdil. ediB. § 19. And in Augiiflin, Epifl. 48. who 
 fays, Sive Poteflcu veritati favens aliquem corrigat, laudem habet ex il/o qui fuerit 
 emendatPti, five mimica veritati in alique/n faviat, laudem habet ex illo qui fuerit coro^ 
 natm ; and mark that, Poteftas inimica veritati, muft needs fignify a Man abufing 
 his Authority. And in Juvenal we read, An F/denarum Gabiorumque ejfe Poteficu. 
 And in Suetonim, JurifdiBionein defidei commijfis quotmiuis, & tamum in urbe deligari 
 Magifiratibm folitam, in perpetuum atque etiam per Provincicu Poteflatibm delegavit. 
 The modern Languages, Italian and Ficnch, which were bred out of the Za«», 
 retain this antient way of fpeaking ; for Potefiat in old French, and Podefla in 
 Italian, exprefs not the Fundtion only, but the Perfon who manages it. - Thus 
 antiently the Latin Word ior the Chief-Jufiice, \va.s Jufiitia, as you may find in 
 Clatml, lib. 2. cap. 6. and Roger Hovedens Annals 5 lo our King is called in the 
 Abftraft, Majefty, as the Grecian Emperors, ay la fixciXiix.. 
 
 Many dangerous Confequences flow from thence ; but I defire not to make 
 Sport with that unhappy Diftinftion which had almoU: ruined as flonrifting, 
 and ftrongly temper'd a Kingdom as any in the Chriftian World. It ex'^oies 
 Magiftrates, and all in Authority, to the Contempt and Injuries of the faafeft 
 fort of People ; for when difcontented it is very obvious for them to tell the'in j 
 though Reverence is due to their Fun&ion, yet, that fetting their Office ilide, 
 they will take the Liberty only to correft their Perfons ; and that the Magifi'ratc 
 is not at all aftVonted, though the Man be foundly beaten. Indeed, it is againjft 
 common Senfe to put fuch a difference between the Perfon and the Authority of 
 Kings ; for if it were real, neither God, nor the Laws of the Land haveniade 
 any Provifion for the King's Safety; for his Authority is not capable oi^xp* 
 ceiving any Benefit ; and therefore it muft be acknowledged by all fober ajjd 
 teafonable Men, that this Authority doth but convey fuch and fuch PVivir 
 ledges upon the Perfon who only can be fenfible of them ; and confequenrljj 
 whatever is attempted againft his Perfon, is attempted againft his Authority 
 likewife. "> 
 
 F- I doubt you will have no better Luck in Criticifms than my fel^ and that 
 they will do your Caufe as little good : For if there be no difference in th^ 
 Scripture between eiHuta and ivvaf^ig, as you affirm ; and that both of them fig- 
 nify, not the Authority alone, but the Perfons endued with it, and that they 
 are all from God ; then Tyrants and Ufurpers are ordained likewife by God, and 
 confequently Oliver Cromwell was as much the Ordinance of God, as King Charles ; 
 and if this be your Doftrine, much good may it do you. But pray keep it to 
 your felf, left if your Friends the Old Cavaliers come to know it, they will quite 
 banifh you their Company : Belides, I can (hew you other Confequences that 
 will follow from it, which I have not now a mind to urge, but may bene* 
 after ; for I have no mind to enter into that troublefome Debate any more; 
 for I told you enough of my Mind concerning it the laft time we met fave one. 
 
 But fince you will needs have thefe etstr/**, not to fignifie Powers or Autho- 
 rities, but the Perfons themfelves, you fhaJJ have your Will for once ; only I 
 pray now anfwer me one fhort Queftion : When, for Example, Charles the fixth. 
 King of France, fell mad, and would have killed his Servants, by what Autho- 
 rity did they diftinguifh and feparate between his Perfon and his Power ? and 
 thought that they might well refift and bind the one without any Diminution 
 to the other. Or by what Right did the Portuguefe feize and imprifon their late 
 King, and make his Brother Regent in his room, but becaufe the former ufed 
 fometimes in a Frolick to murder his Subjeds out of the Window, or as he met 
 them upon the way ; and was befides found, by reafon of an incurable Folly, to 
 be utterly uncapable to govern ? Pray tell me, did not the Servants and Subjedfs 
 of thefe Princes then feparate the Authority from the Perfon ? If not, they mufl 
 have let them alone to have done what they would, the Confequence of wliich 
 you nuy eafily imagine. M. Thefe
 
 Dialogue the Fourth, ly^ 
 
 M. Thefe Iiiflances of the Folly and Mad.iefs of Princes are the main thifi^s 
 that you Gentlemen of Commonwealth Priiic'ples have to defend tiiem withal : But 
 to fiicvv yon there is a grjat difR-Tcnce between mad or foolijh Princes and Tyrants, 
 who arc in their right Wits, 1 will fhew you my Rcafons why the one may 
 be bound or rciified, and not the other. In the firft ])lacc, I fuppofe you will 
 not deny, but that Folly and Miduefs do fo far incapacitate the Perfons that are 
 under thole Misfortunes, that they hinder them from afting like rational Men, 
 much more from performing any of the Functions ot Crjil Gove-mmait. In the 
 next place, they ought to be refirained for the Common Gvod of their People, as 
 well as themfclves, left they fhould not only murder and hurt their Siibjedts, but 
 themfeU'es too. And laft'ly, becaufe it is the higheft Courtefy and B^-.'iefit 
 that can be done fucii mad, or foolifli Prince?;, to jhut them up clofe. and h.'.»der 
 them from expofing their Folly and Madnefs, and rendring themfeives ridicu- 
 lous to the World : Whereas a Tyrant, whom I fuppofe in his right vVits, 
 thous^h he never fo much enjlaves or opprejfus his People, yet Civil Govern- 
 ment may be well enough carried on and mainrain'd under his perfonal Con- 
 dud ; and as long as he hath Wit and Senfc enough to govern, he is fo 
 long to be cbeycd as the Ordinance of God, without any Refiflance whatfo- 
 ever. 
 
 F- But this much I fuppofe you will not deny, but that tliis Power of re- 
 filling, and fhutting up mad or foolifh Princes, is wholly exercifed by the Law 
 of Nature ; fince I never heard of any Civil or Municipal Law that made Pro- 
 vifion for it. 
 
 M- I ftall not much difpute that with you j it may be fo ; but what do you 
 infer from thence } 
 
 F. Why, no more than this, that if I can prove to you, that there is no fuch 
 gteat diWcrence betv/een Mud-men and Foch, and habitual incurable Tyrants 
 (as you imagine); there is a like Right in the People by the Law of Nature 
 to refift and defend themfeives againft the one as the other ; and therefore 1 will 
 examine each of your three Rcafons one after another, and fee whether they 
 may not as well be applied to fuch Tyrants, whom alone I fuppofe may be re- 
 filled, as to Mad-men or Fuols ; and if they do, I fuppofe ) ou will not deny the 
 Confcqucnce. Your firft Reafon is, that Folly and Madnefs do fo far incapa- 
 citate their Reafons that are under thefe Misfortunes, that they hinder them 
 from a<5ting like rational Men, much more from performing any of the Functions 
 of Civil Government. Now pray tell me, doth not Anger, Lull:, Pride^, 
 Cruelt)', Wilfulncfs, Ambition, and unreafonable Self-love, which are the Paf- 
 fioHS and Vices which difturb the Souls of Tyrants, and make them take a de- 
 light to enflave, deftroy and opprefs their Subjefts, as much incapacitate their 
 Rcafons for pcFforming thefe Funftions of Civil Governments, as Folly and Ma<l« 
 nefs themfeives ? And I think I have already proved, that when Princes bring 
 things to this pafs, they do as much deferve Tutors or Guardians to keep them 
 from doing Mifchief, and to manage their Kingdoms for them, as themoftmad 
 or foolifh Prince we have read of in -Hiftory. But the Mifchief of "it is, that 
 filch Tyrants, not being mad enough to be fhut up like Mad-men or Fools, 
 nor yet having Judgment, or good Nature, fu/licient to perform the main Ends 
 of Civil Governhienr, by the greatnefs of the Rewards that they are able to 
 btfftfiw upon t<hcir Followers, may fcon bring the beft Government into a 
 State of War and Confuiion : And 'till then I do not allow their Subjcfts to 
 wlifi them. 
 
 • -Your next Reafon is< tlut they ought to be reftrained for the Common Gocd 
 of their People, as well as themfeives ; left they fliould not only hurt or mur- 
 der riieir Subjciits, but themfclves too. Now pray conlider, if thefe mad and 
 foolifli Princes may be reflradhed and refifted, becaxjfe they only murder, or hurti 
 a tei\«^of their Subje(5ts that may come in their way, then have not fuch Tyranfi 
 much greater Reafon to be relifted and fecured, that through unrcafonablo 
 Revenge or Superftitiort, make War upon and deftroy the People, for no other 
 Caufc, but becaufe they will not fubmit themfclves to their unreafonable Lufts? 
 Or that burn Cities, mallacrc whole Towns of innoocnr Subjects, and enllave 
 and opprefs a late flourifliing Kingdom ; ought not thefe as well to be reftrain- 
 ed Of rcfiftcd for the Common Good of Mankind, though perhaps they will nor 
 ■-•■-' hurt
 
 1^6 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 hurt or make themfclves away, as Mad-men or Fools may ? Or can any rea- 
 fonable Man fliew me, why the Extravagancies of fuch mad or foolifh Princes 
 may be refilled, but the furious wicked, and tyrannical Actions ol: the other, 
 muft be fubmitted to as the Ordinance of God ? Or laftly, why a natural 
 Infirmity or W'eaknefs, fuch as Folly or Frenzy, fliall make a Prince uncapable 
 of Government ; and yet why infuftciable Tyranny, which is a moral Difabi- 
 lity, ftiall give Princes a greater Privilege not to be refifled, I cannot underftand ; 
 fince the latter is much more deflructivc to the main Ends of Govermenti 
 i. e. the Prefervation and Good of the People, than the former can poffibly 
 be. 
 
 As for your lafl: Reafon, that it is the highcft Courtcfy that can be done to 
 fuch mad and foolifh Princes to fhut them up, and Iiinder them from expofing 
 their Folly and Madnefs, and rendring themfelves ridiculous to the World, I 
 think the Reafon will hold more ftrongly for the one, tiian the other. For as 
 fuch foolifh and mad Princes would, if they could come to themfelves, thank 
 thofe who had done them fo charitable an Office as to refift them, and fhut 
 them up i fo likewife, I verily believe, that if the Grace of God, or feme natu- 
 ral Means or Accident, could fo far open the Eyes of fuch a Tyrant, as to lec 
 him fee the Folly and Wickednelles of thofe Courfes he takes againfl: the People, 
 he would, inflead of being angry, thank his Subjects for refifting him ; becaufe 
 thereby they had not only hindred him from making himfelf any farther the 
 common Hatred of his own Subjefts, as well as his Neighbours i but alfo from 
 committing fuch heinous Sins and Ofrences againfl God, as Murder, Violence 
 and OppreiFion. To concludei I grant, that as long as a cruel or wicked Prince 
 can fo far rcflrain his Vices and PafTions, as to maintain the Ends of Civil Go- 
 vernment above mentioned, he is ro be ooeyed as the Ordinance of God. But 
 when he will fet no Bounds to his Tyranny, but refolves that his Lull fhall be 
 unconfined, whereby he becomes infupportable to his People, they may as well 
 diflinguifh his Perfon from his Power, as they do in the Cafe of Princes, when 
 they are either Fools or mad Men. 
 
 M. But pray confider the refl of the Confequences of my lafl Difcourfe ; 
 and will not then the fuppofing a Power in the People of making this Diflinftion 
 when they pleafe, and of judging when the Prince's Government becomes in- 
 tolerably Tyrannical, make them to take upon them to judge it fo, when it is 
 quite otherwife, and fo not fcruple to rebel, or to refift (as you call it) whenever 
 they are in the Mind to do it ? And we have the more reafon to be afraid of 
 this, becaufe from the long Parliaments, and their Adherents, making ufe of this 
 Dillindion among other fpecious Pretences, were derived all the Miferies of our 
 laft Civil War. And therefore, though I own it is an eafy thing to judge of the 
 Madnefs and Folly of Princes, as well as other Men i yet (the Wickednefs and 
 Partiality of humane Nature confider'd,) it is a much harder Task to judge 
 rightly what Accions of Princes are deftruftive to Civil Government, and ren- 
 der them as uncapable of it, as the moft extravagant Actions of foolifh and mad 
 Princes can be pretended to make them fo. , 
 
 F. If the InlUnce of Mad-men and Fools feems to difpleafe you, becaufe it 
 is very pat to the Subjecl in hand, I think I may likewife remark, that thofe In- 
 conveniencies you fuppofe of making the People Judges in tliis Cafe, is the fole. 
 Objection I can find you have againfl what I have faid ; for otherwife, I do 
 not fee you have any thing to alledgc againft the fitncfs of the Parallel. But I 
 have already, I believe, made it prcay plain, that murdering, cnllaving and 
 robbing of the People of their Properties, are things as eafy to be judged of as 
 Folly or Madnefs : And it a few Domefucks about the Prince fhall be allowed 
 to judge when their Monarch is mad or foolifh enough to be refifted and fhut 
 up, I cannot fee any Reafon, why the whole Body of the People may not as 
 well be able to judge, when, by his Tyranny --nd OpprefTion, he hath diifolved 
 the Government, and entred into a State of War with them. 
 
 But to return now to the lafl part of your former Anfwer, wherein you grant 
 that this Word eiaixix, doch fometimes fignify nor only the Perfon, buc tiie Ex- 
 ercife of Authority ; but that it doch not fignify the right or lawful Ufe of it, 
 but Abufe too ; and for the Proof of this, you alledge tiie Speech of Pilate to 
 our Saviour ,• I am very well fatisfied that that Text will make nothing for 
 
 _your
 
 Dialogue the Founh. 1*77 
 
 your purpofe : For though I grant that tlie Word in chat place denotes Power 
 or Authority, yet doth it not there fignify the Abufe of it too : For certainly 
 l>tlm would never have told our Saviour, that he had a Power to abufc hi«: Au- 
 thority, and to condemn him, tho' innocent ; neitlier would our Saviour have 
 anfwered him, that he had that Power from above. And therefore, I think I 
 may very well maintain my Syllogifm to be true, notwithflanding your denying 
 of the minor Propofition. For fince you cannot affirm Tyranny to be the Ordi- 
 nance of God, yet that the Power or Authority, of which this Tyranny is but 
 an Abufe, is of Divine Inilitution ; which is but a Fallacy, if it be look'd inco. 
 For though you may, vulgarly fpeaking, call all Tyranny an Abufc of Civil 
 Power, )et fome Tyranny is more than that : For it is not fo properly an 
 Abufc, as a Corruption of it into quite another thing, which God never infli- 
 tuted; and confequcntly therefore is not to be fubn\itted to out of Confcience. 
 In is an old Saying, Corruptio optani, efl pe]]lma ,- and you may as well tell me, 
 that Vinegar, notwithftanding its Acidit), continues Wine ilill, as that Civil 
 Government, when it degenerates into the rankeft Tyranny, continues flill Gcd's 
 Ordinance : And if this be tlie true Confcquence you draw from yonr Argu- 
 ment, it lignifies little, iiz,. that the Abufe of this Power, doth not make void 
 the Authority of the Law of God or Nature. For I think I may maintain 
 the clear contrary to what you ailcrr, ^vz,. that the Obligation not to relift 
 Supreme Powers, doth receive fome Validity from the Julticc they execute, 
 and is weakened, and at laft annulled, by their intolerable Violence or Li- 
 juftice. 
 
 Nor are your Inflances of Saul or Pilate, to the Queflion in hand : I grant 
 Saul was God's Anointed, and could not have been lawfully refifted by Davids 
 notwithrtanding his murdering of Abimelecb, and the leil of the Priclls : And 
 P/toe might have his Authority from above, notwithftanduig his Abufe of it : 
 Yet doth it not therefore follow, that if cither the one or the other had declared 
 ifcemfelves fworn Enemies to the whole Nation of the Jews ; and that inftead of 
 governing and protecting tlicm, they had gone about utterly to deflroy them, 
 1 think tlicy had then ceafcd to be the Ordinance of God, and their Divine 
 Coramiflion had been at an end. To conclude : As for the Reafon you give, 
 why Sr. lUul might call the Roman Emperors by the Name of Pozvets, 1 fhall not 
 deny it. But whether by the Word eiacia, the Apoftle means Perfms or Pozuers, is 
 much at one ; for if he means the former, he only urges Obedience to them » 
 
 as they are the means of the Happinefs and Prefervation of the People, as ap- 
 pears by the third and fourth Verfes of the Chapter )ou now quote, where the 
 main Reafon St. Paul gives for our Obedience, is. That Rulers are not a Tenor 
 to gotd Works., Im to the evili and that he, (viz,, fhe Supreme Power) is a Mhiif- 
 ter to t'.i for our Good : And indeed, i.c had been a very odd way of enforcing 
 our Obedience, for him to have laid the quite contrary, tliat this Powet 
 was to be obeyed, becaufe he was a 'Terror to good Works, and a Plague to all 
 good Men, and zMhiiftcy to u» of all manner of Mifchief and Mifery. This liad 
 been indeed an excellent way of proving tire Supreme Powers to be the Ordi- 
 nance of God. 
 
 M Before I can give }oii a full Anfwcr to what you have n-ow faid , I muft 
 beg leave to look back to the Legmning of your y5V/? Anfiver , where you objcc^c'j 
 that if by the Higher Powers litre mentioned, the Perions, and not tlie Autho- 
 rity of tliofc in Power, are to be underftood, then it would follow, that Tyrants 
 and Ufurpers are likewile the Powers ordained of God ; wliich Objedcion, I 
 think, may admit of an eafy Ani'wcr : 
 
 Firft, " Can tEere be no wife Reafon given why God may advance a bad Man S. C. Ft- p* 
 " (at Tyrant) to be a Prince ? If there may, then it is no Reproacli to the Di- '-°* 
 " vine Providence. The Natural End of Humane Societies is the Prefervation 
 " of Publick Peace and Order ; and this is in fome mcafure attained even under 
 " the Government of Tyrants : But God hath a farciier End than this, to blefs 
 " and reward a virtuous Nation, or to punilli a loofc and degenerate Age ; and 
 
 there cannot be a greater Blelfing than a wife and virtuous Prince, nor a greater 
 " Plague than a mcrcilefs Tyrant : And therefore the Providerce of God is as 
 " much concerned in fecting a good or a bad Prince over any People, as in re- 
 " warding or punilhing tliem. Upon this account God calls the King of 
 
 A a AjJ)Ki'f,
 
 178 
 
 B 
 
 IBLIOTHECA rOLITICA. 
 
 Ifai. 10. 5,6." Affyria, the Rod of his Anger, whom he raiftd up for the Pimijhmem of an Hyf(r 
 " critical Nation. 
 
 lb. p. 111. Secondly, " I have already proved, that by the Powers in this Text, the Apof- 
 *' tie means the Perfons of Soveraign Princes ; and therefore , according to his 
 " Doftrine, thofe Princes who were then in being, that is, the Rorfian Emperors, 
 " were advanced by God ,• the Pozuers that be, that is, the Princes and Emperors 
 " who now govern the World, are ordained and appointed by God, and that 
 
 „ " thus it is, God himfelf tells us : I have tnade the Earth, and given it to -whom it 
 
 J' • /• )> -cc Ji(j)j^^ fjjg^i jfjjiQ ffj^ -^ ^ji^ f20iu I have given all thefe Lands into the hands of Nebu- 
 " chadnezzar. King of Babylon, my Servant. 
 
 This was alfo the Belief of the Primitive Chriftians iinder Heathen and per- 
 fccuting Emperors. Tertul/ian , who wrote his Apology under Severus , aflerts , 
 " that Ca:far was chofen by God, and therefore that the Chriftians had a pecu- 
 " liar Propriety in C<xfar, as being made Emperor by their God. " So likewife 
 St. Augufline, De Civitate Dei, fpeaks to this purpofe (as I remember) : " God 
 " giveth Happinefs in the Kingdom of Heaven to the Godly alone : But this 
 " earthly Kingdom both to the Godly and Ungodly , as it pleafes him. He 
 " that gave the Government to Marim, gave it alfo to Cafar : He who gave it 
 ** to Aiigujim, gave it alfo to Nero : He who gave it to the Vefpafians , Father 
 " and Son, moft beloved Emperors, gave it alfo to the mofl cruel Domitian .- And 
 " ( not to recount the reft of them ) he who gave it to Conftantine the Chriftian, 
 " gave it alfo to the Apoftate Julian. Thefe things, without doubt, the only 
 " true God governed as he pleafed, by Caufes, though hidden, yet not iinjuft. " 
 So likewife almoft all the reft of the Fathers do own, that wicked and Lyranmcal 
 Princes are given as Punifhments to the People for their Sins ; and fo upon this 
 account are to be endured, and not relifted, fince it is God's Will to have it fo. 
 
 5.C.R.ft. 128. But as for Ufurpers, I think I can give you a very fatisfadory Anfwer; " for 
 " the moft profperous Rebel is not the Higher Power, while our Natural Prince, 
 " to whom we owe Obedience and Subjeftion, is in being : Ana therefore, the' 
 " fuch Men may get the Power into their hands by Gou's Permilllon, yet not by 
 " God's Ordinance ,• and he who reiifteth them , doth not refift the Ordinance 
 " of God, but the Ufurpations of Men. Whereas in Hereditary Kingdoms, the 
 " King never dies ,• but the fame Minute that the Natural Perfon of a King dies, 
 " the Crown defcends upon the next of Blood : And therefore he who rebelleth 
 ^ " againft the Father, and murders him, continues a Rebel in the Reign of the 
 
 " Son, which commences with his Father's Death. 
 
 " It is otherwife indeed, where none can pretend a greater Right to the Crown 
 " than the Ufurper ; for there the Poilefllon of Power feems 1:0 give a Right : 
 
 lb. f. 119. " Thus many of the Roman Emperors came to the Ciown by very ill means; 
 " but when they were poflefs'd of it, they were then the Higher Powers : Foe 
 " the Empire did not defcend by Inheritance, but fometimes by the Eieftion 
 " of the Senate, fometimes of the Army, and fometimes by Force and Power, 
 *' which always draws a Confcnt (andSubmiflion)- after it. And therefore, the 
 " Apcftle doth not direih the Chriftians to enquire by what Title the Emperors 
 " held tneir Cr*. vvn«^^, but commands them to fubmit to thofe who had tl;e Power 
 " in their hands : For the Polieflioa of the Supreme and Soveraign Power is lide 
 " enough, when there is no better Tide to oppofe againft it ; for then v/t muft pre- 
 " fume that God gives him the Irreiiftible Authority of a King, to whom he 
 " gives an Irrefiftible Power j which is the only means whereby Monarchies and 
 " Empires are transferred from one Nation to another : There are two Examples 
 " in Scripture which manifeftly confirm what I have now faid. 
 
 The firft is in the Kingdom of Ifrael, after the Ten Tribes had divided from 
 the Tribe of Judah and the Family of David, where God had not entailed the 
 Kingdom upon any certain Family : For after Jeroboa7n the firft King, it i$ plain 
 by the Story in the Books of Kiags and Chronicles, that for fome Succe.lions there 
 was nothing but Rebellion, and tlie Murder of one King by another, fo thai- die 
 Kingdom rarely dcfccnded from the Father to the Son ; and in the whole Succef- 
 lion of cacfe Kings, ic only remained in the Houfe oifehu for four Generations, 
 and then it returned to its former Uncertainty, as you may fee in the 15 th Chap- 
 
 //'. p. 131. ter of the 2d of Kings : All which plainly fhews, " that where there is no regu- 
 '' lar Succcflion to a Kingdom, there Poflcirion of Power makes a King, who 
 
 " yet
 
 Dialogue the Fourth. typ 
 
 " yer cannot afterwards be refiftcd and oppofcd without the Guilt of Treafon : 
 " And this was the Cafe of the Rotma Empire at tlie writing of this Epillle r 
 " And therefore the Apoftic might then very well fay, tiiat t/je Pvnen that be a,e 
 " wdiimed of Gui ; and that whoever had the Supreme Power in his hands, was 
 " the Supreme Power, that might not be refifled. 
 
 •But it was otherwife m the Kingdom of y.'uli/j , which God himfcif had en- 
 tailed on David's Family, as appears from the Examples of Jcajlj and Athaliah, 
 which we difcourfed of at our laft Meeting but one : Which Examples plainly 
 Ihew, that no Ufurpations can extinguifli- the Right and Title 'of a Natural or 
 Hereditary Prince : Such Ufurpers, though they have the Poireflion of the Su- 
 prertie Power, yet they have no Right to it ; and though God for wife Reafons, 
 may fometimcs permit fuch Ufurpations, yet wiiilfl: liis Providence fecures the 
 Perfop.s of fuch dcpofcd and banifli'd Princes from Violence, he fecures their Title 
 too. 
 
 Biit to prove more plainly, that no Refinance is to be made againft the Per- 
 fons or Authorities of the Supreme Powers, let them be never fo cruel and tyran- 
 nical, as it is evident not only from what Sc. Paul hath liere written ; but I fhall 
 • alfo crave leave to infilt farther on that Text of St. Peter before cited, in his lil 
 Epill. 2d Chap. Submit ycmjelves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lord's fake, xvhe- V>r. 19,14, 
 therit be to the King, a; Supreme ; or unto Governors, m unto them that are f era by him 
 for tfx Punilhment of Evil-dcers , and for the Praife of thejn that do vceJl : Where by 
 Ordinance of Man, v/hether we underftand, as fome do, every Humane Law ; or 
 with others, more juftly, wflp^Tr/vvj vltiuu, every Humane Creature, ( as it is in the 
 Original) that is, every Man endued with Supreme Power, it comes all to the 
 fame Senfe, and the King as the Supreme Power, and his Minifters or Officers, 
 as Powers fubordinate to him, and ad:ing by his Commillioi^, are to be fubmit- 
 tedto and obeyed as much as himfelf: And it iiad been in vain for St. Peter to 
 have -concluded this Exhortation with/e^,- God and honour the King, if he had al- 
 low'd it lawhil in any cafe to refill him ; fince certainly no Man can honour him, 
 whom he reiifts : And tliat this is a Dodtrine e\erlaftingly true, appears by the 
 time in which St. Peter and St. Paul wrote thcfe Epiftles, which was either under 
 the Reigns of Clauditu or Nero; and I fiippofe you v/ill hardly meet with two 
 worfc Men, or more cruel T}rants, in ail the Catalogue of Emperors : Since the 
 former committed many wicked and cruel things by his Freed-men and Officers ; 
 and alfo baniflied the fev:s, and Chriftians together with them, from Rojnc : And 
 the latter is fo notorious for his Cruelty, and Perfecution of the Chriftians, that 
 his Name palles into a Proverb. And yet theie were the Higher Powers, to 
 whom the Apoftles comm:tnded tlicm to be fubjcft. From whence you may fee 
 your Error in intcrjireting the il^aia, to lignify juf and la-iufiil Authority ; whereas 
 it plainly fignifieth in this place, theM^« vefied with this Authority howCocvei- tyrsLn-' 
 nically they abufe it. 
 
 F. You iiave made a pretty' long Reply ; and I have heard it patiently, be- 
 caufc, I confefs, tliat on this depends the wliole Controvcrfy between us : And 
 therefore I flull beg that you would hear me with the like Patience ,• becaufe 
 what you have now faid, 1 grant to be of that weight, as to require a large, as 
 well as a confiderate Reply. And therefore I fliall make bold to confider the laft 
 part of your Speech in the firft place, becaufe I can fooneft difpatch it : As for 
 your Argument, that we ought to be iiibjeii: to the moft tjrannical Governors 
 wi:hout any Refinance, becaufe Ciaudim or Nero, whom you fuppofe to be cruel 
 Tyrants, then governed the Empire, and perfecutcd the Chriftians. 
 
 In anfwer to this, I muft tell you, that if } ou pleafe better to confider of it, 
 you will find it very doubtful whether St. Paul wrote this Epi/lle to the Romam du- 
 ring the Reigns of Claudim or Nero. The Learned Morlieur Capel, in his Dif- 
 courfe which he hath written, on purpofe, concerning the Time of the Writing 
 ot this Epiftle, proves this EpijUe to the Romans to have been written during the 
 latter End of tiie Reign of CLnidim. Bjt thofe Learned who will have it writ- 
 •ten during the Reign of Nero, do all agree, that it was in the beginning of it, 
 within the Hrfl five Years, when the Adminiflration of Affairs was under the Mi- 
 nillry ol Seneca and Burrhm, and when the Government cf the Empire was moft 
 juft and moderate, and divers Years before ever Nero burnt the City, or perfecu- 
 tcd the Chriftians, and did fo many extra\'agant, cruel, and tyrannical Actions, as 
 
 A a 2 forced
 
 l80 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 forced tlie Senate to declare him the Enemy of Mankind. But as for Claudim, he 
 never perfecuted the Chriftians at all, as I know of. 
 
 M. I pray, Sir, give me leave to interrupt you a little : Did rot Clauditu per- 
 fecute the Chriftians, when under the notion of ^fiii he banifhcd them from Rome^ 
 as appears by ASis the eighteenth, when Aquila and Prtfulla were forced to quit 
 Italy and come into Greece, becaufe of tliat Edift ? And yet it was this very Clau- 
 dim, to whom St. Peter (if not St. Paul) doth require all Men to be fubjed: with- 
 out any Refiftance. ^ 
 
 F. I think this Difficulty will eafily be anfwered ; for in the firft place, the I 
 grant that Claudim towards tlie latter end of his Reign banifhed the Jews from 
 Rome ; yet did he not banifli the Chriftians from thence, as we know of, any 
 otherwife than as they were Jexvs by Nation ,• and upon this account it was, thac 
 Aquila, being a Jew by Birth, was forced to quit Rome with the reft : But nei- 
 ther SiietoniHi, nor any other Author, tells us, that he likewife banifhed the Chrif- 
 tians, tho' I know indeed there are fome learned Men that would interpret this 
 PalVage in the former Author, in his Life of Claudim . Judxos tumultuantes, impul- 
 fame Crefto Rotna expulit ; to be meant of the Chriftians being expelled Rome, as 
 inftigated by Chrift their Prophet to Sedition. But tho' I own that our Saviour 
 wasYometimes called Chrejlm by the Pagans, by way of Contempt, yet that by 
 this Chreflus here mentioned, cannot be underftood our Saviour Chrift, is very evi- 
 dent ; for it had been very improbable for Suetonius to have made Chrift, who was 
 dead above thirty Years before, to have excited the Jews to Sedition : And there- 
 fore the Lord Primate Ujher, in the 2d Volume of his Annals, (with much bet- 
 ter Reafon) fuppofes, that not our Saviour, but fome feditiousj^etu called Cre/ius, 
 who headed this Sedition, was the caufe of the Banifliment of the Jews from 
 from Rome : So that this was no more a Perfecution for Rehgion, than it would 
 have been for the Parliament in King Charles the Second's Reign, during the heat 
 of the Popilh Plot, to have banifhed all the Papifts out of England upon the ac- 
 count of their former Rebellions, and conftant Machinations to overturn the Go- 
 vernment, and Religion eftablifh'd by Law : But fuppoling this Edift to have ba- 
 nifhed the Chriftians as well as Jews, it had fignified nothing ; for it was no Perfe- 
 cution for Religion : And befides, being made in the laft Year of Claudius, it was 
 but a temporary Edid ,• and we find the Jews to have lived quietly at Rome in the 
 Reign of Nero, as appears by the laft Chapter of the A^s. 
 
 But as for Claudius's Government, it was fo far from being an infupportable 
 Tyranny , that there was no Prince that did take more care to do impartial Jiif^ 
 tice, according to that fmall Capacity he was Mafter of, than himfelf. And tho* 
 I yield, that by his Proconfuls, Prefidenrs and Freemen, there were many Op- 
 preirions and Cruelties committed in the Provinces ; yet it was only againft fome 
 private Men, and did not extend to the deftroying and enflaving ihc whole Body of 
 the People, who during his Reign generally enjoyed their Liberties and Properties 
 with as great Freedom, as under any of his Predecelfors. 
 
 And as for Nero, all Ecclefiaftical Hiftorians agree, that if this Epiftle of 
 St. Paul was written in his Reign, it was within the lirft five Years of u, which 
 was in his Non-age, under the Adminiftration of Seneca and Bur: bus ; during 
 which time all prophane Hiftorians agree, that the Empire was never better go- 
 verned ; and as for the Wickednefs and Violence that ATf/OCOmmiCLcd afterwards, 
 when he perfecuted the Chriftians, murder'd his Mother, his Wife, and moft of 
 his beft, and moft intimate Friends, and fet the City on Fire : St. Paul was fo 
 far from knowing any thing of them, that fure he would not have urged it to the 
 Romans, as a Reafon of their Subjeftion to him, that Rulers are not a "Terror to good 
 Works, but to the evil, or that he was a Minifler to them, that is, to the SubjeEls 
 for good ; nay, even in the worft of his Reign, as far as Juftice was duly admini- 
 ftred by himi^lf, or his Under-OfEcers, I grant, he was not to be refifted, not- 
 withftanding his Perfonal Crimes, which could only reach a few Perfons, fince a 
 wicked Man may often make a tolerable Prince. 
 
 And though Domitian was in his own Perfon a cruel Tyrant, yet he was fo far 
 commendable, and to be born with by his Subjefts, that during his Reign the 
 Proconfuls, Prefidents, and other Inferior Magiftrates, were never freer from 
 Corruption and OpprefTion : Whereas when A'e/■^'a (who was a mild good-na- 
 tur'd Prince ) fucceeded him , by his too great Lenity towards thofe Inferior 
 
 Magi-
 
 Dialogue the Fourth, i8l 
 
 Magiilratcs, all things prefcndy degenerated into a molt fad Cond.t.on, Juaice 
 being fold and perverted, and the Poor robbed and opprcfs'd, by ciie Violence of 
 the Rich and Powerful. And even Nero himfelf had this Commendation from ins 
 greatelt Enemy, Suetonius , that he would not be governed by his Officers and 
 Frccd-men (as Claudms was) to do foolijh and unjiiji tbi/igs. So that if N'e/o him- 
 felf had not by burning the City, and by murdering the innocent Citizens m the 
 Night, made liimlelf a publick Enemy ; I do not fee but his Government might 
 very well have been born with, notwithftanding his Perfonal Crimes and Vices : 
 For if you pleafe to remember, I have already excepted Perfonal Faults in Princes, 
 from being any jufl caufe of rclifting their Authority, if they arc fuch as can any way 
 conlift with the Common Safety and Welfare of the People. 
 
 M. I muft confefs I never yet confider'd this matter, concerning the Time when 
 St. Peter and St. Paul wrote thefe Epiftles ,• and you'll pardon me ii I do not rea- 
 dily allow what you (2.)', but I promifc you to confider farther of this matter, 
 and examine the Authors you have quoted : But however, whether the Chrifiians 
 were then adually perfccuted, or not, or whether thefe Emperors were then aftii- 
 ally Tyrants, or nor, lignifies very little to me ; for thefe Holy Apcftles might 
 very well forcfee, not only by Divine Revelation, but by Natural Prudence or 
 Forefight, that the Emperors would prove great Tyrants and Perfecutors of the 
 Church ; and the late Example of the Emperor Caligula had (hewed them not 
 only the Poffibility, but alio the great Likelihood that it might happen again : 
 And therefore it is no wonder, that thefe very Apoftles do, hi conlideration of 
 this , command all Chriftians to fubmit to , and obey all Supreme Powers , and 
 their Subordinate Officers, upon pain of Damnation : And if St. Petei, in this 
 Chapter laft quoted, commands Servants to be fubjeci to their Mufiers, not only to the 
 Good and Gentle, but alfo to the Froward, (that is, to the Cruel ai;d Ill-condition'd) 
 and gi\'es this Reafon for it : For this is thank-worthy, if a Man for Confcience towards 
 God endures Grief, fuffering -wrongfully : And enforces ic with this great Motive, 
 For even hereunto were ye called, becaufe Chnfi alfo fufiered for m, leaving us an Example, 
 that ye fiould follow his Steps : And if Servants, or Slaves, were to be fubjed to their 
 Mailers, let thein ufc them never fo cruelly, it will, I think, hold more ftrong for 
 Soveraign Powers, who are the immediate Ordinance of God. 
 
 F. You need not have made your Anfwer half fo long, if you had been pleas'd 
 to take notice, that I have ftill excepted any Relifiance-wnich migiit be then made 
 againft the Ro?naii Emperors, upon the account of Perfccution for tJie meet fcore 
 of Religion ; fince I grant, that our Saviour hath, for thofe particular Reafons I 
 have already alledged, commanded us to a patient Suffering, and bearing Tefli- 
 mony to the Truth of his Religion by Martyrdom, or any other Sufferings which 
 he fhall think lit to inflift upon us by lawful Authority, and for the like ends for 
 which they were to fufler. Yet hath he nor therefore taken away all thofc other 
 Natural Rights, which whole Nations had of Self-defence againfi Tyranny and 
 Slavery, whenfoever they are exercifed upon them. Nor doth your Argument 
 from the Duty of Slaves to their Matters, at all concern Subjefts, much lefs whole 
 Nations : For, I hope, there is a great deal of difference between tliem and per- 
 fedc Slaves, who having no power over their own Perfons, and fo had neither Li- 
 berties nor Properties to lofe. 
 
 But befidcs, if you pleafe better to confider this Te.xt, you will find, that this 
 did wholly concern fuch Chriftian Slaves who were for their Religion's fake often- 
 times the more cruelly treated by their Heathen Mailers : And therefore thofe 
 Words } oil have but now repeated. If a Man for Confaence fake fufers wrongfully, 
 as likcwifc thofe in the 20th Verfe, If you do well, and fuffer for it, can only be 
 meant of Suffering for the Profeflion of Chrift, lince no Heathen Emperors, nor 
 Mailers, ever perfccuted their Subjects, or cruelly treated their Salves, for well do- 
 ing ; that is, doing thofc Duties and Services that they owed them ; and therefore, 
 this place makes nothing at all to the Queflion in hand- 
 
 M. But pray tell me, doth not the Apoflle Paul exprefly command eve^y Soul, 
 that is, every Man whatfoever, ( not whole Nations excepted) to be fubyeEi to the 
 Higher Powers ( And lince you grant it to be true as to p.:rticular Men , why ic 
 fliould not likewife hold as to whole Nations, 1 can fee no reafon, unlefs you will 
 be wifer than the Apollle, and make Exceptions out of this general Rule, where 
 the Scripture itfclt makes none : For can any tlung be more cxprefs than this, that 
 
 they
 
 l8Z BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 tbey that reji/i fiaO receive to themfchcs Damnation ; and the VVordis in the plural 
 Number, t/jey, and muft theretore take in all Men, none excepted : I have urged 
 this already, and finding you ha\'e not given me an Anfwer to it, I make bold to 
 remind you oF that Omiflion. 
 
 F. I beg your pardon, if the multiplicity of your Objections hath made me 
 emit any thmg that was material to be anfwered; but the truth is, 1 fuppofe that 
 1 had in efteft done it already ; butlince you will needs have it made plainer to you, 
 I hope you will pardon me, if in the doing of it I am forced to ufe fome Repctuion. 
 Therefore in the firft place, I (hall not deny the Interpretation whicn our Tran- 
 flators put upon this Word Kpr/A«, which tho' it fometimes fignifies not eter- 
 nal Damnation, but temporal Judgments ; yet I will own it will not well agree 
 with what follows in this place, which are only temporal Reafons and Motives for 
 this Duty. Now underftand this Word Kpr/^a in the Scripture Senfe, and the' I do 
 it will be much at one ; for I have already proved to you, that whether you tak$ 
 thefe eiaaiat for Powers or Perfons, they are not abfolutely irrefifcible, and I have 
 St. Chnfoftome on my fide in the Interpretation of this Word, who undcrftands no 
 more by it, than that Civil Power or Authority is from God, but not the Tyrants 
 or wicked Men that execute it; but if it be taken for the Perfon endued with 
 this Authority, I have alfo Ihewn you, that when tiiey degenerate into intole- 
 rable Tyrants they lofe their Charafter, and may be refilled as well as Mad-ra^tt 
 and Fools. So much in refpeft of the Powers theml'elves, and now to come to the 
 People : I think I have given very good reafons already, why a whole People 
 or Nation, or the major part thereof, may have a Right to refiit the Supreme 
 Powers, and yet that I need not allow particular privitc Perfons the fame Liberj 
 ty ; and one great Reafon is, becaufe tJiey cannot, and the other becaufc they 
 ought not to do it. The firft you yourfelf do acknowledge, fincc yov. i'ay, a prh 
 uate Per fun, -when he 7nakesfuch B,ef fiance, doth it at his (nrnfenl, when he hath vnly his ffwn 
 fingle-felf to cppofe againft his Prince. And that fingle Perfons dont ufe to refifi, nor is- thiKt 
 any great danger to the Publick if they do. To which I fhall like wile add a much better 
 Reafon, which I have alfo given you before, why private Sub jcfts ought no: ma 
 Civil State to made publick Difturbances, to avoid any Violence that ma.y be 
 done to their particular Perfons or Eftates, becaufe every private Subjc6t ought 
 to prefer the Peace and Happinefs of the Commonwealth, whereof he ii a Mem- 
 ber, before his own private Intereft, which being a Dictate of the Law or Na- 
 ture or Right of Reafon, cannot extend to the whole Nation or Civil Society : 
 fince it is as mucii againft the Law of Nature, for that to be deftroyed, oeggar'd 
 and enflaved, as it is that God fliould ordain all Mankind to be fo. And there- 
 fore our Saviour and St. Paul never intending to alter any of thofe great Laws of 
 Nature, it cannot be believed that they would tye Mankind to fucJi ftrift and fe- 
 vere Rules of Non-refiftance and Subjcdion, as fliould expofe them to Beggary^ 
 and Slavery, and Ruin, with all tiic Mileries of this Life : Nor do I find that 
 either our Saviour or his Apoftles have either proraifed eternal Life for fuch 
 flavifli Subjeftion, or threatned Damnation for fuch Reliftance. 
 
 M. To anfwer what you have now faid, I muft in the firft place take notice, 
 that tho' I grant St. Chryfvficme, for fear of making Tyrants and wicked Princes 
 to be ordained by God, gives that Interpretation of the Word iiaaia which you 
 have now done ; yet he owns the Doftrine of Non-refiftance, becaii. the Power 
 is from God, as you may here fee in thefe Quotations out of him, wnich the lear- 
 jied Primate hath made ufe of in the fecond Part of his Treatife of the Iciuer of the 
 Prince, which you may, if you pleafe, read with me, and compare the Greek in 
 P/iire III, the Margin : " For it is the plea fure of God, that the Magiftrate, whomhehath 
 ''-• *' ftamped with his own Image, fhould have alfo his own Power. And he that 
 
 " obeyeth not him, makes War, in a fort, with God who hatn appointed thefe 
 " things. Let us not therefore invert this Order, nor fight with Cod j demon- 
 *' ftrating by our Deeds that Saying of the Apoftle, Whofoever reffieth the Povcer^ 
 *' refifleth the Ordinance of God'' So likewife in another Place, " If we reverence 
 *' and fear thofe Magiftrates tliat are elected by the King, altho' they be wicked, 
 " altho' they be Thieves, altho' they be Robbers, altho' they be unjuft, or 
 " wliatever they be ; not defpiling them for their Wickednefs, but flanding in 
 " awe of them tor the Dignity of them that did eleft them ; much more ought 
 l'<iA. p. 1 1^. " we thus to do in the Cafe of God." But it is no matter in what fenle this, or 
 
 any
 
 Dialogue the Fourth. 1 83 
 
 any other Father takes thcfe Words, lo long as the Dodrine of Non-rcfiflance is 
 fecure. 
 
 But it feems very ftrange, that you cannot find that our Saviour and his 
 Apoftlcs ha\e neither promifed eternal Life for flavifli Subjcftion, nor threatned 
 Damnation for RcfiiUncc ; for as fure as the Words are, that they that refifl flmll re- 
 ceive to themfehes Damnatkiiy fo fure it will likewife follow, that they that do the 
 contrary, and are patiently fjbjcct, fliall receive eternal Life. I beg your Par- 
 don for tliis Interruption, therefore pray go on with the reft of your Reply : 
 And let me fee how you can avoid Damnation, if the Words of the Apoflle are 
 true. 
 
 F. The Queftion is ftill the fame as it was before, rotwithftanding what you 
 have now faid ; for it is not, whether fome Reliiiance be not unlawful, but 
 whether all Refiftance whatfoever be that Refiftance forbidden b}- the Apoftle. 
 And to let you fee that you do not put fuch a ftridc Interpretation upon other places 
 of Scripture, pray tell me thereafon why, wh^n'ourSaviourexpreOy commands us. 
 Not to -/efft the Evil, (that is, the Evil Doer) kit -whofoever [ball finite thee on thy 7.-i/. 5. 99, 
 right Cheeky turn to him the other alfo. And if any Man ■u^il! fue thee at the Law, and'^^' 4'> 4*- 
 taJke away thy Coat, let him have thy Chnk alfo. And whcfoever jhall compel thee to go a 
 Mile, go with him nuain. Give to him that cjketh thee, and from him that ■would horrow 
 of thee tiiYH not thou aiuay. [Or yet thcfe more fcvere Commands] of pulling out the Ver. 28. 19. 
 right Eye, and cutting off the right Hand, ij thiy offe'nd m; of 7nakihg ourjehes Eunuchi 
 for the Kingdom of Heaven's fake ; and ihat he that can receive it, let him receive it. 
 What is the rcafon, I fay, why thofe places of Scripture, which taken literally, are 
 as ftrift as this }OU now quo^e, T'hat they that ref/ljoall receive Damnation ; yet that 
 moft of the Fathers, as well as tlie more modern Commentators, put a figura- 
 tive, and not a literal Senfe upon thefe Texts ? Pray tell ms your reafon why they 
 dofo. 
 
 M. I think the reafon is very plain, becaufe to underflarid them in a literal 
 Senfe, were utterly unprafticable, and ccntradiftory to the common Senfe and No- 
 tions of Mankind, and thofe natural Diftatesof Self-prcfervation, which St. Paul 
 approves of, when he fays. No Alan yet hated his own Flij/j ; and it was altogether 
 unfuitable to the Dodrine of Chrift, whicli was intended for the perieftion of hu- 
 mane Nature, that is, of Men's Souls and natural Reaion, and for the Quiet and 
 Happinefs, not Hurt and Dcftrudion of their Bodies. 
 
 F. I grant your Reafons are very gooci»and felf-evident ; but pray tell me, is 
 it not as much againll the common Senfe and Notions of Mankind, that God 
 fliould give Civil Soveraigns an Arbitrary Irrcfiflable Power to Murder, Deftroy 
 and Ruin their People, if they fliould think fit fotodo, or that Jefus Chrift, who, 
 you fay, came into the World for the perfedcion of our humane Nature, and not 
 for the deftruction of our Bodies, fhould give tlie Supreme Powers an Authority 
 to do the fame things with Murderers and Thieves ; and that it was unlawful 
 for Men to defend themfelves againft their Violence, if they could. So that lean 
 fee no rcafon why this Precept againft Non-reiiftance may not be taken in a limited 
 or rational Senfe, as well as Swear not at all; which, tlio' as exprefs as Words 
 can make it, yet Commentators interpret it to extend no farther than againft fwea- 
 ring in common Communication. So lilcewife tiiis PrecejU, Children obey your Parents 
 in all things ; which without the reafonable Interpretation of all things lawful, 
 would oblige Children to obey their Parents in whatfoever they commanded them, 
 whether good or bad. 
 
 But to come to your Qiiotations out of St. Chryfojlome, which you would oppofc 
 againft mine ; I think tliey will not fervc fo much to your purpole as you imagine. 
 For I grant that tlie Supreme Magiftrate derives his Power from God, but not 
 a Power to murder and deftroy ; fo likev.ife he that obeyeth him not, wars m a fort 
 with God; and that whofceve-- rejifeth the Power, (that is, wiien it is executed ac- 
 cording to God's Will) refifteth the Ordinance ofGid: And as for the laft Qiiotation 
 concerning the Reverence that is due to fubordinace M-igillrates eledt-cl by the 
 the King, tho' they are Wicked, Thieves and Robbers, (i/c and confequcntl),. 
 much more the King who fends them ; this, ti-o' the ftrongeft place of the three, 
 yet will not do the Bulinefs ; for I believe you cannot fuppofe that St. Chry 
 joflorne tlicre means that fubordinate Magiftrates, fcnt by the King, were really 
 Thieves and Robbers, and took away Men's Goods upon the common Road, but 
 
 only
 
 i84 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 only that by Bribery and Corruption in their Offices they did rob and peel the 
 People, as much as if they had really been fo; which extending only to feme few 
 Perfons, was rather to be born with (as any intolerable Iiiconveniencies in Civil 
 Government are) than for tlie People to take Arms and reiift them. But I think 
 the Cafe would have been much otherwifc, had thefe fnbordinate Magill:rateSj by 
 vertue of the Emperor's Coramiffion, made ufe of his Forces to murder and rob the 
 Subjeds oi thofc Provinces over which they were fet ; and that it would not have 
 been any Rebellion in the People, if tliey fliould have taken Arms and refifted them, 
 lince the Emperors did not impowcr ILich Magiftrates to murder or rob, but to 
 protefit his Subje&s. 
 
 But to give you a Qiiotation out of St. Ckyfofiome, in lieu of yours, I ftiall fhew 
 you his Comment upon thefe Words in his 23d Homily on the Romans, " hti: 
 ' " every Soul be fubjeft to the higher Powers, (that is, fays he) that Chrift might 
 *' fliew that he had net inftitutcd his Laws fo, that lie would overturn all common 
 " Policy and Government, but that he might reform it to the better, and might 
 " alfo teach us, that fuperfluous and unnccellary Wars were not to be undertaken, 
 " becaufe it was then a common Difcourfe traducing the Apoftles as Seditious ^nd 
 " and Innovators, and doing all things they could to overthrow the common Con- 
 " flitutions of their Country /' and therefore he flops the Mouths of the 7''"-' apd 
 and Heathens with thefe Words. 
 
 From whence we may infer, that St. Chy\fofio;ne did not believe that St. P<j«/ 
 wrote tliisonly to give Tyrants a Power to do whatever they pleafed againfl: thw 
 Subjects without any Refinance ,• nor yet that Subjefts fhould begin unnqc^flary 
 and unlawful Wars, by refifting them upon every flight Occalion : Nor doth this 
 Father here forbid Subjects to rcfift in cafes of the higheft Tyranny or Oppreflion 
 that could befall them ; fo that I take the true Senfe of thefe places of St. Peter 
 andSt. Pi?;;/ to be no more than this,- " Let every Chriflian fubinit to th? Sw- 
 " preme Powers, i.e. to the Emperor, and all other fubovdinaie Magiftratcs fcnt 
 " and appointed by him. For all ihn^iu or Civil Authority is from God ; an4 
 " Magiftratcs jiiftly exercifing this Power are from him ; and in his ftead, all Su- 
 " preme Powers, luider whatever different Names or Titles they be> are by God's 
 " Providence appointed in the World, for its Order, Peace and the well Gcvvpr- 
 " ning of it. He therefore that refifteth fuch Supreme Powers, whoever he bcj 
 " refifteth the Ordinance of God," that is, the means that God hath ordained 
 for the reftraining thediforderly Lufh^andPafTions ofMen. And they th^t will 
 not obey their Laws, as far as the Laws of God or Nature may permit, but will 
 refift, fliall receive to themfclves Damnation. And thus far even Tyrants ftpd 
 Ufurpers may be obeyed, tho' not as fuch, but as Difpenfers of publick Juftjpe, 
 and Executors of the Laws, and fo are God's Minifters for Good ; that isj io^ 
 the publick Peace and Safety. But neither the Apofile, nor Si. Ch-yfoficme his 
 Commentator, any where fay, that either the Power, however exercifed, t>r the 
 Perfons that thus abufe it to the Deftruftion of Mankind, are likewife from 
 God. 
 
 M. But pray confidcr the Medium a little more clofely, by which the Apoftle 
 proves and enforces this Dodrine of Subjeftion or Non-refiftance. For, fays he, 
 S. C. B. f. q'ljci; is no Po-i-ey but of God, the Pozveis that he me oydnined of Cud. M'ljofcever therefore 
 ' "^' ^ ' 7* reftfieth the Power, rejifteih the Ordinance of God. The plain meaning ot which isthis. 
 That Soveraign Princes, whether good or bad, Tyrants or good Governors, be- 
 ing advanced to the Throne by God, arc his Minifters and Vicegerents, invefted 
 with his Authority and Power to govern ; and therefore when we reiift our Pritipe, 
 we refift the Ordinance, Confticution and Appointment of God ; and fuch Men 
 do not refift, rebel or fight againfl Man, but God ; as he wiio refifteth any fijb- 
 ordinate Magiftrate, refifteth his Prince, from whom they receive their Authori- 
 ty and Commiflion. And this is a very forcible Argument for Subjection to 
 Princes ; for wliatever our Prirxe be, it is certain that God hath an abiblutq^nd 
 uncontroulable Right over us, as being the true Lord and Governor of the World ; 
 and if earthly Princes are placed in the Throne by him, who is at liberty to put 
 the Government cf thcWorid into what Hands he pleafqs, who will dare to oppofe 
 God ? or ask him, why haft thou done fo ? Whoever hatii any fenfe of God'sDominion 
 and Soveraignt)', dares not rebel againft him, and he who believes that Princes are 
 made by Gcd, will no more dar<; to rebel againft his Prince, than againft God 
 
 himfelfj
 
 Dialogue the Fourth, iSc 
 
 himfelf ; fince (as I faid before) evil Princes may be fent by God for a Punifli- 
 menc to a wicked People, as well as good ones for a Blclling to a pious Na- 
 tion. 
 
 F. If you had plcafed to have confidcred what I have already faid, yoU 
 might have fpared this Objeftion ,- for it is no more than what hach been already 
 anfwered ; for tho' I grant that Sovcraign Princes are advanc'd to the Tlirone by 
 God, and are by him inveRed with Power and Authority to govern ; and that 
 when we refift our Prince, we rcfift the Ordinance of God ; yet I defire to be 
 judged only by your own Words in this matter ; the Prince receives from God 
 Authority to gov'ern ; but is tl^.e murdering, ruining and enfla^ ing the People, 
 any part of Civil Government ? And when we refift our Prince, we refift the 
 Ordinance of God ; but is the refifling of an implacable Tyrant, and an Enemy 
 of Mankind, refifting the Ordinance of God, or fighting againft him ? And I de- 
 fire you only to confider the force of your own Comparifon ; for (you fay) he 
 who refiftech any fubordinate Magiftrates, refifts the Prince from whom they 
 receive their Authority and CommifTion ; yet it is only in fuch things, which the 
 Prince hath given them Autliority or a Commiffion to do : As for Example, a Bayliff 
 may arreft me for Debt by vertue of the King's Writ^ yet if he goeth about to 
 rob or kill me, I may lawfully rcfift him; and if I kill him, it is no Murder. The 
 fame may be faid of all other fubordinate Minifters, how great foevcr they are ; 
 there to carry on your Parallel, the fame that fubordinate Magiftrates are in rela- 
 tion to Princes, the fame are Princes in refpeft of God : Therefore if tiiey nevet 
 received any Commiffion or Authority firom God to deitrny and enllave their Peoplcj 
 they fo far ceafe to be the Powers ordained by God ; and, fure, may then be re- 
 fifted by their opprefs'd People. 
 
 As for the reft of your Speech, as far as Earthly Princes are plac'd in the Throne 
 by God, and govern there like his Vicegerents, I own they are not to be op- 
 pofcd ; but fince 5'ou will have them to be fubmitted to, becaufe they may be or- 
 dained by God for a Punifliment for a wicked People ; I thank you for putting me 
 in mind to anfwer what you have before faid upon that Subjeft. I do not deny, 
 but God may often, for the Punifhment (as you fay) of a finful Nation, give 
 them a wicked or tyrannical Prince ,• and likewife that fuch a Prince, when thus 
 impofcd by God, is to be born without Refiftance, as far as is poffible, or may con- 
 fift with their being a People, and with thofe Enjoyments of Life, which are ne- 
 ccflary to their being Subjefts and Free-men, and not Slaves : And tho' I grant that 
 God doth likewife fometimes punifli a wicked Nation by appointing Conquerors, 
 fuch as the King of AJfyria, to carry them away Captive, and to reduce them to the 
 loweft Condition of Poverty and Slavery, as in this Cafe of the Jexvs by the King 
 of Babylon, who was then the Rod of God's Anger, and whom he raifed up for 
 the punifhment of an Idolatrous and Hypocritical Nation. Yet when he doth fo, 
 excluding all farther Refiftance in the People, it can only be known by divine Re- 
 velation, and cannot extend to all Conquerors whatever, whether by Right or 
 Wrong. And therefore, as God doth often in his Anger deliver the People up to 
 the Power of fome cruel Conqueror or Tyrant; fo likewife will he, in his good 
 Time, and upon their Repentance, deliver them from it again. Now this Deli- 
 verance muft be perform'd either by Miracles or humane Means ; but Miracles are 
 ceafed, and therefore fince only humane Means remain, thefe muft be either, Firfi, 
 By changing the Hearts of fuch tyrannical Princes into a better and more merci- 
 fiil Temper towards their Subjefts, as Solomon fays, 'fhe King's Heart is in the Hand ?'■'''!'■• ^i' '• 
 of the Lord, oi the Rivers of IVater be turneth it whitherfoever he will. Or elfe Second-' 
 ly. By taking away fuch a tyrannical Prince out of the World, and putting an- 
 other in his fiead, who may govern the People more mercifully, and who will noC 
 any more deftroy or opprefs them, as his Picdeceflbrs did. Or Thirdly, By ftir- 
 ring up fome Neighbour Prince to revenge the Injuries and Oppreffions done un- 
 to fuch a pcrfccuted and almoft ruined People ; and to reftore tliem to the enjoy- 
 ment of their former Liberties, Religion and Eftatcs. Or La/lly, By ftirring up 
 the People themfclvesto rife and refift thofe OpprcfTions they lie under, by their 
 own fingle Forces, or by imploring tlie Afliftanceof fome po^vcrful neighbouring 
 Prince or State. Now I fuppofe you will not deny, but that the Firll and Second 
 of thefe Means very rarely happen ; and as for the Third, we feldom find that 
 when a former Prince is taken out of the way, his Succclfor grows fo fonliblc of 
 
 B b the
 
 ipl BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 the Tyranny and Mif-government of his Predeceflbrs, as to let go any of that Ar 
 bitrary Power which he hath ufurped, or to remit any of chofc intolerable Taxes 
 and Oppreffions which he hatli laid upon them; but are commonly like RekLvam^ 
 when they come to the Crown, fo far from making their People's Toke ?mre eafy, 
 that they rather lay it more heavy upon their Necks ; as we may fee in the 
 Kingdom of i^/vzHte, in thefe three laft Defcenrs, where every Prince hath been 
 ftill more fevere and tyrannical than his Predecellbr ; for finding himfelfinvefted in 
 this abfolute and defpotick Power, without any unjuil: Aft of his own, he will 
 exercife it as he found it, and will think himfelf not at all obliged in Confciencej 
 to reftore any of thofe Rights his Predecellors had formerly ufurp'd upon the 
 People ; fince we find, Princes feldom lofe any thing they have once got : And 
 this may continue to all Generations, for ought we know, (which is much too long 
 for a Punifliment) unlefs fome extraordinary Accident fall out, as wc now fee by- 
 the Example of the Greek Chriftians, who having lain divers Ages under the Mo' 
 hometan Yoak, are now reftored to the Liberty of their Religion, by the Arms of 
 the German Emperor and Venetiam ; and are fo far from being blamed for joining 
 themfelves to their Deliverers, that they are rather commended by all Chriften- 
 dom for fo doing. And I fee no reafon why good F,emh-men, as well Pt<?r 
 teftants as others, may not as juftly join themfelves to the Prince of Orange, or any 
 other foreign Prince, who will be fo generous as to undertake their Deliv(?rjnce 
 from that cruel Yoak they lie under, and will reftore them to their antient Liber- 
 ties, and the Proteftants to the free Exercife of their Religion : Nor can I fee any 
 reafon why God fliould deliver a People into Servitude whenever a tyrannical 
 Prince hath fufficient Power to opprefs them ; and why God may not be as well 
 faid to deliver them, as often as the People find fit means and opportunity fo to 
 fet themfelves free. For doth fucli a Tyrant derive his Authority from God to 
 opprefs only becaufe he hath Power ? Aiid may not the People likewife from th6 
 fame Original, derive a Right to defend themfelves againft fuch an intolerable 
 Oppreffion ? Otherwife, God would chiefly regard and provide for this deftruo 
 tive tyrannical Power of Princes, as the chief, end of all Civil Socict}', and make 
 the Good and Happinefs of the People a thing fubordinate to that, or rather 
 only by the by, which is contrary to Reafon. 'Tis true, the Prophet Amoi faith, 
 CI:. 3. 5. T'liat there is no Evil in a City which God hath not feat : So likewife are all natural 
 Evils, fuch as Famine, Peftilence, Inundations and Foreign Enemies ; and yet 
 have not the People in thefe Cafes a Power to rid tliemfelves of them, if they can, 
 by all natural humane Means ? and yet they may be likewife Punifhments fent 
 from God. And if they may refifl: and decline fuch common and natural Judg- 
 ments, without flaying for an exprefs Revelation for that purpofe ; why 'njay 
 they not for the fame Reafon rid themfelves of fuch a Judgment as intolerable 
 Tyranny, when they are able, and have an Opportunity to do it .<" fince they 
 proceed firom the like common Difpenfations of God's Providence. Or elfe we 
 muft believe that the Wickcdnefs of one, or more Perfons, for the Deftru<5tion of 
 Civil Society, is more particularly derived from God, than the Power of the whole 
 People for their own Prefervation, and the common Good and Happinefs of the 
 Commonwealth : By which means Princes would have the fame Power and Right 
 over their Subjefts Bodies and Eftates, as they have over thofe of their Beafts, 
 to fell, kill and devour them at their Pleafiire. 
 
 M. Tho' I grant it may be lawful for People to remove natural Judgments 
 by humane Means ; yet doth it not follow, tliat they may therefore remove by 
 Force, fuch Punilhments as God pleafcs to lay upon them from the Abufe of Civil 
 Authority by the Supreme Powers, fince he hath particularly enjoined them to 
 bear fuch Punifliments patiently witliout any Rcfiftance, becaufe they are inflicted 
 by thofe whom God hath ordained for our temporal Governors and Mailers, 
 and whofe Violences and Oppreffions, as long as they continue in their Sins, God 
 hath very good reafon to continue upon them ; and if they repent, they may be 
 aflured that in his good time, lie will either remove tliem, or turn them to the 
 beft ; iot all things (even AfRiftions) work for the g(,od of them that jear him. And 
 God will not futter thofe that trvfl m him to be affliEied beyond what they are able to bear : 
 And if this Doftrine of yours might take place, both Sealants and Children, in 
 theStite of Nature,- might, upon the like Pretence,both reiift and turn their Father 
 and Mafter out of Doors, becaufe (forfooth) their Government was fo fevere 
 
 and
 
 Dialogue the Fourth, 187 
 
 and tyrannical, that ix. was not any longer to be endured by them ; and tho' fch 
 fevere Fathers or Maftcrs may be ordained by God for the Punifliment of fuch 
 wicked Children and Servants ; yet that being no more than other natural Judg- 
 ments, they may be without any Sin removed by Force or Rcfilbncc, whci.ever. 
 they thought thcmfclves ftrong enough to doit : And if this Doctrine be wicked 
 and abfurd in private Families, then is it much more fo in Kingdoms j for certain- 
 ly there is a more perfeft Subjcftion due to a Soveraign Prince, than to a Fatiier cr 
 Mailer; for he is more eminently the Miniftcr of God, andaftsbya morclacrcd 
 and inviolable Authority. And notwrithftanding what you have faid to the contra- 
 ry, that the Precept given to Servants by St. Veter doth not concern Subjcfis, I 
 think I can very well pro\-e that it doth ; as appears from the Example of Ciuifi, 
 which the Apoflle there recommended to our imitation, who was the moft innocent 
 Perfon in the World, and yet fuffered the moft barbarous Ufage, not from the 
 Hands of a private Mafter, but of the Supreme Powers. And therefore, when 
 he commands, in the fame Cliaptcr, tojubmk to Gmemors, cxs to thofe ix,ho are for the 
 Punifkmem of tvil Doers, and the praife of them t/j.^t do -xef/ ; it is evident that he did 
 not intend this as a Limitation of our Snbjedtion, or as if wc were nor bound to be 
 fubjeft in other Cafes, fince in the very fame Chapter he requires Subjecliou not only 
 to the good and gentle Mafiers, but alfo tothefroward, in imitation of the Example of 
 our Lord, who fuftcred patiently under unjufl: and tyrannical Powers. 1 obfervc 
 therefore, that the Apoftle doth not alledge this as the reafon of our Subjection ; 
 but as a Motive or Argument to reconcile us to tlie Practice of it. The rcafon of 
 our Submiflion to Princes is, that they are advanced by God, that they are his 
 Minifters, thatthoPe who refifl them relift the Ordinance of. God; and. therefore 
 we mjft iiibmit for God's fake, out of 'reverence to his Authority. But it is on- 
 ly an encouragement to Subjeftion, to confider the great Advantages of Govern- 
 ment, T'hat Rulers are not a lerror to grcd IVorks, hut to the evil. But tho' this 
 Motive fliould fail in fome Inftances, yet whilft the reafon of the Subjection lafts 
 (and that can never fail while we own the Soveraign Authuriry of God) fo long it 
 is our Duty to b; fubjccl, whether our Prince do his Duty or not_. 
 
 F. Altho' what you have now replied is no more, in eftect, than a Repetition 
 of what hath been faid before ; yet I forgive it,, imcc yoin- Caufe will not admit 
 no other ; nor can I fee any reafon why natural Judgments maybe removed by 
 Force or natural Means, but not Moral cr Civil ones; unlcfs you could alfo prove, 
 that it is God's c.vprefs Command, that we may remove the one, but not the otiier ; 
 nor have you proved it otherwife than by telling me, that Princes are God's Or- 
 dinance, and are endued with irrefiflible Power, all which hatii been alre.idy con- 
 fidercd, and I have already fliewn you it is neither commanded by God, nor yet 
 ordained by him for the common Good of Mankind. And tho' I own that A/l'lic- 
 tions may fometimcs ferve for a Punifhment of a iinful Nation ; yet it is as like- 
 ly that fuch a great and lafting Punifliment, as a mercilefs Tyrant, may as well 
 bring the People to Repentance, and when they are fufficiently amended, they may 
 very well enjoy the Benefits of it ; and they may as well cxpeft that God will 
 blefs all lawful Means for that End, whereof I take Relillance or Self-defence to be 
 the Principal, fince Miracles arc ceafed. And of this we have an E.vample in the 
 fecond of AT/zv^.r, chap. iS- For tlio' Ahaz,, the Father o( Hez,ekiah, had fubmicted 
 fiimfelf, and become Tributary to the King of AJfyria ; yet when Hez-ektah his 
 Son mrned to the Lord, it is faid, that he was with him, and that he rebelled 
 againft the King of Affyria, and fcrvcd him not ; and yet he was then as much fub- 
 jedto him, a.s JchoiUihtH or ZaM?^;/; were afterwards to Mluchadm'z.zar. So that 
 all that is new, in this Anfwcr of yours, is only the fatal Confequences that it 
 would bring upon all Families in the State of Nature ; for then (torfootii) Chil- 
 dten and Servants might likev/ife pretend, that the Government of their Fathers and 
 M:iflcrs were fo infupportable, that it was no longer to be cndi'ted, and fo might 
 rebel againft them and depofe them, which doth by no means follow; for 1 have 
 already proved at our firft Convcrfation, that fome fort of Rcliftance, tor the prc- 
 fetvation of Life and Limb, may be lawful againft the Outrages or Violence 
 of a Father or Mafter of a Family ; yet do I by no means allow that they fliould rc- 
 fift them for any other Correftiion or fevcrc Ufage wliich they fliall inflid upon 
 them; fince Servants or Slaves, whilft they continue under their Mafters Power, 
 can have no Liberty cr Property of their own to defend ; and a Son, whilft he 
 
 B b 3 remains
 
 l88 BiBLlOTHECA PoLlTICA. 
 
 remains part of his Father's Family, I grant, differs not from a Servant ; fo that 
 all that ought to be done, either by Sons or Servants, in caf_ the Government of 
 their Father or Mailer grow^s fo cruel and tytannical as not to be endured, is to 
 run away and leave the Family : And thus we read, that Hagar, upon the fevere 
 Ufagc of Sarah lier Miflrefs, fled from her, nor was blamed by the Angel for fo 
 doing. 
 
 Nor is what you have now faid, to prove the Subjcftion of Servants and Slaves 
 to be as abfolurc the one as the other, at all con\incing; for I have ic:^g lince 
 proved that a Family and a Kingdom are very different things ; and that Oecono- 
 mical and Civil Power do not only differ in Spkce, but in Genere too. For the' 
 I grant, that Slavery might begin by Compad, as well as by War; yet Subjedion 
 to Civil Power could regularly commence by Compa(^t only: And therefore fince 
 the natural State of Mankind is that of Freedom from Slavery, all Subjcfts are fup- 
 pofcd to be in that State of Freedom, and to have a Right both to their Liberties 
 and Properties ; whicli, if the Supreme Powers go about forcibly to take away, 
 they then ceale to be fo, fince they take away the main end of their Inflitution, I 
 mean, this of fuch a People, who are properly Subjcfts, and not Slaves : For 
 of thofc who own themfelves to be Slaves to their Prince, I told you already, 
 I would not take upon me to meddle ,• fince I doubt whether fuch an Empire can 
 be called a Civil Government or not : So that for all that you have hitherto faid, 
 I mull ftill believe St. Peter did not dired this Precept to Subjeds, but to Servants 
 under the Yoke, that is, to Slaves, fuch as had no Property in any thing, nor 
 Power over their own Perfons, but might be fold and aflign'd, with their Wives 
 arid Children, to whomfoever their Mafler plcafed j which tho'not of divine Infli- 
 tution, }'et fincc it was fo ordained by the Civil Laws of the Empire, neither Jefus 
 Chrift nor yet his Apoflles would make any Alteration in it; nor hath he thought 
 fit to do fo in any of thofe things which we enjoy as our Civil or Natural Rights, 
 by the Law of Nature, or the Municipial Laws of our Country ; and therefore 
 it is not true that there is as perfect a Subjedion due to a Soveraign Prince as to a 
 Mafler, unlefs the People of that Nation liave made themfelves abfolute Slaves to 
 him, inflead of Subjcds, which could never be but by their own Confent. It is 
 true, a Prince is more eminently the Minifler of God, and ads by a more facred 
 and inviolable Authority tiian a Mafler ; yet doth it not therefore follow that he 
 ads as God's Minifler, or by his facred or inviolable Authority, whe;. he deflroys 
 or enllaves the Subjeds : Nor can you fay that God hath given him any Autho- 
 rity fo to do. And as for the Example of Chrifl's Suffering, which y.ju urge as a 
 Reafon of our abfolute Subjedion to Princes, without any Refifta; cc, I have 
 anfwered that already, and therefore need fay no more to it ; Ln t do own, that in 
 that great Point of fuffering for Religion, when we are lawfully called ther.nmto, 
 we are to follow his Example ; yet doth it not prove tlut we are to fuffer in all 
 other Cafes whatfoever, concerning which he hath given us no exprcfs Precept or 
 Command. 
 
 M. I have fomething more to fay to you about this Matter of fufterin gfor 
 Religion, but I fliall defer it at prefent, and fhall only now confider the evil 
 Confcquences of your Arguments for Refiflance of the Supreme Powers in any 
 B. ?. P. '.S. Cafe wjiatfoevcr; the Sum of which, if I can well remember, is to this Effed: 
 Shall a Prince be firee from all Corredion till God Almighty is pleafed to chaf- 
 tife him? Mufl I fit flill, and fuffer my Throat to be cut, my Eflate ruined; 
 and not dare in any Cafe to defend myfelf, till God is pleafed to interpofc ; and 
 that in an Age in which Miracles are ceafed ? God is for the moil part pleafed 
 to refpite the Punifhrucnt of Oppreflbrs till the next World; and if I be ruin- 
 ed in tiiis, what comfort is it to me or mine, that the Injury fliall be punifhed, 
 ]hid. u 9. when I fliall reap no acivan^ age by it > Now fuppofe the Subjeds of fuch a 
 Prince fhould fnccecd in their Rebellion, and prevail againft him, they mull then 
 flibmit to another Prince, cf whom they have no more afllirance they fhall be 
 better treated ; and if they f.t up many, they are all Men, and fubjcd to be 
 corrupted by Power and Greatnefs; and in an Anarchy every Man will become 
 a Tyrant to his Neiglibours. So that this Dodrine of curbing and refifling Prin- 
 ces, is calcJqlated for the ruin of Mankind ; and tends to no body's good but 
 theirs, whoVefign thereby to gain a Power of doing to others what they pre- 
 tend to fear. And when all is done, the Puniflimcnt of Princes, whoabufe theit 
 
 Power,
 
 Dialogue the Fourth. tSp 
 
 Power, muft; be left to God Almighty, who only can a:-.d will punifli his own 
 
 Minifters. . . n . •- • t • 
 
 Now fiippofc all this were juft as it is ftated, it the Injuries a Man uiftur arc 
 infupportablc, under any Government he may petition tor relief, and in all pro- 
 bability rind it; if not, he may fly into another Country tor fuecourj it" he can- 
 not do that neither, lie will fcarte be able to refill : So that it" it were never 
 fo juftifiable, it could be of no ufe to any fuch miferable Man ; for no Prince, 
 though never fo ill natured, will attempt any fuch thing againft any fuch num- 
 ber of Men, as are in a Capacity of revenging the Wrong done them wiicn 
 they will, only out of hopes they w'lW not, becaufc they ought not. Nor will 
 the Hiftories of all Ages put together afford one Inftance of a Monarch, timt 
 ever injured any Man at this rate, whom he believed able (if willing) to revenge 
 the Wrong, but that he took care as far as he could to prevent it; ard either to 
 take him out of the way, or to put him out of a pofTibility of a Retaliation. So 
 that all fuch difcontentcd fretful Rhetorick is of no ufe in any fuch Cafe. 
 
 But then, on the contrary, if every Ambitious and Fadtious Man might be 
 left at liberty to infinuate into the Rabble, and the great and little Vulgar, that 
 Princes are to be punifiied when they do amifs; that they arc bound lo Ad: ac- 
 cording to Laws, and to their Oatlis ; and if they do otherwifc, are prefentiy 
 to be treated as Tyrants, and the common Enemies of Mankind ; that it is 
 lawful for a Man to defend himfeif againil the Injuilice and Oppreillon of his 
 Prince, (;jc. This can only ferve to fill the World with Rebellions, Wars and 
 Confufions, in which more thoufands of Men and Eftates mull of nece/Tity be 
 ruined, and Wives raviflied and murdered, in the fpace of a few Days, than 
 can be deftroyed by the worft Tyrant that ever trod upon the Earth, amongft 
 his own Subjects, in the fpace of many Years, or of his whole Life. 
 
 F. I pcrceieve you think this place of Scripture will not carry you through ; 
 and therefore you would fain confute my Arguments by ridiculing them. But 
 in anfwer to the Expedients you have now propofed, I think I may make this 
 return. Firlf, as for Petitioning when a Government grows infupportable ; fup- 
 pofe then, the Prince declares he will not be petitioned in this Matter; but as 
 the French King lately did, when the Proteflants would have petitioned him 
 againft the Violation of the Edid of N.vits, will not hear or receive them ; or 
 fuppofe he lays any Man by the Heels, that (hall offer never fo humbly to peti- 
 tion him, either in his own, or the Peoples behalf, as King James lately lervcd 
 the Bifhops ; then this Expedient can iignify nothing. As for the next, flying 
 into another Country for Succour, that is a very forry Comfort, that a Man 
 muft be forced to go and beg his Bread in a ftrangc Land; and whatever this 
 may be a Duty for private or fingle Perfons, yet it cannot extend to a whole 
 Nation; lince if all the People fhould go away, the Commonwealth or Civil So- 
 ciety would be diilolved ; aiul farther perhaps, as now in Fyaine, and in all Ty- 
 rannical Governments, it is commonly praftifed, the Prince fhould forbid his 
 Subjects to go out of his Kingdom upon Pain of Death, or being fent to the 
 Gallics; then I think this Expedient would fignify nothing neither. But now, if 
 nothing elfe will do, you fay Reliftancc can be of no ufe for fuch miferable People, 
 becaufc a Prince will not dare to attempt any fucii thing againft fuch a number 
 of Men as are in a capacity of revenging the Wrongs done tiiem, where they v>ill 
 only out of hopes, that they will not, bccaufe they ought not to do it. I grant 
 indeed, that nc\'er any Tyrant, when he went about thus to opprefs his People, 
 defigned they fiiould be in a capacity to revenge the Wrong lie did them when they 
 would : And therefore fuch Tyrants take very great care by Guards and Stand- 
 ing Armies to prevent it. But yet I can fliew you a Prince, who \'cry lately re- 
 ceived fuch Encouragement by the Writing and Preaching of our High Clergy, that 
 he fcem'd refolvcd to bring in Popery and Arbitrary Government upon us chiefly out 
 of hopes that the People iwuld nut, bccaufe (as he thought) they oiig/jt not to relift : 
 And tho' I alfo grant, that fev,'- Monarchs injure particular Men ib much, but that, 
 if they believe them able to revenge the Wrong, they will take care as far as they 
 can to prevent it ; yet this fignifies nothing, if once a whole Nation comes to be 
 opprefs 'd, and difgufted agamll the Government : For if fuch a Prince or Com- 
 monwealth have not the Afliftance of fomc other Power, either his own Standing 
 Army or his Neigiibours, his Authority would foon be at an end. Thus we read 
 
 of
 
 ipO BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 of the !^/Ia{l"acre and Expulfioii of the French out of Sicily ; it was done in the 
 twinkling of an eye, and before thofe in Power had the leaft Sufpicion of it. So 
 likewife in the late Revolt of the Portnguefe from the King of Spain, his Govern- 
 ment was at an end in little more than a Day's time ; and that Nation will tell 
 tell you, that they look upon the Benefit of being governed by a Prince of their 
 own, and enjoying their own Laws, as very well worth that Expence of Blood 
 and Treafure they were at to obtain it. To conclude, I do not fpeak this to en- 
 courage the Rabble, ox great and little Vulgar (as you call them) to take Arms, 
 and punifh Princes when they do amifs : Nor have I at all alTerted, that Princes 
 may be punifhed by their Subjefts, unlefs you can prove to me, that every one 
 who relifts the Violence of another is his Lord and Mafter. Neither do I main- 
 tain, tliat tho' Princes are bound to aft according to Laws, and to their Oaths, 
 yet if they do otherwife they are prefently co be treated as Tyrants, and the com- 
 mon Enemies of Mankind ; or that it is lawful for eveiy private Man to defend 
 himfelf againft the Injuftice and OpprefTion of his Prince. I grant, inch Doftrine 
 would ferve to fill the World with Rebellions, Wars, and Confufions, and may 
 produce all thofe dreadful Confcquences you have here fet forth. 
 
 But on the other fide, under fuch a Tyranny as where the whole People, or the 
 major Part of them, fhall happen to be allaulted, enflaved, and opprcllcd to that 
 degree, that no Man can tel) when he is fafe j I fay, in fuch cafes a Tyrant may 
 deftroy more thoufands of Men, ravifli more Women, and ruin more Families and 
 El^ates, than it is likely to be done by the higheft Refinance the People can make 
 againft him : Since they are mad if ever tiiey make this Refiftance, unlefs they are 
 alfo morally fure, either by their own Strength or the Afliftance of their Neigh- 
 bours, of fucceeding in the Attempt. 
 
 Nor do the Confequences of fuch Refiftance but rarely fall out in the manner 
 you fuppofe : For it feldom happens but that the new Prince, to whom the Peo- 
 ple fubmit themlelves, will (being warned by the Example of his Predeceflbr) 
 take care to govern with greater Mercy and Moderation ; and it is much more 
 unlikely, that if they chufe or fet up many Reprefentatives out of their own Body, 
 that they will be prefently corrupted by Power and Grcatnefs thus to opprefs the 
 People ; and laftly, it is much lefs probable, that the People can continue long 
 in an Anarchy, without any Government at all. So tliat, to conclude, this Doc- 
 trine of refifting of Princes, or other Supreme Powers, in Cafes of extremity, is 
 fo far from tending to the Ruin of Mankind, that I cannot fee how they can be 
 fafe without it : And tho' the Puniihment of Princes, who abufe their Power, may 
 be left to God Almighty, yet I am confident the refifting of thofe, who tho' they 
 have the Power of the Sword hi their hand, yet aft as none of God's Minifters, is 
 neither contrary to the Laws of God nor Nature. 
 
 M. I perceive you want Teftimonies out of Scripture to juftify your Doftrine 
 of Refiftance, and therefore you are, when prcifed by thefe, forced to fly to your 
 odd Refuge of Self-defence by the Law of Nature, in which tho' I have been for- 
 ced to follow you, and quit the Method I propoied to my felf ; yet I would have 
 you to know, it is not for want of more Texts of Scripture, and therefore I muft 
 ftill farther inforce the true Senfeof that Place of the fi'rft of St. Peter : Submit your 
 Chap. 1. \'i,,fehes to every Ordinance of Man for the hordes fike, -whether if be to the King m Sufreme^ 
 ^''' or unto Governors, as to them that are font by him, for the Punijhmem of Evil-doers, and 
 
 S. C. F. cli. for the praife of them that do ivell. " For tJiis is the very fame Doftrine which Sc 
 5. p. 141. " Paul tauglit the Ro?nans, Let every Soul be ftibjeEt to the H.pher Powers. For the 
 Ibid. p. 14:. " fame Word is ufed in the Original, vmrxyviTs and wotuccbg^u ; and therefore 
 " to fubmit and to be fubjeft is the fame thing, which, as St. Paul^Ws us, figni- 
 " fies Noit-refijiance : Only as St. Paul fpeaks of not refifting the Higher Powers, 
 " that is. Emperors and Sovereign Princes, he therein includes all thofe who aft by 
 " their Authority ; and St. Peter, to prevent all Cavils and Exceptions, diftinftly 
 " mentions both, that we muft fubmit to all Humane Power and Authority, not 
 " only to the King as Supreme, that is, in St. Paul's Phrafe, to the Higher Pow- 
 " ers, to all Sovereign Princes, who are invefted with the Supreme Authority, 
 " but alfo to thofe who are fent by him, who receive their Authority and Cora- 
 " miinon from the Sovereign Prince. 
 
 F- You may fpare your Pains for making fo many Explanations on this Text ' 
 for I liavc already granted, that all due Submiflion is to be given, not only to 
 the Supreme Powers, but alfo to all thofe who arc put in Authority under him 
 
 them,
 
 Dialogue the Fourth. ipi 
 
 them, and that mt only for Wrath, hut Confikmefake ; yet is this place to be un- 
 dcrftood in the fame Scnfc as the former, that is, as far as they make iife of 
 tins Power for the great Ends of Government, (wz,.) the Good and Prcfervation 
 of the People, and not for their Riii;i and Ddfriidioii, by taking away their 
 Lives, Liberties and Properties at their pleafure. So that this Precept is to be 
 underftood, according to the Reafon which both St. Peter and St. Paul gi\ e for 
 this Submiffion, bccaiifc iJ«/fv.r ^r^ mt a Terror to good T-Vorks, but to the e^jjl •■, and 
 becaufe jucb Gmtrmrs are for the punijhment of Evil-doers, and for the praife of them 
 that do well : And even a Government, where a Heathen Prince hath fiich Su- 
 preme Power, may, and doth moft commonly, in refpett to moil; of its Sub- 
 jefts, give more Countenance and Encouragement to good Works than bad ones ; , 
 
 and therefore Obedience to fuch a fort of Governors is not only lawful, but a 
 Duty ; nay, though through Ignorance and Malice they might perllcute the 
 true Religion. For I have already proved, that at the tune of Writing of tliefe 
 Epiitles there was no aftual Perfecution begun by the Rornan Emperors againft 
 the Chriftians ; and though they did afterwards perfecute them, yet even fuch 
 as did fo, being commonly Men of good Morals, and, having much of Good- 
 ticfs, Juflice and Prudence in their Natures (fuch as was T'rajan, and the two 
 AmoniuHis), they would not fail extremely to encourage the Praftice of fuch, 
 and other Virtues by their Examples, and by good Laws preferve their 
 Subjefts from the Mifchiefs of Immorality, and keep them in Order, Peace and 
 Sobriety. But is it fo when Tyrants (be they Ufurpers or not) not only go- 
 vern contrary to, but alfo fubvert all the Ends of Government ? 
 
 M. If this be the Senfe you put upon this place, I think I fiiall eafily ftew you 
 not only the Abfurdity, but Pernicioufnefs of this Interpretation, which indeed 
 doth undermine all that Obedience and Subjcdion that is due from Subjefts 
 to their Sovereigns, unlefs they rule well, that is, according to tlieir Humours 
 or Fancies. Now, I pray, " confider whether thefe great Apoflles intended 
 " to oblige the Chriftians of that Age to yield Obedience to thofe Powers, 
 " which then governed the World. If they did (as I think no Man will be s. c. A pt 
 " fo hardy as to fay, that they did not) then it will be proper to inquire whe- 14$), iyo< 
 '* ther what they here affirm, and affign as the Reafon of their Sub;ed:ion, That 
 " Riilers are not a Terror to good Works, hut to the evil, were true of the then Roman 
 " Emperor J and Gcve-rmrs, or mt. If it \vere true, then I believe it will hold 
 " true of all Kings in all Ages of the World ; for there cannot well be greater 
 " Tyrants than the Roman Emperors were at this Time : And fo this will prove 
 *' an eternal Reafon why we fhould be fubjeft to Princes, notwithftanding the 
 " many Faults and Mifcarriages of their Governmcrit. And if it were nor true, 
 " it is very flrangc, that two fuch great ApofUes fhould ufe fuch an Argument 
 ** to perfwade Chriftians to fubmit to the Powers as only proved the quite 
 *' contrary ; that they ought not to be fubjcft to the prefent Powers, becaufe 
 " they were unjufl and tyrannical ; and which indeed, in Contradiftion to the 
 " Original Deiign and Inftitution of Civil Power, were a Terror to good Works, 
 " and not to the evil. '' 
 
 The Chriftians were at this time aftually perfecuted by the Jews in Palejline, and 
 if they were not then alfo perfecuted by the Emperors, yet it was that which 
 they might daily expect, conli Jering their extraordinary Wickednefs and Cruelty : 
 And yet the Apoftle exiiorts them not to rejiflfuch Poxven ; becaufe they were 
 not, (that is, ftiouid not be) a Terror to good Works, but to the evil. " If by this 
 " he only means that they {hould be fubjed to them, while they encouraged ft;V, 
 " Virtue and virtuous Mai, but might rebel againft them when they did the 
 " contrary ,• how could the Chriftians of thofe Days think themfelves obliged 
 by this to fubmit to the higher Powers ? 
 
 For this was not their Cafe, they fuftered for Righteoufnefs fake ; the Su- 
 preme Powers were a Terror to them, thougii they were innocent ; tliough 
 they could not charge them either with breaking the Laws of Cod or Men : 
 And therefore, upon your Principles they were not bound to fubmit to them 
 " whenever they could find it fafc to rejijl. So that citiier you put a falfe Com- 
 ment upon the Text, or while the Apoftle undcrra!;cs to deter them from 
 Refiftance, he urges fuch an Argument as was proper only to perftiade them 
 " to rebel, " 
 
 F. Had
 
 1^2 BiBLlOTHECA PoLItICA. 
 
 !■. Had you been pleafed to have minded more attentively what I faid laft, 
 you would not have thus mifreprefented my Senfe : For I have already proved, 
 that there was no Perfecution in the Ro?nan Empire againfl the Chriftians when 
 thofe Epiftles were written, nor for many Years after ; And I have alfo granted, 
 that if the Emperors had fo perfecuted them, they ought not to have rejifted. 
 And therefore, by good Works, and Evil-doers, &c. in both thofe Texts of 
 St. Peter and St. Pniil, is not be underftood, only believing in Chrift, or beha- 
 ving themfelves as became innocent Cliriftians, but in general that at that time 
 when the Apofllcs wrote thefe Epiftles under Claudim, and the beginning of Nero^ 
 (and indeed through his whole Reign where he governed by his Deputies) the 
 Supreme Power was then really a Terror to evil Works, that is, to all Offences 
 againft good Manners, and the publick Peace of the Commonwealth, and were 
 aifo a Punifliment for Evil-doers ; that is, thofe that did tranfgrefs againft the 
 publick Laws ordained for the reftraining Men from committing any fort of 
 publick Wickednefs or Immorality. So that I own that neither the Heathens, 
 nor the Chriftians, had then any Reafon to take Arms or refift the Supreme Power 
 at this time. 
 
 But admit there had been at that time great Mifcarriages and Abufes com- 
 mitted under tjieir Government, and that good Men had been oftentimes punifli- 
 ed, and evil ones rewarded, and the ends of Government to fome degree pervert- 
 ed ; efpecially at Rome, where the Emperors took a Liberty of doing many un- 
 juft and tyrannical Aftions : Yet I have no where (that I know of) affirmed, 
 that Princes ought to be refifted only for being evil, or wicked ; or that all the 
 evil Aftions and Mif-government of Princes, or their fubordinate Minifters, 
 ought to be refifted, much lefs punifli'd, by the People : But I have ail along 
 S£.R.ji.i5l. aflerted the contrary ; for I own, " that no humane Government can be fo exaft 
 " and perfeft, but it may be guilty of Mifcarriages." Good Men may fuffer, 
 and bad Men may flourifli under a virtuous Prince, much more under thole that 
 are themfelves wicked and unjuft. And there are many Degrees of evil Go- 
 vernment and Tyranny, fome of which may confift well enough with the com- 
 mon Safety of the People, which was the Condition of moft of the Subjeds of the 
 Roman Empire under the Reigns of Claudius and Nero ; fince they did then enjoy the 
 Froteftion of the Commonwealth, and all the Civil Rights of Subjefts- And there- 
 fore you very much miftake me in fuppofing that I maintain we are only bound 
 to be fubjeft to thofe Supreme Powers, who rule well, or who punifli Wicked- 
 nefs, and reward Virtue j fince I grant this was fcarce ever performed exaftly, 
 even under the moft regular Governments : Yet there is a great deal of difference 
 between bearing with the common Infirmities of all Governments, and fuch in- 
 tolerable Violences that difiolve the Government itfelf, as by making War upon 
 the People, and invading their Civil Liberty and Property. As for Example : No 
 Man doubts, but the King may pardon a Robber, or a Murderer ; but if, inftead 
 of hanging, he fhould pardon all Thieves and Murderers that fhould rob or 
 murder in a Year or two together, and fhould likewife lifl them in his Guards 
 to kill and rob whom they pleafed, provided he had a ^lare of the Booty ; I 
 would very fain know of you, or any other reafonable Man, whether the People 
 were bound to bear it ; and whether they might not refift them, though they 
 had the King's Commiflion for fo doing ? 
 
 To conclude : When the Apoftle here fays, that Rulers are mt a Terror to good 
 Works, but to the evil ; and that they are for the punijhment of Ezil-doers, and for the 
 fraife of them that do -well; the Apoftle only means in gei:c.al, the great Ad- 
 vantages of Civil Governmenr for tlie Supprefllon of Wickednefs, and Encou- 
 ragement of Virtue, which is the true End, and the beft Improvement of hu- 
 mane Power. But this alfo is in great meafure obtain'd under evil, and (to fome 
 degree) tyrannical Princes ; fand therefore this Argument for Subjeftion is 
 good, even under a Tyrant. Publick Juftice was adminiftred under the Govern- 
 ment of Nero, and good Men were then often rewarded, and bad Men punifhed. 
 And though Juftice be not fo equally, and fo univerfally adminiftred under an 
 evil Prince, as under a good one ; or, though fuch a Tyrant may opprefs many 
 of hisSubjefts, and be the occafion of divers Calamities, yet whilft the main Ends 
 of Civil Government arc maintained, it lays a fufScient Reftraint upon the 
 unduly Lwfts and Paffions of M?n, and give? great Security to the Juft and 
 
 lonocent.
 
 Dialogue the Fourth. ipj 
 
 Innocent. And therefore, good Men arc concerned to promote the Peace and 
 Security of Civil Government, though the Prince be in Co ne degree a Tyraat ; 
 for there is more Security to be had under fuch a Tyrant, than in a Civil War, 
 or Anarchy. 
 
 In ordinary Cafes it is very pcflible for private good Men to live eafijy and 
 tolerably under a very bad Prince ; and though it (hoiild be their Lot to fuffcr, 
 yet fince the Peace and Q_uiet of liiimane Societies is in itfelf fo great a BlefTing, 
 and the publick Good may be better confulted by tlie Prefervation of Goven;- 
 ment, than by Refinance ; it becomes every good Man rather to fufter patiently 
 undet fuch a Tyrant, than to fhake and uiifettle Civil Government, and dis- 
 turb the natural Courfe of Jullice by Sedition and Tumults, for the private In- 
 tereft of himfclf, or a few other Men. 
 
 Yet all this is to be underflood of fiich Degrees of Tyranny, or evil Go- 
 vernment, as may conlift with the main Ends of a Civil Society, or. Common-* 
 wealth ; and as far as the publick Good of the People may be better confulted 
 and prefer\-ed by the Prcfervatidn, than Refiftar.ce of it. And as I grant it to 
 be every Man's Duty patiently to fuffer many Injuries and Abufes, rather than 
 to make any publick Difturbance ,• fo on the other lidc, when the main Ends of 
 Civil Government, viz,, the common Prefervation of the Peoples Liberties and 
 Properties, are aftually, or about to be deftroyed, I think every honeft Man, 
 that his careful ot his own, and his Poflerity's well-being and Happinefs, may, 
 nay, ought (if no other Remedy can W had) to make Reliftance, not for the 
 Deilru&on, but Prefervation of Civil Government, which I look upon as good 
 as 'diflblved, before fuch Refiftance can be lawful. 
 
 M. I muft confefs your Doftrine, as you have explained it, is not fo bad as 
 I fuppofed at the firft hearing ; but if People may never refift 'rill things come 
 to fuch a State, as that, by a general Invafion of Mens Lives, Liberties and 
 Properties, the Civil Government be in a manner deftroyed (as you liippofe), 
 the People may ftay long enough before ever the}/ fliall be in a Condition to 
 make this Relilbnce. For in all the fmall Obfervations that I have made out 
 Hiftory, I never could rind the People generally reduced to fo fad a Cafe as this 
 you have put : Moft of the Rebellions, and Alterations of Government that I 
 have read of, having begun from a few tyrannical Adions committed upon the 
 Perfons or Ellates of fome great and powerful Men, who being beloved by the 
 People, were able to ftir them up to revenge their particular Injuries. Tlius one 
 fingle Ad of Luft in the younger T'arqums ravifhing Lucretin, gave occalion ro 
 BrutMi, and her Husband Colatine, to take Arms againft the King his Father, and 
 by expelling him and his Family to fet up a Commonwealth. And therefore, 
 fince this Cafe of fuch an extreme intolerable Tyranny, as you mention, can 
 never, or at leaft very rarely happen, I think I may ftill maintain what I firft 
 affirmed, that it is much better to put this Mfchief to the venture, and fuffer 
 all the Inconveniencies tliat may happen from ir, than by allowing the People to 
 be their own Judges, when the Government proves infupportable, to give them a 
 Right oi judging andrejifiing whenever they fhall pretend that it is fo ; which they 
 may make ufe of not to fecure their own Liberties and Eflates, but to gratify 
 their own Humours, or elfe the Ambition or Revenge of great and faftious Men. 
 " So that unlefs there is fome Power that is irrefiftable, from whence there Iks'S. C. R. p, 
 " no Appeal, it is impoflible for any Goverment to fubfift. And though it i<5^- 
 *' is not necertary that this Power fhould be always in the Hands of one Man, /^^^ ». j^j, 
 " yet if God hath placed it in the Hands of a Prince, there it muft be irrefift- 
 " able too, however he ufes it. For if once it be made lawful to refift the Su- 
 " premc Power where ever it is placed, you diflblve humane Societies, or at leaft 
 *' expofe them to perpetual Diforders and Convulfions. Fadtious and ambi- 
 *' tious Men will ftill find Pretences to refift good Princes as well as bad, and 
 " no Government can be any longer fecure than whilft ill-dcfigning Men wane 
 ** Power to refiit. 
 
 " Now then to pafs a true Judgment on this whole Matter, we muft not only 
 " confider what prefent Inconveniencies we may fufter from the irrcfiftablc Power 
 " of the worft Tyrant, but aifo what an irreparable Mifchief it is for ever to 
 " unfettle the Foundations of Government. We muft confider whether Civil 
 " Government be the greater Blefling to Mankind, or a Tvrant the greater 
 
 C c ' " Curfc ;
 
 ip4 BiBLibTHECA Politic A. 
 
 " Curfe ; whether it be more defireablc to endure the Itifolence and Injuftice of 
 " tlie greatefl Tyrant, when the Power falls into fuch a Hand ; or for ever to be 
 " deprived of the Security of Government, and the Blefllngs of Peace and Or- 
 *' der. And therefore, there is great Reafon why God fhoiild fo feverely for- 
 " bid the Refiftance of all Princes, though the cruelleft Tyrants you can ima- 
 *' gine ; and why we fhould quietly and contentedly fubmit to this Divine Ap- 
 *' pointment, becaufe the Refiftance of the Supreme Powers ( were it once al- 
 " lowed by God) would weaken the Authority of all humane Governments, 
 *' and expofc them to the Rage and Frenzy of ambitious and difcontented 
 " States Men, or wild Enthuliafts. And this, I think, is a fufficient Anfwer to 
 " this Pretence, that the Apoftle limits our Subjeftion to Princes to the regular 
 *' Exercife of their Authority." 
 
 F. I fee we are even come where we fet out, to the Neceflity of an irrefift- 
 able Power, and the Mifchief that muft follow, if the People ever judge for 
 themfelves ; which indeed is but the fame Argument in Politicks which the 
 Church of Rome makes ufe of for the Neceflity of an infallible Judge in Spiri- 
 tuals J becaufe otherwife, if the People judge for themfelves in Matters of Re- 
 ligion, there would nothing follow but Anarchy and Confufion in the Church ; 
 and that there would be as many Religions as there are Men. And fo you 
 likewife urge, that if the People may ever once come to judge when they arc 
 afl'aulted, enflaved or opprefs'd, and fliould have a Right of making Refiftance, 
 nothing but Anarchy and Confufion muft follow in the Commonwealth. And 
 truly I think the Argument is as good for the one as the other : And as I hope 
 we may be always good Orthodox Chrtflians without fuch an infallible Judge in 
 matters of Faith, fo I tliink we may be loyal Subjefts to our Prince without in- 
 vefting him witli an irrefiftable Power of doing with us whac ever he hath a 
 mind to. 
 
 But fince you have only repeated what you have faid at our laft Meeting, 
 when we firft began to debate this Queftion, fo I muft beg your pardon, if I re- 
 frefh your Memory, and again repeat my Anfwers. In the firft place, I deny 
 that it muft follow, that if once it be made lawful to refift the Supreme Power 
 •where ever placed, this muft diflolve Civil Societies, or expofe them to perpe- 
 tual Diforder ; becaufe (forfooth) fomc faftious and ambitious Men will find 
 Pretences to refift good Princes as well as bad. For firft I have all along fuppo- 
 fed the Commonwealth Civil Society as good as diflblved, before fuch Refiftance 
 is lawful : And therefore, the Convulfions or Diforders of a Civil War canfcarce 
 be worfe than fuch a State ; and until the People are under this Condition, I 
 grant faftious and ambitious Men may make Pretences to refift good Princes, 
 as well as bad, and may find fome Followers as wicked as themfelves to take 
 their part. Yet this Infedtion feldom or never feizeth upon a whole Nation, who 
 hath always Power and Aftedion enough for the Supreme Powers to join with 
 them to fupprefs fuch Rebels. I grant, we ought always to confider whether 
 Civil Government be the greater Blelfing to Mankind, or a Tyrant the greater 
 Curfe ; and I do never fuppofe fuch Refiftance to be lawful, but when the Power 
 falls into fuch Hands, that tho' they may call themfelves a Civil Government, yet 
 the People are almoft as totally deprived of all that Secutity, and thofe Bleffings 
 of Peace and Order, which they may juftly expeft from it, as if they were in 
 a State of War. And therefore, as you fuppofe that God Almighty forbids the 
 Refiftance of the raoft cruel Tyrants, becaufe this Refiftance, were it once al- 
 lowed, by giving the People a Power of judging, would weaken the Authority 
 of humane Governments, and expofe them to the Rage and Frenzy of ambitious 
 and difcontented States Men, or wild Enthufiafts : And this you think a fuffi- 
 cient Anfwer. 
 
 So on the other fide ; if this Refiftance be in no cafe lawful, though in ne- 
 ver fo great Extremities, and that the People muft not judge when they are 
 fo cruelly ufed, as that it is no longer to be endured, not only the Perfons of 
 Princes muft be facred and irrefiftable, but alfo all thofe" Inftruraents of Tyranny 
 whom they may hire and employ to that purpofej by which means all Govern- 
 ' ment whatfoever will not only be abfolute, but arbitrary, and without any fuf- 
 
 ficient Obligations to either Mercy, Juftice and the Common Good, than what 
 the tyrannical Will or Humour of one or more Men ihall pleafc to allow. So 
 
 that
 
 Dialogue the Fourth, Ip5 
 
 that the Lives, Liberties and EHatcs oF a free People or Nation fhall be in ai 
 bad a Condition as if they were Slaves, if all means of defending themfelves 
 by their own RefiiUnce, or joining with thofe that would aflift thcni, be wholly 
 denied them. And whether God can ever bq the Author of fuch an Inflitution 
 I appeal to your own Reafon to judge, when you arc in a more fedate and equal 
 Temper. 
 
 M- I f>.c 'cis in vain to argue this Matter any longer with you; and there- 
 fore I mufl; tell you, chat I cannot but look upon thcfe Dodrines of Paifrue 
 Obedience and Non-refiftaiKe, as true Clrnftian Duclrines ; lince the ancient Father^ 
 of the ClHirch and Primitive Chriftians did alwa)-s both bclieve,and praftife them ,- 
 and in Imitation of whom our own Churcli of England, (which, I think, of any 
 in the World come neareft to the Primitive) doth likewife maintain it in Jicr 
 Thirty Nine Articles, Canons and Homilies ; whereas you can fhew me no ex- 
 prefs Text of Scripture, nor Tcftimonies of the Fathers, nor Examples of the 
 Primitive Chriftians to juftify this Reliftance ; which whenever you can do, I 
 (hall be of your Opinion : And if you doubt the Truth of what 1 fay, I have 
 here by me the Lord Primate Ujhe/^ Book ot the Po-wer of the Prince, and Obedience 
 of the Subject ; which you may, if you plcafe, take home with you, and confult 
 at leifure ; in which I doubt not but you will meet with full Satisfaftion ia 
 this matter. 
 
 F. I have already proved at our laft Meeting, that Refinance for Self-defence 
 againft thofe who have the Power of the Sword, is a Right of Nature confer- 
 red by God on all Mankind. : And unlefs you can fhew me an exprcfs place of 
 Scripture, which takes it quite away, I think I may very well maintain, that 
 it is Itill left entire to us, and is not abrogated by the Law of the Gofpel ; 
 and that it was lawful before our Saviour's Coming into the World, I have 
 proved by thofe dcfcnfive Arms made ufe of by David, and the Maccabees. And 
 as for the Teftimonies of the Fathers, and the Practice of the Primitive Chrif- 
 tians, of which the Reverend Primate hath made fo ample a Collection in that 
 Treatife you now fliewmc ; I thank you for your kind OJfer of it, but I do not now 
 need it : For iince I began to coniider this Controveriy with you, I have carefully 
 read over that Treatife, and I cannot rind that thisvaft Colleftion out of Prophane 
 as well as Ecclefiaftical Writers, will prove any more, than thofe Principles, 
 which I own to be true, and yet will not impugne this I here defend. 
 
 In the firft part of this Difcourfe it is proved by Scripture, as well as other 
 Teftimonies, that the Authority of all Sovereign Powers is from God, which I 
 alfo allow ; yet doth it not hinder but that the Confent and Submiffion of the 
 People is a neceiVary Means or Condition of conveying this Autlioricy, wiien 
 God doth not pleafe to make or nominate Kings himfelf. idly, That the Per- 
 fons as well as Power of Sovereign, thougli wicked Princes, is alfo facred and 
 irrefiftable ,• yet this is to be underftood wiiilft they continue to aft towards 
 their wliole People as the Ordinance of God, and by vertue of that Divine Com- 
 milFion which they have received from him. 
 
 In the fccond Part of this Difcourfe it is proved from Scripture, Teftimo- 
 nies of the Fathers and other Authors, that particular Subjects are bound to 
 obey the Supreme Powers in all lawful and indiftbrent things, or eife to fubmit 
 and fufter the Punifhment in cafe of tiieir unlawful Laws or Commands. As 
 alfo to bear with any Violence and Injury that may be offered to them, rather 
 than to difturb the publick Peace and Civil Government of the Commonwealth, 
 whicii I alfo allow. 
 
 zdly. That in tlie Time of the Primitive Church, and before the Chriftian 
 Religion was fettled by Law, and become part of the Civil Conftitution of 
 whole Kingdoms and States, it was unlawful to rcfift the Supreme Powers in 
 cafe of Perfecution, tliougJi to Death it feli, for the Telliinony of Chrillian 
 Religion ; which I have alfo allowed through this whole Converfation. Yet 
 none of thcfe Quotations, as I can fee, do reach the matter in Contioveify be- 
 tween us, and alVcrc it exprelly to be abfolutely unlawful for tlie whole People 
 of any Kingdom or Nation to make ufe of defenfive Arms, an<^rc(ift the into- 
 leraL)le Violence and Tyranny of the Supreme Powers, if tliey ftiall happen to 
 make War upon their People, and go about to take away and fubvcit tlie main 
 Ends of all Government, vix,. the Prefervation of Mens Lives, Liberties and 
 
 Cc 2 Civil
 
 ip6 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. ' 
 
 Civil Properties. Neither do they any where aflerr, that in limited or mixt Go- 
 vernments, fuch as moft of thofe now in Europe, where tlie People, by the Fun- 
 damental Conltitutions of the Government, or the after Conceffions of Princes, 
 reftraining their own abfolute Power, enjoy divers Privileges and Liberties, un- 
 known to thofe who live under abfolute Monarchies : That fiicli a People may nor, 
 upon the manifeft Invafion of fuch legal Right by force, refilt and defend thcmfeUres 
 ■ and their juft Rights, againft the violent Invafion of the Prince. 
 
 M. I cannot deny but you have fairly enough reprefenced the Chief Heads, or 
 Principles, which the Reverend Primate undertakes to prove in this excellent 
 Treatife : And I think you have yourfelf granted enough to confute all' you have 
 already faid. For in the firft place, if it be unlawful for every particular private 
 Subjeft to refift the Supreme Powers, it will likewife follow, that it will be alfo 
 unlawful for a whole Nation : For a whole Nation is only a Syftem or Colledion 
 of particular Perfons, and Univerfals have no real Being in Nature ; but only in 
 our Ideas : So that if it be unlawful for every particular Perfon to refift and de- 
 fend himfelf in cafe he is injur'd and opprefs'd, it muft be alfo unlawful for a 
 whole People, which confifts of Individuals, to make fuch Refiftance ; and it is a 
 Rule in Logick, that nothing can he affirmed of Individuals , which may not alfo be afiv 
 med of the whole Species. 
 
 So likewife if you grant. That the Primitive Chriftians ought not to have re- 
 filled the Supreme Powers in cafe of Perfecution for Religion, I think it will like- 
 wife as well prove, that they ought not to refift upon any account whatfoever, fince 
 certainly there cannot be greater Wrongs or Violences committed in the World 
 by Supreme Powers, than to allow them an Irrefiftable Power of putting thofe 
 to Death that bear witnefs to the Truth of the Gofpel, fince a whole Nation may 
 be as well thereby deftroyed if they prove firm to the Chriftian Religion, and thac 
 the Prince continue obftinately cruel. And you might as well argue, that patient 
 Suffering without Refiftance ought not to be exercifed in this cafe ; bccaufc it is 
 deftruftive to Mankind , and the Qiiiet of a Civil Society , as to argue from the 
 'fame Reafon, that a whole Nation is not obliged to fuffer without any Refif- 
 tance ; when their Lives, Liberties and Properties, are invaded by the Supreme 
 Powers. So that if the Primitive Chriftians might not refift the Roman Emperors, 
 when they made fo great a part of the People, and were fo vaft a Multitude in 
 the Roman Empire in the time of Tertul/ian, as that he tells the Emperor Severm, 
 in his Apology for the Chriftians, to this effeft ; " That had they a mind to pro- 
 " fefs open Hoftility, and to praftife fecret Revenge, could they want Numbers 
 " of Men, or Force of Arms ? Are the Moors, the Marcomans, or the Parthians 
 *' themfelves, or any one particular Nation whatfoever, more in number than 
 *' they , who are fpread over the whole World ? They are indeed not of your 
 " way, and yet they have filled all the Tlaces you have ; your Cities, Iflands, 
 *' Caftles, Towns, AfTemblies ; your very Tents, Tribes and Wards, yea the Pal- 
 *' lace. Senate, and Judgment-Seat. \ 
 
 Nor need I to mention at large the famous Story of the "thehxan Legion, who all 
 of them fuft'er'd Death rather than they would either Sacrifice to Idols, or refift the 
 Emperor's Forces, tho' they were between Six or feven thoufand Men, and might 
 have fold their Lives dear enough : And if an Emperor may murder fo many thou- 
 fands without any Refiftance, I fee no reafon why he may not put a vs^hole Natioa 
 of Chriftians to Death by the fame reafon. 
 
 Nor will one of your Reafons which you bring for it, fignify any thing, that 
 the Chriftians were to fufter without Refiftance, becaufe Paganifm was then the 
 Religion eftablifh'd by the Law of the Empire ; for if a Municipal Laxv, as this 
 was, ought to be over-ruled by the Natural Law of Self-defence, when they hap- 
 pen to clafli, then the Chriftians who lived under the Heathen Emperors, might 
 lawfully have taken up Arms againft the Government, becaufe they were deprived 
 of their Lives and Fortunes againft all Equity and Humanity : For to perfecute 
 Men fo remarkably regular and peaceable, both in their Principles and Praftices, 
 is as manifeft a Violation of the Law of Nature, as is poffible. And if it was 
 lawful for them^o refift, then they feera bound in Confcience to do it whenever 
 they had a Probability of prevailing : For without doubt it's a great Fault for a 
 Man to throw away hii Ufe^ impweriji) his Family, and encourage 'Tyranny, when ha hath 
 a fair remedy at hand, 
 
 F. If
 
 Dialogue the Fourth. ip7 
 
 p. If you had a Jittle better remembretl what I have already faid on this Sub- 
 ject, you might have fparcd thefe Objeftions ; for as to tlic lirft of them, it is ra- 
 ther a Logical Fallacy, than a true Anfwer : For in the firfl place, I have all alone 
 allerted, that no Man ought to give up his Right of Self-defence, but in ordcV 
 to a greater Good, {viz,, the Publick Peace, and Prefcrvation of the Common- 
 wealth.) And therefore Dr. Fern, and otiiers of your Opinion, do acknowledge, 
 that David miglit liave made ufe of defcnlivc Arms to defend himfelf againft 
 thofe Cut-throats tliat .SVj«/fent to take away his Life, thougii he might not have 
 refifted Saul's own Perfon ; and you yourfelf have already granted, that no Man 
 can want Authority to defend his Lije agntnfl him that hath no Authority to take it a~yjcay. 
 So that if this Law of Self-defence is fometimcs fufpendcd, it is only in Submif- 
 fion to a higher Law of preferving the publick Peace of the Commonwealth, or 
 Civil Society, whicli being once broken and gone by a general Violence upon all 
 Mens Lives, Liberties and Properties of that Nation or Kingdom, that Obliga- 
 tion of mamtaining the publick Peace being taken awa}', every Man's Natural 
 Right of not only defending himfelf, bur his innocent Neighbour, again takes 
 place. And therefore your Logical Maxim, that nothing can be affirmed of Indi- 
 viduals, which may not be affirmed of the whole Species, fignifieth notliing in this 
 matter ; for every Individual had before potentially a Right of Self-defence, the' 
 they were under an Obligation not to reduce it into Ad:, till the Bonds of tliat Civil 
 Society were diifolved ; and then it is true, they do not then re/ift to maintain that 
 Civil Governm^t which is already gone, but to get out of a State of Nature, and 
 fet up a new one as foon as they can. 
 
 But as to your fecond Objeftion, which I confefs hath more weight in it than 
 the former, I fhall make this Anfwer ; That you yourfelf liave given a fufficient 
 Reafon why a whole Nation, or Church, that profefles the Chiiftian Religion, 
 cannot be deftroyed by all the Malice and Perfecution that can fall upcu it by 
 perfecuting Monarchs ; for you tell us, that it is the fpecial Privilege of the 
 Chriftian Church, above the reft of Mankind, that they are God's peculiar Care 
 and Charge ; and that he doth not permit any Suffering, or Perfecutions, to be- 
 fal them, but what he himfelf orders and appoints : And that it is a great Happi- 
 nefs to have our Condition immediately allotted by God. So that it fccms 
 it cannot be in the Power of the cruelleft Tyrant utterly to dcftroy Chriftianity, in 
 any Country where it is truly taught, by all the Perfecution that he can ufe. 
 This was the State of Chriftian Religion whilfl it was in its Infancy ,• and in which 
 we may obferve more particular Declarations of God's Providence by Miracles, 
 and the Divine Infpirations of his Holy Spirit, than after it was grown up, and 
 that all the World became Chriftians. In its Infancy, 'tis plain that Princes could 
 could not deflroy it, bccaufe it was fupported by Miracles, and fupernatural 
 Means ; but in the other State , when Chriftianity was once grown up , fettled 
 and able to fhift for itfelf, by being made the Religion of the Empire, and the 
 greatcft part of Mankind embracing it in thofe and otiicr Countries, Princes then 
 could not deftroy it if they would, becaufe their Subjcds had then a Right to it, 
 and a Property in it , as much as tliey had to any thing elfe they enjoy 'd, and 
 confequently might be prcfervcd by the fame Humane Means. Thus during the 
 State of the 'ye-uajy Church in the VVildernefs, and for fomc time in the Land of 
 Canaan, we hnd the Children of Ifrael fed, and dcliver'd from their Enemies, by 
 Miracles- But after they had been long fettled in it, and had renounced the imme- 
 diate Government of God, they were then left to preferve themfehes by the fame 
 natural Means with other Nations. 
 
 And thougli I grant that fuch Perfecutions, whenever they fall out, arc very 
 prejudicial to the Peace and Happinefs of thofe Nations that labour under them ; 
 yet this is no fufficient Reafon againft Patient-fuffering for Religion without Re- 
 liftance : For fince our Sa\iour is the Autiior of our Salvation, and hath ordained 
 that it fhall be propagated not by Force or Rcfiftance , but by Sufferings ; and 
 that he hath promifed us an eternal IVeight of Glory for our ftibmirting our Wills 
 and Natural Affedions to his Divine Commands ; it is not for us ro tiifputc the 
 Reafon of it, lince that he who pleafed to beftow upon us fo grear a Bcnerit with- 
 out our Defert, might propofc it to us upon what Conditions he pleas'd, though 
 never fo hard to be performed. Yet is this to be fo underfland, as that this Suf- 
 fering for tlic Teftimony of Ciirift, may ferve for that great End for which he or- 
 dained
 
 ips 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 Jained it, (viz..) the Propagation of his own true Religion, by our bearing Tcf- 
 timony to it, in our couragious and patient Suffering, which in a Kingdom or 
 Nation where Chriftianity , or any true Profeflion of it , is become the general 
 and National Religion, cannot now be fuppofed to be neccflary. And this may 
 ferve alfo for an Anfwer to your lalt Reply : For though I own, that the Muni- 
 cipal Laws of Commonwealths cannot abrogate any of our Natural Rights, but 
 only in order to fome greater Good or Benefit tending thereunto ; yet cer- 
 tainly the Reveal'd Law of God may, and doth in fome cafe abridge us of di- 
 vers of thofe Rights, which Men by the Law of Nature might have made ufe 
 of- 
 
 But as for your Quotation out c( Tei tullian, tho' I have good reafon to queflion 
 the very Matter of Faft, lince Lean hardly believe, tliat how numerous foever 
 the Chriftfans might be, or wiiatever Mifchief they might have done privately by 
 fetting the City on foe in the Night-time , which he alfo mentions a little before, 
 as one of the Ways by which they might have re\ enged themfelves : Yet do I not 
 think, that they were then either for Strength or Number fufEcient to have made 
 any conlidcrable Refiftancc, if they would, againft the Pratoyiafi Ba.nds, and other 
 {landing Legions, whicii were then, if not all, yet for the greatefl paft Heathens : 
 The raoft part of tlic Chriflians of thofe Times confifting chiefly of the meaner and 
 mechanical Sort of People, altogetJicr undifciplin'd and unarm'd ; and fo perhaps 
 thefe Cliriilians were under no other Obligations to Non-reiiflance, tlian what the 
 particular Providence of God had brought them to, as thefe Fremb Proteftants, 
 who remain ftill in France, are now under, that is. Obligations of Fear, and not 
 of meer Confcience. 
 
 And as for your Example of the I'lubj^an Legion, thougli it is true they might 
 have fold their Li\es dear before they had been killed ; yet would this Refiftance 
 have ferv'd them to little purpofe againft the reft of the Army, which might con- 
 fift of 50 or 40000 Men, all Heathen, and headed by the Emperor himfelf. But 
 what if after all this ftir about this Story, it fhould not be true ? for Eufebim and 
 Socrates, wlio lived nearer the time in which this Aftion is fuppofed to be done, 
 make no mention at all of it, though tiiey had \'ery good occafion to do it. The 
 firft Writer that ever made any mention of tin's Story, was Eucherim Archbifliop 
 of Lyons, who did not write this Aft ot the Martyrs 'till above xjo Years after 
 the thing was done ,• and he is alfo followed by one Ado in his Martyrolc.gy, who 
 lived likewife fome time after him , when writing of Legends began to grow in 
 fafhion. But granting all the Matter ot Faft to be as you relate it, it proves no 
 more than what I have already granted, that the Chriftians were at that time obli- 
 ged to lay down their Lives for the Teftimony of Chrift, rather than to make any 
 Re/iftance ,• but that this Precept is of a conftant and eternal Obligation, when 
 the Ends for which it was ordained, are no longer of any ufe, and when our Re- 
 ligion is eftablifti'd by fuch Laws as the King himfelf cannot abrogate or difpenfe 
 with, I utterly deny : And certainly, it you were not very much blinded with the 
 Prejudice of thefe Notions of Pajjtve Ol/edietice and Non-rejiftance, you would not 
 leave all the People of England at the Mercy of a Popifli Knig, to be dragooned out 
 of their Lives, Liberties and Eftates, as the Proteftants have been in France and 
 Savoy, whenever the King fhall pleafe to put them to that fevere Trial. 
 
 M. Y'ou have given me a very long, and I wifh I could fay a fatisfaftory An- 
 fwer ; and I fee, provided it would ferve your turn, you do not value how much 
 you villify the Suftcrings of the Primitive Chriftians, by making them not of Abi- 
 lity to make any conftderable Refiftance, if they would. Though TertuUian ex- 
 prefly affirms the contrary ; and fo you likewife take upon you to follow the Exam- 
 ple of a late Doftor, and to queftion the Truth of the Story of the T^el/a:an Le- 
 gion ; which though it might not be committed to writing before Eiuhermi pub- 
 lifli'd it, yet might he very well have received a faithful Account of this matter 
 either by Tradition, or by fome private Memorials that might be kept of it in 
 that Churcli ; fince they futiered this Martyrdom not far from Oclodurn}n, a Place 
 now call'd Martmach in Valiais, a part of Switzcr/and, and not far (wm Lyons; i'o 
 that he might very well have a fufllcienr Information of fuch a remarkable Aftion 
 as this was. 
 
 Nor
 
 Dialogue the Fourth, ipp 
 
 Nor dotli what j'ou fay favour kfs of a Latitudiaarian Principle, whilll you 
 maintain, that a patient Submiflion to the Supreme Powers is not of conilanr and 
 eternal Obligation in all Circumftances, which is contrary to the Opinion of the 
 Primitive Fathers, and alfo of the Church of England. But if St. Aj«/'s Doftrii.e 
 be true, that we are not to do th leafl Evil that Good may come; and if our Saviour 
 hath enjoined us, not to refift the Supreme Powers upon any account whatfoever 
 and alfo to Uy down our Lives for tlie Teftimony of the Truth, wc ought certainly 
 to obfervc his Commands, let the Confequcnce be what it will, though it were 
 to the total Dcftrudion of a whole Church, or Nation ; Since God, if he pleafes 
 may by the jufl: Courfe of his Providence lay fuch fevere Judgments upon us j 
 who can alfo infinitely reward us for our patient Sufiering of them in tl,c Life to' 
 come. 
 
 F. I think I may, without any Crime, queftion the Truth of T'enulUan's Ac- 
 count of the Power the Chriflians had to make any confiderablc Refinance in his 
 time ; for fure he may be out in fuch a nice Matter of Faft, fince he could be 
 guilty of fuch grofs Errors in point of Dodrine : For before he turned Montawjl, 
 he was like our Qiiakers, and thought all Relillance, of what kind foever, unlaw- 
 ful ; and therefore he tells us, in his Apolvgetick, Idem fumm Imperatoribmy qui & 
 •vicinis no/his ; and a little after, Quodcunque euim nm licet in Imperatorem, id uec in quen- 
 quam ; and he likewifc condemned all Flight in time of Perfecution, as you may- 
 fee in the Treatife he writ upon that Subjcd. 
 
 And as for the bare Prafticc of Primitive Chriflians, they are not of any gene- 
 ral binding Example to us, unlefs the Principle they go upon be true i fince I 
 doubt not but many of them fuftered Death out of a pureDefire of Martyrdom, 
 of which Sulpitim Severm tells us, they were more covetous, than Men were in 
 his time of Bifliopricksj infomuch that it was a common thmg even for Women 
 
 and Boys to offer themfelves to voluntary Martyrdom, that the Council of • 
 
 \vas forced to make a Decree on purpofe to forbid it. 
 
 And as for the Truth of the Story of the T'hebaan'Ltgion, it not being recorded 
 by any Writer of the Age in which it is faid to have been done , I think a Man 
 may very well queftion its Reality without any Sufpicion of Herefy : And when 
 I can fee thofe Arguments anfwered by you, or any Body elfe, which the learned 
 Doftor you mention hath brought againft it, I will give more Credit to it than 
 now I do. But you may call me a Perfon of Latitudiuanan Principles as much as 
 you pleafe in this matter ; until you are able to prove to me by better Arguments 
 than you have done hitherto, that the Doftrine of Non-refiflance in cafe of Per- 
 fecution for Religion , is of conftant and eternal Obligation , unlefs it be in the 
 fame Cafe in which the Primitive Chriflians were obliged to fuffer, rather than re- 
 fifl ; and till this be done, I fear not falling under St. Paul's Cenfure of doing Evil 
 that Good may co7ne of it : And unlefs God had in downright Terms commanded it, 
 I will never believe but that I may have a very good Right, in fuch a Government 
 as ours, to defend my Life againft any one that would take it away upon the bare 
 fcore of Religion j nor can I think it a Doftrine fuitable to the Juffice and Goodncfs 
 of God, to ordain a whole Nation to fall as a Sacrifice to the Cruelty or Supcrfti- 
 tion of any one, or more Men. 
 
 But fince you are pleafed to urge me witli Examples of Primitive Ciiriftians, 
 who chofe to die rather than refift or rebel againft their Prince, pray give me leave 
 likcwife to tell you a few Stories, wherein thefe Primitive Chriftians iiave not fhew'd 
 themfelves fo ftanch in this matter as you would make them. 
 
 In oppofition therefore to your T'hebaan Legion , I may fet thofe Legions that 
 compofed the Army in Gaul, and which faluted Julian (afterwards the Apoftate) 
 Emperor, contrary to their Oaths of Allegiance to the Emperor Conjlamipti ; re- 
 nouncing which , they took an Oath to the former, whilft the latter was yet 
 alive; and had certainly fought againft him, and refilled him with a witncfs, had 
 he not chanced to have died by the way, before they could meet to decide the 
 Quarrel. 
 
 M. Pray give me leave. Sir, to intermpt you a little, tiiough I cannot deny 
 the Matter of Faft to be as you fay, and likewifc that this Army was for the 
 moft part Ciiriftian ; yet they were, I fiippofc, drawn in partly out of Hatred to 
 Coiifiantim, becaufc he was an Aiian, and partly out of CompafTion to J ul/ut?, who 
 was at that time upon very ill Terms with Confiantim his Kinfman, the whole yi, Amnu:tfr. 
 
 Army Mo-.tiUnMh,
 
 200 BlELIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 Army fuffering many Hardfiiips for liis fake, for whom they had a great Love 
 and Efteem. But certainly their Loyalty to Julian is very commendable ,• for 
 though immediately after the Death of ComftantiHi, he openly declared himfelf to 
 be a Heathen-; yet notwithflanding that, and his Perfecution of the Chriltians 
 during his whole Reign, we cannot find that either the Soldiers, or any other 
 Chrillian, ever refifted or rebelled againft him ; but that they look'd upon it as 
 unlawful to refill hira, may appear by feveral Authorities out of the Fathers of 
 that time. 
 
 F. Since you cannot deny the Matter of Faft, you ftrive to extenuate it by 
 their Hatred to Conftantifn for his Apoflacy from the Catiiolick Faith ; and the 
 fevere and rigid Treatment of Conjlantius : But if their Hatred to him, becaufe 
 he was an Arian, could make them join with Julian to rebel againft him , pray 
 tell me why they might not have rebelled alfo againft Julian, after he had decla- 
 red himfelf an Apoftate from the Chriftian Faith ? Could they have had fuch ano- 
 ther Leader 2,% Julian himfelf? But he reigned too fmall a time, and was too con- 
 ftantly at the head of his Army, to give them any opportunity to ferve him as he 
 had ferved his Predecellbr. 
 
 And indeed this Army of Julians was but too obedient to him, fince we find 
 that though they had been Chriftians before, yet at the time of Julians Death 
 they were then in Profeflion Heathens ; for you will find in all the Ecclefiaftical Hif- 
 torians, that when after the Death of Julian, they chofe Jovian Emperor, he at 
 firit refufed it, faying, that he being a Chriftian, would not command Heathens ; 
 whereupon they confefled themfelves to be all Chriftians ; but certainly this had 
 been a very impertinent Objedion, had they been publickly known fo at that 
 time. 
 
 And though I grant, Julian countenanced the doing of a great many violent 
 things towards the ChrilHans,- yet it is certain that he never made any Sangui- 
 nary Laws againft them, but rather forbid them to be put to Death, or to fufFer 
 any Hardfhip on the account of their Religion ; though I confefs the Heathens, 
 becaufe they thought it would be acceptable to him, put many Chriftians to Death 
 by Force and Violence : So that however he might be pleafed with k, and con- 
 nive at it, yet did he never pnaft it by any publick Law, or Edift ; or if he had, 
 do I allow the Chriftians a Liberty to have taken Arms, and refifted him upon 
 the account of Religion ? For though I own, the Chriftian Religion had been efta- 
 blifh'd by Law by Conftantim the Great, yet was it not fo throughly fettled as to 
 forbid the free and open Profeflion of the Pagan Superftition ; the Heathens be- 
 ing admitted to all Offices and Commands, as well as the Chriftians, and might 
 freely perform all the Rites of their Superftition, publick Sacrifices to their falfe 
 Gods only excepted : So that if Confiantine by his Edift could without any Rebel- 
 lion, fhut up the Heathen Temples, and give the Chriftians the publick Liberty 
 of profefling their Religion, why fliould not Julian have the like Prefogative, fince 
 his Power was alike fupreme and abfolute, to recall thofe Edifts, and to make quite 
 contrary ones, if he had fo pleas'd ? 
 
 And though I alfo own, that the Chriftians did not afiually rife in Arms againft 
 Julian ; yet that there were many of them would have done fo, is very likely, 
 lince they openly pray'd for his Deftruftion, and gave him very undutiful, fawcy, 
 nay reproachful Language, upon the account of his Apoftacy, whenever he came 
 in their way. And thus fome of thofe who are called Fathers, were of an Opi- 
 nion, that an Apoftate, though an Emperor, might be put to Death. Pray read, 
 what I have lately tranfcribed out of the Writings of Lucifer Calaritanus, (whom 
 See BihUoih. St. Jerom calls a Alan of a wonderful Cor.ftancy, and of a Mmd prepared for Martyr- 
 Vet. Patr. dom) who writing to the Emperor Confiantius, fays thus to him : " Pray fhcw 
 lorn. ly. Co- « [j^jf Qjjg Qf jjjg Worfliippers of God, that ever fpared the Adverfaries of his 
 ""' " Religion : And tlien he reads him his own Doom out of Deut. 13. i. If there 
 
 " rife among you a Prophet, or a Dreamer of Dreams, faying, let us go after other Gods 
 " ( for the Orthodox always charged the Arians with Idolatry ) that Prophet, or 
 " Dreamer of Dreams, JhaU be put to Death. You fee what you arc commanded 
 " to fuffer- " [And again,] " Hear what God hath ordained by Mofes, is to be done 
 '' with you, for perfwading me to revolt from God, Deut. 15. 5. If thy Brother, 
 " the Son of thy Mother, or thy Son, &c. intice thee fecretly, faying. Let «s go, and ferve 
 " other Godfy thou (hah furely kill him, &c. Here it is commanded, that my Brother 
 
 " fliall
 
 Dialogue the Fourth. 2CI 
 
 ' fliall be put to Dcadi for inviting me to tbrf.;kc God. " [And in purfuance of 
 this Doctrine, he tells him a li::ie further to this purpofe ; ] " That if he had 
 '•* been in the hands of MiUtatkiai or Phinecu, and fhoiild have gone to live after 
 " the manner of the Heathens, without doubt they would have kill'd him with the 
 " S'.vord, which he repeats twice for fear he fhould forget it. 
 
 And this Treatifc being fent for by the Gnat Athanajius, and being by him pe- 
 rufcd, he was fo far from condemning any thing in it, that, as you may fee in his 
 Letter to this Luafer, (wiiich is in the fame Volume from whence I tranfcribcd 
 this) he highly praileth him for writing it, and c.lls his Book, the DoElrhie of the 
 true Faith, befides many other Commendations, too long h.ere to be repeated. And 
 as for Julian himfclf, Soz^omen the Ecclefialtical Hiftorian, writing of the manner of 
 his Dv-ath, fays, that it was believed by many tiiat he was kiileJ by fome Chriflian 
 Soldier of his Army, whom he applauds for fo doing. 
 
 M. I cannot deny but the Carriage oF lome Clinftians of thofe Times, even of 
 thofe who are called amtent Wmerf or Fathers^ might be too undutit'ul, and may 
 be attributed to tlic morofe, monaftick Temper of the Father you have quoted^ 
 tiiough a great deal of this fort of Carriage may be ati;ributed to that Chriflian 
 Zeal which the Je-^i^s called the i^/mi oj Fnytitude, and the Greeks call va^^Viijiei^ which 
 we render Boldtufs or Confidence, and which did often tranfjiort them to fay thofe 
 indecent things to perfecuting Kings, or theirGovernors, which had been infiifterable 
 in any Man elfe on another occalion ; and this was not only in Words, but Adions 
 too. Thus when the EmpcrovsNameritmus, or Deems, (for my Author doth not know 
 which it was) would have entred into the Cathedral Church of Amioch in time of 
 Divine Service, Babylas the Bifliop, ftandiiig in the Church-porch, (hut the Door 
 againft him, telling him, that he would not fuffer him, who was a Wolf, to enter 
 into the Sheepfold of Chrifl. And we alfo read, that Valeminian (who was after- 
 wards Emperor) being then an Officer under 'Julian, and waiting upon him to the 
 Door of a Heathen Temple, gave the Prieft a Box on the Ear, becaufe he oH-er'd to 
 fprinkle him, being a Cliriflian, with his prophane Holy Water : Yet I confefs, Theo- 
 doret commends the Adion ,• and fays, th^^y after chofe that Valentinian Emperor, him 
 •who had before /buck the Priejl : And therefore, I wonder to what purpofe you quote 
 fuch Paflagesout of antient Writers, and the Aftions of Primitive Chriflians, which, 
 if you are a Man of that Loyalty or good Breeding, as I hope you are, you will not 
 yourfelf approve of 
 
 • . F. I do not tell you I quote them for our Imitation ; but only to let you fee, 
 that the Aftions of thofe you call Primitive Chriflians and Fathers, are not by 
 your ownConfcifion to be the only Pattern for us to follow; fo that indeed their 
 Pra<5tices can figniiy nothing to us, unlcfs the Principles they atted by were fuita- 
 ble to the Laws of God and right Reafon ; unlcfs you will have no Precedents 
 to be good, but what fliall fuit with your Humour, and thofe Principles you have 
 already imbibed : And if Baby/as the Martyr might, witliout any Sin, fluit the 
 Emperor out of the Church by force, and that Vahntiman was commended for 
 ftriking the Emperor's Prieft on the Face, I think here are by your own Confef- 
 fion two fufficicnt Primitive Examples of Reliftance, both of the Emperor's Pcr- 
 fon, as alfo of thofe commi/Iion'd by him, as certainly tliis Prieft was, or elfc he 
 could have had no Right tp have exercifed his Idolatrous Worlliip, after tjie Tem- 
 ples had been fhut up wndax-Confiantine and Confiantim. 
 
 But I now defirc your Patience to let you fee, that not long after thefe Times, 
 the Chriitians , . as well Sokliers as others , were not fo througii paced in thefe - 
 Doctrines of Paflive Obedience and Non-refiftance , as you would make them ; 
 for it was by tiie Power of the Chnftian Legions in Britain, that Maswim took 
 the Boldncfs to rebel againft the Emperor Guitian, and making himfclf Emperor, 
 marched into Gaul againft him ; where the poor Prince being alfo deferred by his 
 Chriftian Army, and forced to fly away with a few Follo\\-crs, was not long after 
 murdcr'd by Andragatbtus ; after whicli, this Alaximus had fo good Succefs, that he 
 poflcfs'd himfjilf not only of Britain, but Spam, Gaul, and part of Germany; and 
 was alfo acknowledged for Emperor by all thcSubje(5ts in thofe Provinces, as well 
 Clergy as Laity, ri.ough the Emperor Valentinian, the Son ot Gratian, was then 
 alive. And all the Bifiiops making their Applications to him, dclir'd him to 
 call a Council in Gdul, to fupprtfs the Herefy oi PnfalLua, wiiicli he did in com- 
 pliance with their Requcfts ; wherein they condemu'd that Hcrctick, and his Fol- 
 
 D d lowers.
 
 202 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 lowers, of Herefy ; who afterwards (ar the inflance of Ithacius, and fome otlier 
 Bifliops) were by this ufurping Emperor condemn'd, with divers otliers, to fuffer 
 Death ; being the firft that ever fufter'd that Punifhment for Herefy. This Maxi-- 
 mus, after five Years Reign, was overcome, and kill'd in Battel by the Emperor 
 'Theodojtus, who reftored that part of the Empire to Vulentiiuan II. 
 
 And farther, to let you fee that the common People of thefe Primitive Times, 
 though they were not able to make Emperors fo well as the Army, yet they were 
 not fo flrait-lac'd as not to refill the Emperor's Orders, whenever they thought they 
 entrenched upon their Religion, or that they went about to petfecute them for 
 it : I can give you a great many Examples out of Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, of which 
 Lfi. 2.CL30. 1 win only here fet down fome few : The firft is out of Socrates^ Ecd.Hifi. when 
 the Emperor Co;iflamius , at the InlHgation of Macedonius the Arian Bifliop , had 
 perfwaded him to fend fome Bands ot Soldiers into Paphlagoniuy to terrify the Peo- 
 ple, and make them turn Ariaiis. The Inhabitants of Mantinium, enflamed with 
 a Zeal for the Orthodox Religion, marched againft the Soldiers, with a good 
 Courage ; and having provided themfelves with the beft Arms they could , they 
 gave them Battel ; in which few or none of the Emperor's Soldiers efcaped. And 
 though I confefs, (the Hiftorians fay) thefe People were moft of them Novations ; 
 yet this Aft ion ought not to be condemned only for that Caufe, fince they were 
 rather look'd upon as Schifmaticks than Herericks, and were in all things elfe, ex- 
 cept that one point, about reconciling the Lapfed, very Orthodox ; but in all other 
 things were more ftrift and fcrupulous, than the Catholicks themfelves. 
 
 So likewife, when the Orthodox at Covflaminople had chofen Trad for their 
 Ibid. cap. 10. Bifhop, but the Emperor refolving to make Macedonius Bifhop in fpite of their 
 teeth, and had fent Philip, the Prefident, to fix Macedonius in that See ; as he was 
 about to give him Pofleffion of the Church, though they were guardci all along 
 with Soldiers, yet when they came near the Door, the People made that RLfiftaace, 
 that they could not get in till feveral thoufands of them were kill'd. 
 
 And fome Years after, when the Emperor "theodofius II. had banifti'd St. Chvyfo^ 
 fiom, A. D. 404. the People flock'd together about tlie Palace, (o that the Emper 
 tor, to pacify them, was forced to recall him from his Banifhment. 
 Hij}. Tripar- And when St. Ambrofe wasbanifh'd by Valentinian, at the Inftigation of his Mo- 
 tit. L. 10. x.\\tx Jtiftina, the People did refift all fuch as came to carry him away : Andfiich 
 '^Hn ^R n ■ ^'^^ x.\\e.\x. Zeal for the Truth, and Love to their injur'd Bifhop, that they chofe 
 L.ix.cJil. rather to lofe their Lives, than fufter their Paftor to be taken away by the Soldi- 
 ers , that were fent to drag him out of the Church. I could give you more In" 
 fiances of this kind, from thefe Primitive Times ; but thefe may be fufficicnc to 
 fhew you, of how little account the Dodrine of Non-refiftance was ii; tho& 
 Times, after Chriftianity was once fettled, and that the People fuppofed they 
 had the Law on their fide. Neither do I produce them as fit to be imitated ia 
 all like Cafes, but only to let you fee, that the Example of thofe Times yoa 
 call Primitive, are no fufficient Argument of what was lawful, or unlawful to be 
 done. 
 
 M. Since you yourfelf do allow all, or however, moft of thefe Aftions, to be 
 unlawful, I think you might very well have fpared the mentioning of them ; fince 
 I grant, that about the end of the 4th Century, when thefe things happen'd, not 
 only tlie common People, but alfo the Clergy began to grow very corrupt in their 
 Manners : And therefore, I cannot much value any Precedents that you can bring 
 ' in that time, to juftify Refiftance in Chriftians, unlefs you could have fhewn jne 
 any before the time of Confiamine, which I am fure you are not able to do, much 
 lefs any Authority from any of the Primitive Fathers, which juftifieth Refiftance of 
 the Supreme Powers upon any account whatfoever. 
 
 F. 'Tis a very hard matter to fatisfy you by Quotations ; for before the titac 
 of Confiantine, it is evident the Chriftians were not only weak, difperfed and dif- 
 armed, but had alfo the Laws of the Empire againft them. And I have already 
 granted. That Self-defence againft Perfecution upon account of Religion, w..s un- 
 lawful ,• but when, in the time of Confiantine's Son and Succeilbr, the Peo^^ie ha- 
 ving the Law on their fide, ftood upon their defence againft thofe that would 
 have taken away their Lives , as in the Examples I have brought of the Inhabi- 
 tants of Paphlagonia, then the Inftances come too late ,• and the Age is grown fo 
 corrupt, that they are no longer Primitive Chriftians, than they obferve your 
 
 Doftrines.
 
 Dialogue the Fourth. 205 
 
 Doftrincs. But as for exprcfs Precepts, or Tcftimonies out of the Scriptures and 
 Fathers, to juflify Refiftancc, I think it is very nccdlcfs to bring any ; for the 
 great Mr. Hooker Ihcws us very well, that it is the Intent of the Scripture to deli- 
 ver us all the Cedenda and Agenda, necellary to Salvation ; but in other Matters 
 within the Compali of our Rcafon, it is enough if we have evident Rcafon foe 
 them , Scnftur • mn comradiceme ; and if the Scripture doth not forbid fuch Re- 
 fiftance for Self-defence, (as I hope I have now proved to be lawful) I do not 
 value wlicthcr there be any exprefs Authority to be quoted out of the Fathers foe 
 it or not : For whatever the Scripture leaves tree, 1 think the Fathers have no 
 power to forbid. 
 
 At. I fee it is to no purpofc to argue longer with you from Ptimitivc Exam- 
 ples or Teftimonies : And therefore I come now to the laft thing I propoicd ; H.T.O. a, 
 which is to fhew you, that the Doctrine of our Church of England, as it is con- 
 tain'd in the 5 9 Articles, Canons, and Bock of Humiltes, is as exprclly for PafTne 
 Obedience, and againfl all Rcliftance of the Supreme Powers, as the Primitive 
 Church itfelf : And therefore I fliall begin with the Infancy of the Reformation^ 
 under Hmry VIII. for there I begin the Reformation of Religion in this King- 
 dom. 
 
 F. I pray, Sir, give me leave to interrupt you ; for I mufl tell you, I will rot 
 be concluded by any thing that the King or Church, in thofc Times did publifh 
 concerning Matters of Faith orPraftice j lince, unlefs it were in that one Political, 
 rather than Religious Article, concerning the Pope's Siipremacy, the Chinch in 
 all other Speculative and Practical Doftrines, was as much inftited with Popery 
 as it was before : And therefore, if you will have me to be converted by your 
 Authofities, I pray begin with the purer Times of Ed-ward VI. and Qiieen £//- 
 zuibeth. 
 
 M. I (hall comply with your Defires, fince you will have it fo : And therefore 
 I (hall begin with the 39 Articles of the Church of England; where, in the 57th H.T.O. c,t. 
 Article, (as they were pafs'd under Qiiecn Eliz,abeth, Anno 1^62.) you may find 
 it runs thus : " The Queen s Mnjefly hath the Chief Povaer in this Keabn of England, and 
 " other her Dominions, unto tihom the Chief Government of all the Eflates of this Realm 
 *' xvhether they be Ecclefiajiical or Ctvil, in all Caufes doth appertain, and is net, nor ought 
 " to be fubjeil to any foreign 'Jurifditiion. 
 
 It is true, thisDodtrine is not limited to the particular Cafe of Subjefts taking 
 up Arms ; but it fccms to me by two necctfary Confcquences, to be deduced 
 from it : Firft, Bccaufe if the Pope, who pretended by a Divine Right, had no 
 Power over Kings, much lefs ]ia\e the People any fuch Power, who pretend to 
 an Inferior Right, as that of Compaft. Secondly, Becaufe the Article makes no 
 Diilinttion, but excludes all otiicr Power, as well as that of the Pope. And in 
 truth, the Plea is the fame on either lide ; the Pope fays, as long as the Prince 
 governs according to the Laws oi God, and the Church, (of which he is the In- 
 terpreter) fo long the Cenfurcs of the Church do not reach him : And fay the 
 People, as long as the Prince governs according to the Laws of the Land, (and 
 of the Meaning of thofc Laws they themfelves will be the Interpreters) (o long 
 are they bound to be obedient ; but as foon as the King doth any thing that may 
 contradict the Po{-)e, then he is (defervedly, fay the Romun/Jli) excommunicated, 
 depofed, and murdered ; and when he ufurps upon the Peoples Liberties, then he 
 cuglit to be depofed by the People. Tlic Arguments on either lide are the fame, 
 and for tlie moft part the Authorities. 
 
 F. 1 muH confefs, this is the firft time that ever I knew any Man go about to 
 prove Pafjtve Obedience and Non-ref fiance out of the T'hiny Nine Articles ; and in- 
 deed I liiould have thought you might luve deduced any thing elfe from thcfc 
 Articles, as well as that. But let us fee, how what 1 have faid in this Difcourfe 
 can come within the Contents of this Article, which only fays, that the King or 
 Queen of Eigland is Supreme Governor over all Perfons, as alfo in all Caufes, 
 whetheJ Ecclefiaftical or Civil, and is not fubjed to any foreign Junfdidion : 
 From whence you raifc this Argument, That if the Pope, wlio claims by a DiviiiC 
 Right, hatii no Power over our Kings, much lefs have the People, who can pre- 
 tend to no fuch Right as he does, but only that by Compart. Now pray tell 
 me, whether this be coijcluliv e. I adert, that the People have, by the Law of 
 God and Nature, a Right to defend themfelves againlt tlic Supreme Powers, la 
 
 D d 2 caf?.
 
 204 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITiCA. 
 
 cafe they are violently aflaulted in their Lives, Liberties, or Eftates. Now I 
 would very vain have you prove to me, how Reftftance for Self-defence doth fub- 
 jeft a Prince to any Jurifdidion, either foreign or domeftick ; and whether the 
 People can have no Right to refift fiich Violence, iinlcfs they have alfo an autho- 
 ritative Power over them ? 
 H. P. 0. p. M. It is not worth while to difpute this any longer with )ou to fo little pur- 
 3> 4 pofe ; and therefore I fhall come to the Canons of the Church, and in particular, 
 
 thofeof the Year 11540, w^hich I look upon as a full Explanation of the Belief of 
 our Church in tiiis Point, where you may fee, in the iirll Canon, thefe two plain 
 Propofitions, among others. 
 B/i-SparrowV Firft, " That the moft Sacred Order of Kings is of Divine Right, being the 
 Coiieaioncf « Ordinance of God himfelii founded in the prime Laws of Nature, and clearly 
 c^«o«.,&c. « eilablifhed by exprefs Texts both of the Old and New Teftaments. 
 ^' ''^^' Secondly, " for Subjeds to bear Arms againft their Kings, oft'enfive or defbn- 
 
 " five, upon any pretence whatfoever, is at lealc to relift the Powers which are 
 " ordained of God : And tho' they do not invade, but only relift, St, Paul tells 
 " them plainly, they Jhall receive to themfehes Damnation. 
 
 From which you may plainly fee, that this Convocation, which confifted of as 
 great Men as, I think, had been for divers Ages, do clearly maintain Monarchy 
 to be of Divine Right, and Refiflance to be in no Cafe lawful. 
 
 F. I fhould grant the Canons of this Convocation to be a good Proof of the Judg- 
 ment of the Church oi England, were it not for two very good Reafons I have againft 
 them : The one I will tell you prefenrly, and the other I will keep a while to my 
 fclf. In the firft place therefore, I fuppofe you cannot but very well know, that this 
 Convocation fate and palVed thefe Canons, which likewife received the King's Con- 
 firmation, after the Parliament (that wasfummoned together with this Convocation} 
 was dillblved : And the Writs by which they fate being to the fame purpofe, I 
 fuppofe you know, that by the Law of England the Convocation having been look'd 
 upon as an Appendix to the Parliament, was till then always diflblved with it. 
 Vid. Rufh. For which reafon all Adts and Proceedings of this Convocation were condemned, 
 Coilea. part ^^j declared null and void by the Long Parliament, that began to fit the lattef 
 2. vol. 2. f. £j^j ^^ j.j^g ^^j^g Year : And which is more, was likewife condemned by the fir/t 
 ' ^ '' Parliament after the Reftoration of King Charles the fecond. And therefore, I think, 
 
 I have very little Reafon to own thefe Canons as conclufive. 
 H. P. 0. ch. M. In the firft place, I might reply to what you have now faid, that that very 
 2. Parliament, which firft condemned thefe Canons, afterwards ruined the Monarchy 
 
 itfelf. In the next place, that in old time the General or Provincial Synods were 
 not dependant upon the Afl'embly of the Eftates at the fame time. And I likewife 
 farther anfwer, that thefe Canons were made and confirmed in a full Convocation 
 of both Provinces of Canteriury and Tork j and the making of Canons being a Work 
 properly Eccleliaftical, thefe Canons were made by the Reprefentanves of the 
 whole Clergy of this Kingdom. 2. The Canons were confirmed by the King 
 (which was all that was of old required in fuch Cafes) and tho' the Convocation 
 fate after the Diflblution of the Parliament, yet this is not without precedent, 
 even in the happy Days of Qiieen Elix^aleth, not to look back unto Hemy VIII. 
 or the Primitive Times. And as for your Objeftion, that thefe Canons were re- 
 brobated fince the Reftitution oi Charles II. I fay, that I quote them not as Law^ 
 but as the known Senfe of the Church of England at that time. 
 
 F. Your firft Anfwer in behalf of thefe Canons is altogether invidious : For it 
 was not this Parliament that ruined the Monarchy, but only the Rump or Fag-end 
 of it, after it had fuflfered divers Violences andExclufions of Members by the Ar- 
 my, and tliat the Houfe of Lords (being by this Junto voted ufelefs and dange- 
 rous) were fliut out of doors. Nor is your fecond Anfwer any more true ,• for 
 antiently, in the Saxons Time, the J^ittena Gemot or Great Council, and the Ge- 
 neral Synod, made one and the fame Aflembly, confifting both of Clergy-men and 
 Laymen ; and then all Matters of Ecclcfiaftical Difcipline were enafted and con- 
 firmed by the King, as alfo the Spiritual as well as Temporal States. Nor can 
 you fhew me an Example of any General or Provincial Synod, which met inde- 
 pendently, and without the States of the Realm, until after the Reign of Henry I. 
 when the Popes took upon them to encroach upon the Royal Authority, as alfo 
 upon our Civil Rights, and by his Legates to call Synods, and make Ecclefiafti- 
 
 cal
 
 Dialogue the Fourth. ^05^ 
 
 cal Conflitutions, in which neither the King nor the States of the Kingdom had 
 any thing to do. And tho', I grant, tliat upon the Reforfnatioiz the King was 
 reftor'd to thofc Rights, as Supreme Governor oi the Church, which the Pope 
 had before ufurped ; yet is not this Aft of the Supremacy to be fo undcrftood as 
 to give the King all that Power, which the Pope unjuftly took upon him to exe- 
 cute before ; for that had been to make the Cafe little better than it wa' before : 
 And therefore this Aft of the Supremacy being only an Aft of Reftoration of the 
 King to his prifcine Rights, (of which that of calling Synods and Convocacions 
 was one of the principal) the King could not call nor continue thofe Airembiies i;i 
 any other Form, or after any other manner, than they were held before che Pope's 
 Ufurpation, in taking upon him to call fuch indepcndant Synods : And notwith- 
 ftanding what you tell me, I am. confident you cannot Ihew me any Precedent of 
 a Convocation lb turned into a Synod, as this was, in all the Reigns of Henry VIII- 
 and Qiicen Etix^abetfi- 
 
 But as for your laft Reply, that you quote not thefe Canons for a Law tliat 
 obliges by a Civil Sanftion, but as the Senfe of the Church of England at that 
 time J if they' do not now oblige the Church neither in point of Belief nor Praftice, 
 as you feem to grant, it fignifieth no more to nie what was the Senfe of the grearell: 
 part of the Members of that Convocation i\\ this matter, nor doth it any more 
 (hew me what is the true Doftrinc of the Church di England, than if I fliould tell 
 yoa, that becaufc '\\\ the Reign of Queen Eliz.akih the major part of the Bifhops 
 and Clergy of our Church were rigid Cahinifts in the Interpretation of that Ar- 
 ticle about Predefimation, tliat therefore Cahinifm wSs then the Doftrine of tlie 
 Church of England, but is not fo now./ And therefore we ought not to take that 
 for t Doftrinc of any National Church, unlefs the Synod or Alfembly, that de- 
 clares fuch Doftrine, be folemnly and lawfully aflembled, according to the Laws_ 
 and Cufloms of that Nation or Country wherein they are fo declared. 
 
 M. Since you fo much conteft the Authority of thefe Canons, I fhall no longer H. P. 0. p* 
 infift upon them, but I (hall here fhew you out of the Books of Ho?nilies, to which S> 9- 
 all the Clergy in £»;,?Av«J are bound to fubfcribc by Aft of Parliament (as well as 
 to the Articles and Canons) as containing wholefome Doftrine, and nothing con- 
 trary to the Word of God (fo that thefe Homilies do indeed thereby become a 
 part of the known Laws of the Land) that in thefe very Homilies there are divers 
 PaflagcS fo very full and plain againft all Refiflame of the Sovereign Povcers for any 
 Caufi xvhatfoever^ that if you are a true Church of England Man, as I hope you are, 
 you can have no ;uft Reafon ro deny their Authority. 
 
 The Homily, or Exhortation ro Obedience, was made An. 1547. in the Reign of 
 King Eduard the (ixth ; in tJK fceond Part of which Sermon of Obedience we 
 are told in thefc Words (which I defire you to read along with me) : 
 
 " That it is tiic Calling of God's People to be patient, and on the fufiiring 
 *' Side, and to render Obc<lience to Governors, altho' they be Wicked and 
 *' Wrong-doers, and in no cafe to refill and ftand againft them. Subjefts are 
 " bound to obdy them (/. e. Govemon) as God's Minifters, altho' they be evil, 
 not only for tear, but alfo for Confcience fake. And here. Good People, let us 
 " mark diligently, that it is not lawfill for Inferiors and Subjefts in any Cafe to 
 " tcfth and liand againft the Superior Powers; for St. PatiVs Words are plain, that 
 ■whftfo \uithf(aitdethjl)aU get to themfehes Damnation. Our Saviour Ciirift, and his 
 *' Apoftles, received many and divers Injuries of the unfaithful and wicked Men 
 m Authority j yet wc never read that they, or any of them, caufed any Sedi- 
 tion, or Rebellion againft Authority. We read often, that they patiently fnf- 
 fered all TroiU*Jcs, Vexations, Slanders, Pangs, Pains, and- Death itfelf, obe- 
 " diently, without Tumult or Rcfiftance. Chrift taught us plainly, that even 
 " the wicked Rulers have their Power and Authority from God ; and therefore it 
 is not lawful for their Subjefts towithftand them, altho' they abufe their Power. 
 Let US believe undoubtedly (good Chriftian People) that we may not obey 
 Kings, if they command us any thing contrary to God's Commandments : In 
 fuch a cafe we ought to fay as the Apoftle, We mufl rather obey God than Muk, 
 But neverthelefs, in that cafe we muft not in any wife withftand violently, or 
 " rebel againft Rulers, or make any Infurreftion, Sedition, or Tumults, cither 
 by force ot Arms or otherwifc, againft the Anointed of the Lmd, or any of his 
 V appointed Officers ; but we muft in fuch a cafe patiently fufter all Wroncs and 
 
 " Inju-
 
 Zo6 BiBLiotHECA Politic A. 
 
 " Injuries, referring the Judgment of our Caufe only to God." And fee Part the 
 Third of the fame Homily : " Ye have heard before of this Sermon of good Or- 
 " der and Obedience, manifeftly proved both by Scriptures and Examples, That 
 " all Subjefts are bound to obey their Magiftrates, and for no caufe to re/ift, or 
 " withftand, or rebel, or make any Sedition againit them, yea altho' they be 
 " wicked Men." 
 
 i could find many more fuch Places in our Homilies, but I fhall trouble you 
 but with one other Paflage out of the fecond Book oi Homilies, compiled in the 
 Reign of Qiicen Eliz.abeth, in which Book the Homily againft Wilful Rebellion is 
 full to this purpofe. 
 
 " In reading the Holy Scriptures we fhall find in very many, and almofl infi- 
 " finite Places, as well of the Old Teftament as of the New, that Kings and Prin- 
 " ces, as well the Evil as the Good, do reign by God's Ordinance, and that 
 " Subjefts arc bound to obey them. The farther and farther any Earthly Prince 
 " doth fwervi^ from theExampleof the Heavenly Government, the greater Plague 
 ^ " he is of God's Wratli and Puniflinicnt, by God's Juftice, unto the Country and 
 " People over whom God for their Sins hath placed fuch a Prince and Gover- 
 " nour. What fliall Subjeds do then ? What a perillous thing were it to com- 
 " mit to Subjeds the Judgment, which Prince is wife and godly, and his Go- 
 " vernment good, and which otherwife ? As tho' the Foot muft judge of the 
 " Head ; an Enterprize very heinous, and which muft needs breed Rebellion ; 
 " and is not Rebellion the greateft of all Mifchiefs .> A Rebel is worfe than the 
 " worft Prince, and Rebellion worfe than the worft Government of the worft 
 " Prince, that hitherto hath been. If we will have an evil Prince (when God 
 " {hall fend one) taken away, and a good one in his place, let us take away our 
 " Wkkednefs, which provoketh God to place fuch a one over us. Shall the 
 " Subjetts both by their Wickednefs provoke God for their deferved Punifhment 
 " to give them an undifcreet and evil Prince, and alfo rebel againft him, and 
 " withal againft God, who for the Puniihment of their Sins did give them fuch a 
 " Prince ?" And this Doftrine is more ftrifdy enforced in the fecond Part of 
 that Homily, from the Example of King David, in his Carriage towards Saul ; 
 from which it will appear, that they did not fuppofe David to have ufed fo much 
 as defenlive Arms againft him, as you may fee by this Paflage in it : " That 
 " when for his moft painful, true and faithful Service, King Saul yet rewarded 
 " him not only with great Unkindnefs, but alfo fought his Deftrudition and Death 
 " by all means poflible, David was fain to fave his Life, not by Rebellion or any 
 " Refiftance, but by Flight, and hiding himfelf from the King's fight-" 
 
 From all which Paflages out of the HmnUes, I think, we may draw thefe plain 
 Conclufions : i . That as well evil as good Governors are to be obeyed as God's 
 Ordinance, a- That therefore they are not to be refifted for any caufe, tho' they 
 abufe their Power never fo tyrannically. 3. That the People are not to judge 
 when the Prince thus abufes this Power, fo as thereby to make any difturbance. 
 4. That not only oft'enfive, but alfo defenlive 'Arms, if made ufe of againft him, 
 are utterly unlawful, and alfo againft God's cxprefs Command. 
 
 F. I grant, thefe Homilies feem to be very ftridly penned againft all Rejifimcey 
 and ought to be (like all Difcourfes of this nature) pofitive and general ; and per- 
 haps if I were to preach a Sermon to tiie Common People on this Subject:, it 
 fiiould be much to the fame purpofe ; and yet for all that I migiit not believe, 
 that it was abfolutely unlawful for a whole Nation to defend thcmfelves, in cafe 
 ot fuch extream Violence or Oppreffion as I have already fuppofed : For when 
 Preacliers fpcak to Vulgar Auditors, they are not bound, like Cafuifts, to tell 
 them all the referved Cafes in which they may be difpenfed with in tiieir Duty, 
 left they might ufe this Chriftian Liberty for a Cloak of Alalicioufnefs (as the Apoftle 
 tells us.) Thus if a good Preacher makes a Sermon againft Stealing or Murder, he 
 may very jiiftly tell the People (as the Autliors of thefe Homilies do) that they 
 o.ight not in any wife, or for any Caufe, to commit 'Theft or Murder ; without 
 telling them all thofe Cafes of meet Necelfity, in which it may be lawful to make 
 ufe of the Goods of another, and alfo to commit Homicide ; as, when a Man is 
 forced to take Viduals, tiio' without the Owner's Confent, for meer Prefervation 
 ot Life, or to kill a Thief, or any other Man that aflaults him, to fave his own 
 Life. So tlio' the Authors of thefe Books of Homdks do lay, that that we may 
 
 not
 
 Dialogue the Fourth, taj 
 
 not in any wife, and for no caufe, witliftand violently, or rcfift, the Supreme 
 Powers ; but that we mull fufter patiently all Wrongs and Injuries, referring the 
 fudgment only to God : Yet fince they have not particularly put the Cafe, as I 
 have now done, "viz.. what is to be done in cafe a whole Nation or People are 
 about to be deftroyed, ruined or cnflaved, and made Heathens or Papifts, by the 
 unjuft, nay illegal Violence of the Supreme Powers ; we may rationally fuppofe, 
 that fince they were good Men, and never intended to urge thefe things further 
 than what the Scripture and Fathers have already done, that they never really in- 
 tended, that a whole People or Nation, together with the Religion eltabliflied, 
 ftiould be thus ruined and deftroyed, rather than fuch Refjlanee fhould be made. 
 
 M. But pray tell me, can there be any thing more exprefs againft your Inter- 
 pretation, or more plainly oblige us to a patient Suffering, without Refiftance of 
 of the cruellcft and moft intoUerable Tyranny, than tliefe words I laft read. T'hc 
 farther and fartJier any earthly Prince doth fwerve frojn the Example of the heavenly Go~ 
 •verttment, the greater Plague he is of God's Wrath and Pimifimem, by God's 'Jiiftice, unto 
 the Country and People, over whom Gvd, for their Sins, hath placed fuch a Prince and Go- 
 pernor. And by what tiiere follows, you will fee that tho' fuch a Prince be fo 
 great a Plague to them ; yet they cannot without Sin judge fuch a Prince, or re- 
 bel againft him, bur muft patiently wait God's leifure to remove him. 
 
 F. I confefs this is the ftrifteft Paflage of any in the whole Book, yet doth not 
 this exprcfly reach the Cafe here put ; or if it had, do I think myfelf, or any 
 Body elfe, obliged, becaufe of one or two unwary Paflages in this Homliy, of 
 which perhaps neither the Parliament nor Convocation clofely confidered the evi! 
 Confequcnce, or fo much as knew they were there; things of this kind ufually 
 pa-ffing fuch great Afl'emblies by the Lump, as relying upon the Teftimony of fome 
 leading Bifhops or Clergy-men, without confidering the Book of Homilies ftricHly, 
 or reading over the whole. So that the Parliament might very well declare, that 
 they contained found Doftrinc, and nothing contrary to the Wotd of God, with- 
 out afl'erting the literal Truth of every particular Paflage in them, much lefs, 
 that all that is contained therein, is to be believed upon pain of Damnation i and 
 therefore I muft beg your pardon, if I cannot fuppofe that all Refiftance what- 
 focver, though in the moft neceflary Cafes of Self-defence which I have now put, 
 is abfolutely unlawful and rebellious ; or that the Fathers of our Church ever in- 
 tended to lay fo hard a Yoak upon the Neck of this Nation, which neither they 
 nor their Fathers were ever able to bear ; much lefs, that there is thereby taken 
 away from this Nation, defending thofe fundamental Rights and Priviledges, 
 which are effential to the Nature of the Government, and which, as it diftinguiflieth 
 it from a Defpotick Monarchy, fo it doth the Siibjefts likewife from thofe of 
 Other Nations : For if the Scriptures thcmfelves were never intended to alter Ci- 
 vil Conftitutions much lefs certainly can either our Canons or Homilies do it. 
 And therefore to deal freely with you, if the Canons and Homilies had been ne- 
 ver fo exprefs on your fide; yet, as long as no fuch Confequence tan be drawn 
 from the Holy Scriptures, I (hould not much value what tliey fay, unlefs you can 
 prove the Chmch oi' England to be infallible. And for this I have the fixteenth and 
 twentieth Article of the Church of £;/5/^W (made in the Year i5'62.) tobear mcour. 
 The former of which, concerning rlie Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation, 
 runs thus .■ 'The Holy Saipture contains all things necejfary to Salvation : So that ivhatfo- 
 tver is not read the; an, uoy may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any Man, that 
 it Jhould be believed oi an Artule of Faith, or be thought necejfary or recjuifneto Salvation. 
 Therefore if I have plainly proved, by fufficient Authority, that your Doftrines 
 of Palfive Obedience and Non-reliftance are not exprefly found in Scripture, nor 
 by neceflary confequcnce may be rationally deduced from thence, they cannot be 
 required of any Man to be believed or pradifed as neceflary to Salvation. And 
 therefore, if either this Chui'ch, or any other, impofes futh a burden upon me, I 
 am not obliged to bear it : And this the latters of thefe Articles of the Authority 
 cf tlie Church exprefly aflcrts in thefe Words: It is not lawful for the Church to ordain 
 any thing contrary to God's Word written, &c. After which it follows thus : Suthatbe- 
 fides the fame, it ought rM to enforce any thing to be believed for necejjity of Salvation. Where 
 note, that by bejides the fame, is to be underftood any thing that is rot found there- 
 may be proved thereby by neceflary Confequence, as was faid before; and if the 
 whole Church itfclf cannot do this, certainly no particular Church can. 
 
 And
 
 208 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 - ,, And that diwers of the moil eminent Divines of our Church have ufed the fame 
 freedom with fc.veral other Dodtrines contained in thefe Homilies, may appear 
 from Dr. Hammond's, Dr. Heyltns, and Dr. Tii^lor's, with fcveral other eminent 
 .Writers exprefly denying, that the Church. of Rome is guilty cf Idolatry, or that 
 the Pope is Aiitichrift ; tho' both thcfe Doftrines arc as plainly laid down in the 
 Vid. id. Homilies, as the Doftrine of Non-refiftance : And yet lione of thefe Men are ever 
 Vol. of Horn:- taxed by thofe of the Church oi England, for quitting her antient Orthodox Doc- 
 '"!/ ^d\ '"^ trines. And I dcfire you to give me a good Reafon (if you can) why it is more 
 I'l ijj'g gJ^'J lawful and excufable to part with the former of thefe Doctrines than the latter ? 
 ino/js again/} The like I may fay alfo for the Dodrine of Predeftination j which tho' exprefly 
 Idolatry, efpe- afltTCcd in thc 36 Articles of the Church o^ England, as interpreted by all the Bi- 
 ciaiiy the ufi, fljops and Writers in the Reign of Queen Eliz,akth and King 'James, as alfo the 
 I'd'^ ' "^"'Biftiops and Divines fent as Delegates trom our Church to the Synod oiDort, who 
 '" joined in the Interpretation of that Article, in the ftri<5c Calviniftical fenfe, you 
 
 iind, in all the Determinations of that Synod againft the Doftrines of th& Armmiansy 
 which then began to prevail ; yet fince the time that Archbifhop Laudhd^d the no- 
 minating of what Perfons he thought fit to be made Bifhops, Deans, (jxc. not one 
 in ten of them but have been Arminians in all thofe Points, wherein they wholly 
 differ from the Doftrine of Calvin, which is but the fame with that of our 3^ 
 * Articles fo interpreted ; yet none of the Divines of our prefent Church, who hold 
 
 thefe Opinions, are branded with Apoflacy from its antient DoiSrine ; but if any 
 well meaning Divine, -out of love to his Country, and to prevent Popery and Sla- 
 very from breaking in upon us, have but preach'd or publifli'd any thing in dero- 
 gation to thefe darling Doftrines of PafTive Obedience and Non-r^fiflance, he is 
 ffrait branded with Apoflacy from the Church, in quitting its main diftinguifking 
 Charaifter ; and we have lately fcen degrading, nay the molt crpel Whipping and 
 Imprifonment, thought too little for fuch a Man. But one may lay of fome Men 
 with truth enough, 
 
 Dat veniam Corvis, vexat cenfura Columbis. 
 
 M. Methinks, Sir, it is a great Prefumption in you, and thofe of your Party, 
 to make yourfelves the fole Interpreters of thofe Places of Scripture which fo' ex- 
 prefly forbid all Refiftanpe of the Supreme Powers ; and then, ^vhen you have 
 wrefted the Scriptures to your own Mind, to cry out, that you are not bound to 
 believe thefe Chriffian Doftrines, becaufe you fuppofe they are contrary to Men's 
 humane Reafon, and the too great Love they have to tkeir own Concerns ; which 
 is but the fame way of reafoning which the Sociuians and Arians make ufe of againfl 
 our Saviour's God-head, becaufe their narrow Underffanding cannot comprehend 
 it : But belidesall this, I could fhew you out of the befl Writers of the Reforined 
 Religion, both in this and other Proteflant Churches, who interpret thefe plapes 
 of Scripture againfl all Rcfiftance, in the fame fenfe as our honeft Homilies have 
 done; but I find it grows late, and I have not time now to H^ew you them : oJr'if 
 I had, do I believe you would be much edified by them, fince" you make fo. flight 
 of the Authority of our Homilies. ',"',' ' ", , 
 
 F. You are very much in the right of it, and indeed I do not defirc you fho'uld 
 put yourfelf that trouble, for thc Papifls themfelves will not ovvn any thing for a 
 Dodtrine of their Church, whicii is not exprefly found in thc Council of Tre'nty^ Or 
 the Catechifm compofed according to its Decrees, and tlierefore will not be con- 
 cluded by the Sermons or Theological Treatifes of any of the Divines of their 
 ' own Church, as to any Thing or Matter in debate between us. Aid, I think, I 
 ,that am a Protpflant, may certainly claim a like Chriftian Liberty j efpecially, 
 fince I am very fenfible upon what Account too many Men have carried thefe 
 Do6:rines of Paflive Obedience and Non-refiflance to fo great a height as they 
 have done of late Years : But fince you tell me that fo many learned Writers, both 
 pf this and other Proteflant Churches, have been of your Mind ,• So I could alfo 
 (if I had a mind to cap Quotations with you) produce a fufTicicnt number of 
 Places out of Luther, Calvin, Ziwighm, and other fir/l Reformers, as alfo of our 
 own Writers at home, who have in many places of their Works allowed Refiftance 
 for Self-defence, in cafe of intolerable Violence and OpprelTion, to be lawful ; and 
 gf thefe I can give you a large Catalogue, whenever you pleafe to command me. 
 
 But
 
 Dialogue the Fourth, icp 
 
 e. 
 
 But fince they will convince you, as little as I fuppofe your Writers would do 
 mc I fhall forbear mentioning them any further. 
 
 M. I value not much what Luther, Cahin, or any other violent Men of that 
 fort, may out of Paflfion or Inadvertency have written on this Matter ; and yet I 
 can fhew )ou a Paflage oiit of Cahin's Infiitutiom, which exprefly forbids Sub- 
 jcds or private Perfons to take up Arms againft the Supreme Powers, as you 
 may fee by his own Words in the fourth Book, m/'. 20. Neqiie enimfiultio Domini efl 
 tffranatx Dominationis correEiio, ideo protinm denhoidatam r.obis arhitremur ; quibm 
 nullum alittd quam parendt (Jpatieadi datum ejl niandntum. De pivatis HominiLt'iiJemper 
 Ivqiior. And tho' 1 grant fome Divines of our Qnirch have allowed Refiftance in 
 fome Cafes, where the People, by tlie Laws and Conftitutions of their Country, 
 might lawfully have made fuch a defence of their Liberties, yet have tlicy denied 
 it in all other Cafes, and particularly in our own Government ; which is fufficient 
 to (hew, that whatever your Thoughts maybe of it, yet that they thought it abfo- 
 lutely unlawiiil for theSubjeds of this Realm to take up Arms againft the King, or 
 who afted by his Authority, upon any Account whatfoever ; and therefore I 
 muft needs tell you, *that I look upon thefe Doftrines of Paffive Obedience and 
 Non-rcfiflancc, as the diftinguifhing Charafters of the Church oi England from all 
 other Churches. 
 
 F. Tho' I do not much value the Opinion of Divines in matter of Politicks, 
 Hnce moftof them that I have met with have been very unhappy, when they have 
 undertaken to meddle with that Trade ; yet I doubt not but I can ihcw you, 
 that fome learned Men of our Church have not thought all Refiftance to be unlaw- 
 ful, in cafe the main and fundamental Conftitutions of our Government (hall happen 
 to be aflaulted, or ourfelves, in refpeft of our Liberties and Eftates, like to be re- 
 duced to abfolute Vaflalage and Slavery. And therefore, if your Divines will own 
 Refiftance, where, by the Conftitutions of the Government, it is allowed to be 
 lawful,. I tliink I can alfo prove, that it is not only lawful, but neced'ary, in fome 
 Cafes in our own, for tiie Prefervation of the Original Conftitution ; and if this 
 ftould prove fo, I know not what your diftinguifhing Charader ofthe Church of 
 England will /ignify, unlefs you will make it neccflary for particular Churches to 
 have other diftinguifhing Characters than the Scripture requires, or the Conftitu- 
 tion of the Government will allow of; and if fo, I doubt the Church of England 
 would get as little Credit by fuch diftinguift)ing Charaftcrs, as the Cahinijl 
 Churches abroad do by making «bfolute Prcdcftination one of the Terms of their 
 ■Communions, the Scriptures (witliout their rigid Interpretation) teaching no fuch 
 Doftrine. But as for your Quotation out of Calvin, it amounts to no more than 
 what I have all along granted, 'That fingle private Snbjscls ought never to take up 
 Arms or ref.fi thofe in PoTver, but wlien tlie good of the whole Commonwealth re- 
 quires it. And therefore he, in the fame Book, places a Power of Refiftance in 
 fubordinatc popular Magiftrates, whereby you may fee lie grants the Thing law- 
 ful, but will not leave the Power of judgnig only in the common People, or 
 Mobile J and fo far I confefs he is in the right, tho' I grant thofe Alagiiirates are, 
 in refpeft of the Monarch, as much fubjett a^s tlie People. 
 
 M. I fluU be glad to know wliat Divines of our Church they are, who ha^"e 
 granted Refiftance of the Subjects of this Kingdom to be in any Cafe lawful j for 
 if there are any fuch, I confefs they are Aurliors unknown to me ; nor do I know 
 any, but one, who wasfeemingly in the Communion of the Church oE England, who 
 ■hath all'erted this Dodrinc m his Book oi 'Julian the Apoflate ,• but you fee he 
 was prefently confuted by thofe learned Men of our own Church, who undertook 
 him, and, 1 think, have fo well performed it, that I cannot tell whether it hath 
 been more for their Glory or his Difgrace. 
 
 But as for what you fay againft making Paflive Obedience the diftinguifhing 
 Character of our Church, I conicfs indeed, it is very bad for a Church to hold 
 evil oc indifferent diftinguifliing Doftrines ; but it is as certain, that it is very con- 
 venient for a Church to have diftinguifliing Doftrines, provided they be good 
 ones, unlcfs a Cluurch can be obliged to err for Company, and to a\ oid diftinc- 
 tion, which will not very well agree with the Text, tUatfo>l//d> mtojolkzu a Mul- 
 titude to doEvily nor with the Praftice of tlie Primitive Chriftians, when the Or- 
 thodox were fo icw, in coraparifon, that had there not been fome Names of 
 Note among them, they would liardly iuvc been reckoned a number. But it 
 
 E e agrees
 
 210 BiBLiOTHECA Politic A. 
 
 agrees admirably well with the Principles of Popery, thus to avoid Diflin(Stioft, 
 which hath its Numbers to boaft of, wlien nothing elfe is to be faid- 
 
 But there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptifm j and St. Paul reproves the 
 Corinthians, becaufe one cry'd he was of Paul, and another of ApoUos, a third of 
 Cephoi, and the fourth of Chrijl : And muft not then thofe that held one Lord, 
 one Faith, one Baptifm, necefTarily diftinguifli themfclves from all that held 
 more than one ? And if fome would fay they were of Paul, and fome oi Apoliosy 
 and fome of Cephas, might not others diftinguifli themfelves from them, by faying 
 they were of Chrifl ? 
 
 But by this Doftrine, you pretend, .we diftinguifli ourfelves from all other 
 Churclies in the World, and fo from the Catholick Church ; and therefore you 
 cannot comprehend, why any one fliould value a Doftrine fo much on that fcorc ; 
 but you may comprehend, if you pleafe, that it was never pretended that this 
 Doftrine is taught no where but in our Church ; and, as I hope, I have proved 
 that it was taught in the Primitive Church, and is taught in other Protcftant 
 Churches at this Day : But this is evident, by fatal Experience, that Paffive 
 Obedience is the diftinguifhing Charafter of the Church *of England by Law 
 eftabliflied ; whereby it is diftinguifhed from the feparate Congregations among us, 
 both of Fanaticks and Papifis ; and to juftify this Diftinftion, we have the exprefs 
 Teftimony of feveral of our Princes lince the Reformation, and of the Laws them- 
 felves too, that are ftill in force j which abundantly fliew how dangerous the 
 Principles of other Perfuafions are to the State, as well as to the Church : Yet if 
 other Churches have not fo well preferved this Doftrine in its Purity, as ours 
 hath done, as we would not provoke them to a Comparifon, fo we have no reafon 
 to be afhamed of it. But that many among them have taught this Doctrine, 
 Tralte dt might be proved from the Writings of many of the moft learned andpicus foreign 
 
 Touzoir ahfc- Diviucs ; and particularly from a Book of a French Proteftant lately written, who 
 
 In da Souv- -^^ the midft of Perfecutions writes in defence of PalTive Obedience, when he at 
 
 c'ww * ^he fame time fuffered what we feared. 
 
 1585. * F. Tho', I confefs, at a time when it was made criminal for any Man publick- 
 
 ly to maintain, that it was lawful to refift, in cafe the King fliould go about to in- 
 troduce Popery and arbitrary Government among us by Force ; and that whofo- 
 ever went about to aflert the Lawfulnefs of fuch Refiftance, was fure co meet (if 
 not with Punilhment) at leaft with lofs of Preferment, and Diftr ce; when the 
 Doctrine of Paffive Obedience ran fo high both m the Prefs and Palpirs ; it was 
 no wonder if any of our Church, who confuked their own Safety, durfc ftem fo 
 violent a Current ; and yet even in thefe Times, the learned Dr. Fakomr, in his 
 Treatife oiChriftian Loyalty, chap. 5. §. 2. doth, tho' cautioufly, allow Refifknce 
 in fuch great Cafes, as of a Prince's alienating his Kingdom, or of deftioymghis 
 People in an hoftile manner, to be lawful, if ever it fhould happen : But out of a 
 ncedlefs fear, left this Doftrine of Refiftance may be made ufe of as a Pretence 
 for Rebellion, will allow it can fcarce feem poffible ever to happen in a Kin^, 
 , Compos meynisy towards his whole Dominions. But I think I have already proi ed 
 
 the pofUbility of it, and why they may not do the fame in an abfolute Emj.-ire, 
 where the Prince would make them Slaves and Beggars, by invading their.jLi- 
 berties and Properties, I can fee no Reafon, but think I have given very good 
 ones for it. • . 
 
 But as for the other Perfon you mention, who did openly in Print oppofe, this 
 Doftrine of Refiftance, v^-hether he, or his Opponent, had the better in tlus.DiP- 
 pute, I leave to the indifferent Readers, who, I believe, will ack'owledge that 
 the Author of tliat Treatife did not fo much forfeit his Reputation, by aiierring 
 a Right of Defence, where the Religion and Liberty are eftablifhed by Law, and 
 became a part of the Civil Conftitution, as his Opponent did by introducing, an 
 arbitrary imperial Power in this Nation, unknown to our Laws, wiiereb}'.afew 
 mercenary Red-coats, either of this, or a Foreign Nation, fhould have, by the 
 Kinq'sCommiffion, an irrefiftiblc Power over the Lives, Liberties and Eftates of 
 all Proteftants: But fince he went about to make us all Slaves by his Imperial 
 Law, I do not at all envy him fo generous a Performance ,- and yet for all that, 
 I had much rather have that Man's Reputation, whom he oppofed, tho* 
 with all his Suffering, than this Gentleman's, tho' attended with all his Lear- 
 nine and Preferments. 
 . ' But
 
 Diahgiie the Fourth. 211 
 
 But as for what you fay in Vindication of the Doftrinc of Pafllve Obedience a!id 
 Non-refiftance m all Cats whatfocvcr, it lignifics little, ilnce it is grounded up- 
 on a wrong SuppoHcion ; for you full take that for granted whicii is che Qiieftioa 
 yet to be proved, that becaufe the Primitive Chriltians were agaiuft Reliftance 
 in cafe of Perfecution, tiierefore this mulf needs extend to whole Nations and' 
 Commonwealths, in all States and Conditions whatfocver ; which, whether you 
 have well proved or i-,or, I leave it to your own Confcicncc ro judges for my own 
 part, I cannot fay you have convinced me with what you liave laid on this Subject : 
 So that if thefe Dodrines, as you have put them, are neither good in rhemfel\es 
 Bor necefi'ary to be believed or praiStifed in ail Cafes, I doubt God may juitly ask 
 thofe who either praftifc or impofe them on others, IVho hath required thefe things at 
 your Hands ? And as for thofe Divines of foreign Churches, wlio, you fay, have 
 writ for thefe Dodrir.es as well as ours ; as I know not who they are, nor in what 
 manner they have defended tiiem, fo do I not much value their Opinion, fiiitc 
 there are many more altogether as Learned and Pious as they, who have held the 
 contrary. Nor are all Divines who maintain PalTive Obedience and Non-rcfiflancc 
 of your fide, who write (which I alfo allow) that for particular private Subjects 
 to tefift Princes in revenge of private Injuries, and rebel againft the Supreme 
 Powers for not being of their own Religion; or to take upon them to call Princes 
 to an Account, or pafs Judgment upon them, or punifli them for their Actions, 
 is altogether wicked and unlawful ; Yet doth it not therefore follow that they 
 have maintain'd all Refiftance to be unlawful, in any Cafe whatfoever ; tho' per- 
 haps, if you were to make ufc of their Authority, you would produce them of 
 your own fide. 
 
 To conclude, I own myfelf for Non-refiftance, in that limited fenfe I have now 
 given, as far as it extends to particular private Men ; yet that this Rule doth 
 not extend to the whole Civil Society or People ; and therefore, altho' in my own 
 private Capacity, I ought to fubmit to, and fufter the greatell: Injuftice, rather 
 tlian refill and dillurb Government ; yet when the main Foundations thereof are 
 once begun to be pulled up, as I am an Englifi-man, I think I am more obliged, 
 by all 1 ies both Sacred and Civil, to defend and maintain the Government or 
 Conftitution, of whicli I am a Member, than I am to obey the King's perfonal 
 Commands; and that being die primary Obligation, ought to be difchargedin the 
 firft place. 
 
 M. I fliall no longer compare, whether the Divines that write for, or thofe that 
 write againft Refiftance, are the wifer or more learned, fiiice you yourfelf, it 
 feems, at laft, are feign to own a limited Non-refiftance, which you will have ex- 
 tend to private Pcrfons, but not to the whole Civil Society or People : But I think 
 I may venture ftill to maintain, that the Supreme Power, where ever it is placed, 
 muft be Irrefiftible ,• and that a whole Civil Society or People, who are not in- 
 yefted with part of the Sovereignty, can have no more Right to refift than fingle 
 Perfons : For to fiiy that whole Societies have a Power to refift, and that parti- 
 cular private Pcrfons, as Members thereof, have it alfo, is fuch a diminution of 
 Supreme Power, as can never be confillent with it ; for all Inferiors, whether 
 private Perfons or whole Societies, can have no Power but what is derived from 
 the Supreme ; and therefore, if they have a Right to rclift, even that muU be de- 
 rived from the Supreme Power, and fo that Power muft deftroy itfelf. 
 
 But as lor wliat you alledge in your JuftiHcation, that Reliftance may be law- 
 ful, to avoid Subvcrlion of the Government : To this I may reply, that if Subjefts 
 be no longer in fubjcftion to the Supreme Powers* the Government is hereby de- 
 ftroyed ; for what more manifeft Subverfion can there be than this, Ihat SubjeBi 
 are mw no longer in SuljeFlioi?y nor Gvvemors can h' no longer aide to gii/ern ? So that 
 this Argument tends only to prove, that Subjefts may fubvert the Government 
 one way, rather than fuffer the Sovereign Power to do it another. So that upon 
 the whole Matter, if the Government muft be fubverced, you would have no 
 Body iiave the doing of it but yourfelvcs. 
 
 • F. However falfe your Premifes are, and however weak the Proofs that you 
 have brought for them, yet I fee you are refolv'd to ftick dole to your Conciulion, 
 {i.e.) that all Supreme Powers are abfolutely irreliftible. In which Diipute, 
 whether you or I have been in the wrong, i dare appeal to any indifferent Judge ; 
 for I think I have fuftieiently made out. that Refillance by the whole People, or 
 
 E e i major
 
 Zi2, BiBLiOTHECA Politic A. 
 
 major part of ir, againft a general and intolerable Tyranny, is no diminution of 
 Supreme Civil Power, nor inconfiftent with it .• Nor is your Rcafon for your Opi- 
 nion any truer than the reft, that private Perfons, whether taken lingle or 
 in a whole Civil Society, can have no Power but what is derived from the Su- 
 preme, which is by no means fo ; for every private Man of the Society then 
 afts by a Power precedent to it, viz,, the natural Power of Self-prefervaiion or 
 Defence, which no Man ever abfolutely gave up, neither for himfclf nor his Chil- 
 dren, when he became a Member of thai Commonwealth, tho' he was obliged, 
 for the Peace of the Government or Civil Society, to fufpend that Right in or- 
 der to a greater Good, which once failing, upon the Dill'olution of the Govern- 
 ment, every Man's original Right takes place. 
 
 As for what you fay againfl my Notion, that Refiflance is lawful, when 
 it may prevent the Subverlion of the Government, your Reply to this is really 
 equivocal, and confifls in that falfe or wrong Notion you have of the nature of 
 our Eiigiijb Government, which you fuppofe only confiits in the Prefervation of 
 the Ring's Perfonal Power, without any refpeft to the Laws or fundamental 
 Conftitutions of the Kingdom ; and that as long as the People are in Subjeftion, 
 whether to legal Government or illegal Force, it is all one, the Government is 
 ftill preferved j which is a great miflake : For the King receiving his Power from 
 the Law, and having no Authority but what that gives him, when he ovenhrows 
 the fundamental Conflitutions of the Kingdom, he doth himfelf deflroy the Go- 
 vernment. And therefore, when in that Cafe the People do refift, it is either to 
 maintain it, or elfe to reflore it to the State th.t in was in before j fo that it 
 is not the People, in this Cafe, who have faoverted it, but the King him- 
 felf. 
 
 M. It now grows late, and it is high time to give over ; but !f you pleafe to 
 give me another Meeting, I doubt not but to (hew you, that by the Ori- 
 ginal Conflitution of this Government, the King not only harh the fot^ Su- 
 preme Power, but that by feveral A6is of Parliament all Refiftance of the 
 King, or thofe commiffioned by him, is abfolutely againft the Laws and fun** 
 damental Conftitutions of this Kingdom ; and that they are all, by our 
 Laws, Rebels, that dare prefume to make any fuch unlawful Refiffance : And 
 I delire that you would give me a patierit hearing in this Matter, becaufe I 
 have fo great a kindnefs for you, that I would not have you lie under fo 
 dangerous an Error, which may happen to prove fatal to your Happinftfs, 
 not only in the World to come, but alfo to the Safety of yourfelf and Fa- 
 mily in this Life, if you fliould offer to put in praftice what you have here 
 maintained. 
 
 F. Sir, I give you many thanks for your kind Intentions towards me, fince I do 
 believe it proceeds from that real Friendfhip you have for me ; tho' as for the 
 former of thofe Judgments you mention, I hope I fhall have no reafon to be afraid, 
 of it, for any thing I can yet fee from thofe Arguments you have hitherto urged : But 
 as for what may happen to me in this Life, I hope I have as little reafon to fear 
 it, fince I believe this great Revolution will not only juftify, but for the 
 future defend thofe Arms that have been taken up for the refloring the true 
 antient Government of the Kingdom. 
 
 M- I confcfs, Sir, that you have now too much the advantage of me, du- 
 ring thefe Times of Anarchy and Confufion ; but yet I hope one Day to fee 
 this unhappy Nation again recovered from this fad Apoftacy, into which, I 
 confefs, too many have lapfed ; and then I doubt not but thefe Primitive and 
 Loyal Dodrines of PafTive Obedience and Non-reliflance will be again reftored to 
 their former Integrity and Vigour. 
 
 F. Well, Sir, all I can fay to you is, that I fee you are not only in love with 
 Slavery, but alfo with thofe that would bring it in upon us ; yet however, I 
 think I may give you this good Advice, that if you are not pleafed with what 
 hath been already done, fince you have had no hand in the doing of it, you 
 would be contented quietly to lit ftill and enjoy thofe Benefits that may thereby 
 accrue to the whole Church and Nation ; fince I thereby expeft a firmer Settle- 
 ment of the Proteflant Religion, as alfo of our Civil Liberties, than we ever yet 
 enjoj'ed. 
 
 M. I
 
 Dialogue the Fourth. 
 
 M. I thank you for your Advice, and you know, as my Humor is not to be troublc- 
 fome or clamorous againft that which is not in my Power to help; fo on the 
 other fide, I heartily wifli that the Prince may now agree with his Ma;efty 
 upon fuch Terms as may prove for the good of the Church and Security of the 
 State. But pray tell me when I may be fo happy as to fee you here again, that 
 we may fully rcfolve this laft Queftion ? 
 
 F. To Morrow I fhall be engaged, but the Day after being one of the Chrifimcu 
 Holy-days, I fhall not fail to wait on you at the fame Hour, and am very well 
 pleafed to wait on you here, fince I forefee a great part of our next Converfation 
 will depend upon Autlioritics out of Books, with which your Study is very well 
 fumiflied, and my own are not in Town. 
 
 M. I (hall expeft your comijig with impatience, and in the mean time I am 
 your humble Servant. 
 
 F. Sir, I am yours. 
 
 213 
 
 Ll O O I 
 
 A I 
 
 nr 
 
 r v . ■ 
 
 < vva-V \v\\v. 
 
 ^Md"
 
 2,14 
 
 _ «. oCt:. ^ i% .^ #. SI Sk- Sk A^ S^: ^ ^•. S^ .«-' ^^ ^ s~. Sr'- i^ 
 
 ^'^•. 
 
 ■?^^^'^>%'^ 
 
 
 
 ^^^^ti^Sl^ 
 
 *""" icbi^^^^Sc!x5ajdlxiS;^"; 
 
 '^>^ 
 
 215iWiot Jem SPoUtica* 
 
 'rm; 
 
 y. £. M. 
 
 c. 17. p. I 
 Gp dein. 
 
 &> Monajl. 
 Anfr. p.trt. 2. 
 ;. 64. 
 
 ^^•^ i-"r-{ j^"-i $■"<; r-i s"; i---i ^■~<; 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 Whether the King he the fole Supreme Legif- 
 lativePovjer of the Kingdom ; and 'whether 
 our Great Councilsy or Parliaments, he a 
 Fundamental Part of the Government, or 
 elfe proceeded from the Favour and Concef" 
 (ions of former Kings, , \ 
 
 M. mmmmmm O U are welcome. Sir; I pray'fit down by the Fire. I was 
 thinking before you came in, of the beft Method of mana- 
 ging this important Que/lion, whether by the Laws and Con- 
 ftitutions of this Kingdom, it can in any Cafe whatever 
 be lawful to refift the King, or thofe that aft by vertue of 
 his Commiflions. I fhall therefore proceed in the next 
 place, to the Proof of the fecond Propofition, in the Ar^ 
 gument I at firft propofed ; or, to fpeak logically, the Mi- 
 nor in the Syllogifm, viz.. That the King of England is the fole Supreme, or So- 
 vereign Power in this Kingdom, and therefore is irrefiftable, and that not only 
 as to his own Perfon, but alfo with refpeft to all fuch who aft by his Orders 
 or CommilTions, though the things commanded be in themfelves illegal. 
 
 F. I do not diflike your Method, though if you could never fo plainly make 
 out to me the Truth of this Minor Propofition, yet it will come too late to 
 prove, that all Refiftance of Supreme Powers is unlawful in all Cafes whatever, 
 fince I think you have failed in the Proof of that your firft Propofition. But 
 lince I do not deny the Truth of this fecond Propofition in fome Senfe, I pray be 
 as fiiort as you can in the Proof of it. 
 
 M. I (hall obferve your Defire ,• and fhall briefly recite fome Authorities, as 
 well antient as modern, as alfo Afts of Parliament, which declare an abfolute 
 and Imperial Power to be folely in the King. To begin with the Saxon Times : 
 • Firft, as to the Title of King or Emperor ufed promifcuoufly ; our King Edgar 
 frequently in his Charters calls himfclf, Albionis & Anglortan Bafilem, and the 
 Grecians efteemed the Word BwtXeOg to be of full as eminent a Signification, as 
 Emperor : And King Edward the Confcflbr, in a Charter to the Abbey oi Peter- 
 img, ftiles himfelf Rex Anglortim, and his Government a Monarchy : And King 
 Ethelred, in his Charter to Canterbury, fliles himfelf Angligenwri, Orcadartmiy necnon 
 in Gyrojaceiitium Alonnrchia, & Anglortim Induperator. So that you hereby may fee, 
 that the Kings of England, long before the Conqueft, look'd upon themfelves as 
 
 Emperors
 
 Dialogue the Fifth, ii5' 
 
 Emperors, or abfolute Civil Sovereigns. So likewife after that time w't find 
 IV. Rtifm dates liis Charter to the Monaflery ot" Shaftibury, Secuado anno Imperii 
 mi: And though the Title of Emperor hath been difufed, yet \vc fhall find the 
 Subftance of it fufficiently challenged in that Letter of IV. Rujm to Archbifhop 
 Anfelm, telling him, 'That he had ail the Liberties in hit Kingdom, 'xhich the Emperor Vid.M.v:T.i 
 challenged m the Empire : Arid the like was challenged by Henry the Firft in all ^,il/,"'j^-'' 
 his Difputcs with the Pope concerning the Inveftiture of Bifliops and Abbots,- ' " " 
 and in all the Statutes of Premunire made by Edzi'ard the Thiifl, the King's So- 
 vereignty independent from the See of Rone, is exprefly iHertcd : And the 
 Statute of the i6th of iJ/cA^^Z/v/ the Second declares; That the Cro-j:n 0/ Eng- 
 land hath ever been fo free, that it is under no earthly Subjeclion; bm immediate! yful~ 
 je£i to God tn aU things, touching the Regality of the Cro-wn, a;id to no other. And the 
 Statutes of the 24th and 25th of Henry the Eighth fet forth, That this Realm 
 of England is an Empire governed by one Supreme Head and King, and the Croivn or 
 Royal Authority is alfo thereby declared Imperial ; and the Kings of England are there- 
 in filled Kings or Emperors of this Realm. So that I think, no Man needs to doubt 
 where the Supreme or Sovereign Power of this Kingdom refides. 
 
 F. I will not deny any of thofe Authorities you have now made ufe of : Yet 
 Titles alone are no Proofs of Power ; for it is very well known, that the German Em- 
 peror, notwithftanding that great Title, is not therefore nnaccountabk or irrejlflable ; 
 lince the College of the Princes Ekftors may depofe him for Male-adminiftration, 
 or for violating any of the fundamental Conftitutions of the Empire. And Mr. Sel- 
 den hath very well obferved, in his Titles of Honour, that this Supremacy, or Free- 
 dom from all Subjeftion, is not only challenged by our Engl/Jh Sovereigns ; but 
 alfo by the Kings of Denmark, Sweden, and Poland : The former of which yet was 
 fo far from being an abfolute Monarch, that before tlie Reign of this King's Fa- 
 ther he might have been depofed for Tyranny, or Mifgovernment, by the Eflates 
 cf the Kingdom, as the King of Poland may at this day. And therefore thefe Titles 
 may indeed prove a Freedom from all foreign Jurifdiftion ; but do not prove 
 that the King is endued with an abfolute Sovereign Power within the Kingdom, 
 as you may ke. in thefe Examples I have now given you. 
 
 M. If you are not fatisfied with thefe Proofs, I doubt not but to give you other 
 Authorities, both out of antient and modern Lawyers, as alfo Ads of Parliament, 
 which fufficiently declare where the Supreme or Sovereign Power refides. In the 
 firft place, I fuppofe you will not deny, but that it hath been the Prerogative of the 
 Kings oi England, time out of Mind, to coin Money, difpofe of all Offices, and create 
 new Dignities, ashefliouldthink fit; as alfo to make War and Peace, to make Laws; 
 and in (Iiorr, to do all things whatfoever that arc eflential to a Monarch. And that he 
 alone is the fole fovereign Power in this Kingdom, exclulive of all others, our an- 
 tient Lawyers, Glanvil and Fortefcue, plainly declare ; the former of which fays 
 thus: Rex nullum habere potefl parem, multo minm fnperioretn. The fame thing is alfo i-'*- 7- <■« ^ 
 repeated by BraBon, and a very good Reafon given for it, in thefe Words : Omnis 
 iquidemfub Eo, & ipfe fub nuSo, nifi tantum fub Deo, parem non habet in regno fun, qu':n Lil.-]- 
 fie amitteret praceptum, * cum par in parem non habet imptrium : Item nee multo fortim * . , 
 fuperiorem ncc potentiorein habere debet, quia fic ejfet inferior fibi fubjeEiis, ^ inferiores pares ^'^''' 
 effe non pcjjunt potentioribm. .^' • 
 
 F. But pray read what immediately follows : Ipfe auiem Rex non debet effe ftb Homi- '"2* 
 Hf, fed fub Deo & fub Lege, quia Lex facit Regem ; attribtiat igitur RexLegi quod Lex attri- 
 btiits^i, viz,, dominationem & potefatem : non eft enim Rex ubi dominatur Vvluntcjs, CT mn 
 Lex. And though, I grant, the King is fubjed or inferior to no particular pri- 
 vate Man ; yet that he hath a Superior or Mafler within the Kingdom, befides 
 God and the Law (and fo is not the fole Supreme Power) appears by a Paflage 
 out of the fame Author, in the fccond Book : Rex habet fuperiorem Dcum, item Le-C. 16. 
 gem, per quam faEliii eft Rex ; itein Curiam fuatn, viz.. Conltef & Barones, quia Comi- 
 tes dicuntur quafi Socii Regis, & qui habet Socium habet Alagiftrum ? & idea ft Rex ftierit 
 fine froenoy i. e. Lege, debent ei froenum ponere. From which Words it fecms appa- 
 rent to me, that this Author thought the King was not only inferior to the Law, 
 but alfo to his Court of Parliament, called here Curia Baromnn, wiio might bridle 
 or reftrain him, if he tranfgrefs'd the Laws, which are here called the King's Bridle. 
 Nor can I conceive iiow this could be done, without fome kind of Force or Con- 
 ftraint, if lie rcfufc to receive this Bridle they would lay upon him. 
 
 M.I
 
 Zl6 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 M. I do not defire at this time to enter upon this Queftion, concerning that 
 Power, which I know fome Parliaments have pretended to, ot curbing and reffting 
 the King by force, if they fuppofed he inv aded the fundamental Rights and Liber- 
 ties (as they call them) of the Nation ; and that for two Reafons : Firft, be- 
 caufe it is not pertinent to our prefent purpofe, qf proving that the King is not 
 the fole Supreme Power : As alfo becaufe you very well know, that both Houfes 
 did, in 13 Car. 2. by an Ad of Parliament concerning the Militia, folemnly re- 
 nounce all cGercive^Pffuxr over the King, or any Right in either, or both of the Two 
 Houfes, of makiig Oftcnfive or Defenfive War againft him. But if you have a 
 mind hereafter to difcourfc further on this Subj'eft, I doubt not but to prove to you 
 H. B. L. p. from divers other PalTagcs out of Bracicn, and that old Treatife called Fleta, that 
 ^^' it was no Political Superiority in the Curia Baronum, but only a direSiive Pozier, or 
 
 moral Superiority, which the^^ had of advertizing the King of any arbitrary Pro- 
 ceeding or Injuftice he fliould happen to do ; and by Complaint, Admonition, 
 and Entreating, to impofe upon him to amend the fame, according to his Oath ; 
 but not by Coaftion or Conftraint. And in this fenfe they may be faid (m amo- 
 ral way) to put the Bridle of the Law upon him, which may be called Civil R^ 
 jiflance ; but as for Military Re/ifiaiice againlt an imjuft King, it is as inconiiftent 
 with our Englijh Government, as with any other Mqnarcliy in the World. 
 
 But you very much miftake, if you fuppofe that the King of England is not Su- 
 preme, becaufe he is l]7mted by Lans ; which really i? no Objeciion, becaufe a 
 Ibid. p. 19. Sovereign, without any Diminution to his Sovereignty, may be limited in the 
 Exercife of his Sovereign Power, either by his own Acts or Condefcenfions, or 
 elfe by thofe of his Predcceflbrs, under whom he claims. This is fo certain, thai 
 there is no Supreme Power in Heaven or in Earth, which is not limited and con- 
 fined in the Exercife thereof. Thus the Omnipotent Power of God faimfelf is 
 limited by his own Wifdom, Goodnefs and Juftice, which are himfelf. So like- 
 wife the Powers of all Abfolute Unlimited Monarchs are only fo comparatively, 
 with refpeft to pofitive Laws ; but as for the Laws of God and Nature, which 
 bind their Confciences as firmly as any Civil Laws, they are bound to obferve them, 
 and exercife their Sovereign Power within thofe Limits which they fet and prefcribe- 
 For whether they have their Supreme Power from God, as we fay, or from the 
 People, as you alledge, it is all one as to this matter ; for they can have no Righft, 
 neither from God nor the People, to make unjufl: and tyrannical Laws. And this 
 Political Limitation of their Power, in the Exercife of it, doth no more dertroy 
 the Eflence thereof, than its flowing in Pipes or Channels deftroys the E!ience.bf 
 a Spring ; lince it is flill the fame, whether it runs confined through Pipes, oc 
 flows free and unconfined through the open Field. The Application is obvious.; 
 But as for the precedent Words in this Place of BraSioir, which feem to inti- 
 mate, that the King owes his Authority to Law j he there only means the King 
 in oppofition or contradiftion to a Tyrant, who makes his Will his Law, accord- 
 ing to that of Chancellor Forte/cue : Rex eft ubi bene regit^ 'Tyrannta, duM populumjibi 
 creditiim vioknta opprimit dominatione ; quod hoc fanxit Lex humana, quod Leges ligant 
 fuum latorem. Where you may obferve, that this Author makes a King's govern- 
 ing well, /. e. according to Law, a Mark of Diflinftioji from a Tyrant, who op- 
 preffes his Subjefts by a violent Domineering over them. And though he Jiere 
 fuppofes the King to be obliged by the Laws, yet thit this Obligation is only 
 Moral, appears by what immediately follows, when he fays, the Laws do oblige 
 their Legijlator. Now if the King Lc the folc Legiflator, (as he here feems to inti- 
 mate) he rauft alfo be the fole Supreme Power ; and if fo, cannot be accountable 
 to, or under the Coercion of any Superior Power; for then he would not be Su- 
 preme, as you your felf have granted long fince. 
 
 F. Since you are not willing to enter upon that antient Power, which you can- 
 not deny but the Great Council formerly had, of putting a Bridle upon the King^ 
 and retraining his Aftions, in cafe he invaded the Rights or Liberties of the Peo- 
 ple ; I fliall not infift farther upon it now, for the Reafons you have given ; only I 
 muft make bold to tell you tjius much, that if they have not a Power of defending 
 their juft Rights, if forcibly invaded by the King, it would be all one as if they 
 had none at all. Tho' I grant, that what you have faid concerning the Limita- 
 tion of the Exercife of Sovereign Power, that it doth not derogate from theAbfo- 
 lutenefs of the Power itfelf, is very true in all fuch Limitations which proceed from 
 * the
 
 Dialogue the Fifth, 217 
 
 the intrinfick Nature and Pcrfcftion of the Being in whicli ic refidcs j as in ybui: 
 Example of God's infinite Power, being limited by his other Attributes. So 
 likewife all humane Power (I own) are limited by the Revealed Laws of God, 
 or thofe of Nature : But as to pofitive Laws you yourfelf afl'ert, that abfolute 
 Monarchs are only obliged by them as long as tiiey pleafc ; and confequcnth-, 
 that they may alter them, or derogate from them, as oft as they think good ; 
 as the Ro7mn Emperors could revoke any Privileges or Immunities they had 
 formerly granted to particular Perfons, Cities, nay to Tributary Kings, or Com- 
 monwealths ; and all tliis very juflly, becaufe as all fuch Grants were made only 
 for the publick Good of the Empire, fo they being the fole Judges thereof, when 
 ever they found fuch Concelhons to prove prejudicial lo it, they might juftly 
 alter or revoke them. Now if the Power of our Kings be as abfolutely Sove- 
 reign as that of the Reman Emperors ; and only limited by their own free Grants 
 or Condefcenjiom to the People, and not from any Power ab extra ; fuch Grants 
 or Condefcenfions, though never fo folcmnly paft into Laws in the Parliament, 
 or AUembly of the States, are ftill no more than pofitive Laws : And then if 
 the King is the fole Sovereign Power (unlimited by any thing al> extra) how 
 he can fo tie up his own Hands, as that he may not break orrefcind all thofe Con- 
 ceffions he had made ; and thofe Limitations which he had put upon himfelf, 
 if he think or declare it is for the better benefit of the Commonwealth fo to do ; 
 I cannot comprehend, if he be, by the Original Conflitution, the fole Law- 
 maker and Judge of what is for the publick Good: Much lefs can I underftand 
 how he can oblige his Succeflbrs (who mufl: ftill be fuppofed as abfolute Mo- 
 narchs as himfelf) to obferve them. And therefore if all our Civil Rights and 
 Liberties, were no other than what you would have them {xhcjiee Condefcenfions 
 or Self-Limitations of Sovereign Power) I defire you would Ihew me what Secu- 
 rity we can have for the Enjoyments cf them longer than the King pleafes : 
 For it feems plain to me, that whenever he fhall fancy the Liberties and Pro- 
 perties of the Subjeds (both which you fuppofe were derived from him) to be 
 injurious to, or inconfiflent with his Prerogative, or Sovereign Power, he may 
 lawfully difannul or revoke them : And in what Cafe we then fhould be (confi- 
 dering how things had hke to have gone lately) I leave any indjfterent Man to 
 judge. 
 
 Nor is your Interpretation of Bracions Words, Lexfacit Regent, &c. any more 
 than an abfolute wrefting of them from their true Meaning, which is not (as 
 you would have it) to diftinguifh a King that governs by Law, from a Tyrant 
 that makes his Will his Law : For every abfolute Monarch that doth fo is not 
 a Tyrant, provided he direft his Adions according to the Laws of God and Na- 
 ture, as you yourfelf aflcrt ; and a Prince may as well govern thus as the great 
 llitrk, Cz.ar of Alufcovy, and all the Eaftern Monarchs do at this Day, who are 
 not counted Tyrants in fo doing : But certainly you will fay, that he would 
 make a very fcurvy Englijh King, who would obferve no other Rule. Nor do 
 you lefs wreft Fortefcue's Words, when you render them. Rex efl ubi bene regit, T}-* 
 rannm, dxc Suppoling the meaning of it to be, that this Author makes a King's 
 governing (that is, fay you) according to Law, the only thing to diftinguilli him 
 from a Tyrant, &c. Whereas he fays no fuch matter ; but only Rex efl, ubi bene 
 regit, which he may do without any fet Laws, as well as with them ; as the 
 firft Kings you fuppofe did before they were limited by Laws. 
 
 But as for Fortef tie's fuppofing the King to be the fok Legiflator^ that Word fole 
 is of your own addition ; for if he had faid fo, he would have contradicted him- 
 felf, as I fliall Ihew you prefently. It is true, the King hath a great fhare in the 
 Legiflative ; yet hath he two other Bodies to join with him by a concurrent or 
 co-operative Power in it ; and I think I have all the antient Lawyers o( England on 
 mylide. To begin therefore with Ranulph de GiunviI/e,\vho\va.s Chief Jufticiary in 
 the Reign oi Henry the Second : He gives us, in his Prologue to his Trcatife cf 
 the Laws of England, this Teftimony : Leges natnqiie AnglicanM, licet nm friptcv. 
 Leges appellari non videtur abfurdum {cum hoc ipfimi L.xfit, quod Principi placet, tr Lc- 
 gii habet vigorem) ecu fcilket, qiiM, fuper dubiis in confilio definiendis, Procernm qtiidim 
 ionfilio, cr Principis accedente authoritate, conftat effe promtilgata;. So likewife BraBoij 
 in his very firft Chapter, fpeaks much to the fame purpofe : Ctm Legis vigorem he." 
 beat, quicqitid de confilio & de confenfti Magnatunt, & Reipublica communi fponfione, aw 
 
 F f ihoritate
 
 2l8 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 thoritate Principis pracedente, jtijle fjierit dtfinnnm t/ apprnbatum. And alfo in lifs 
 third Book', Chap. 2. when he fpeaks of rhe ancient manner of" making Laws in 
 England, he fays : Qria quidem fiierim appycLata confe/:fu Utemium, & facramemo Re- 
 gum coiifirmat.t, non pojfunt inutayi nee defirui Jtne communi confeuju Utemium, & conJiUo 
 eoriim, quorum conJilioiS' coufcnf 11 fiieyim pro7>mlgata!. Where you may fee thefe an- 
 tient Authors plainly declare, that nothing hath the force of a Law in this King- 
 dom, but what is approved of and confentcd to by all Orders of Men, either by 
 themfelves or their Reprefentatives : And, whicli is very remarkable, Braiion 
 fuppofss the King's Authority, or Royal Sanftion of a Law, may precede the 
 Confent of the Great Council } which quite dcftroys that Notion, that it is the 
 King's giving his lalf All'ent, which gives it the Efl'ence and Vigour of a Law. 
 
 And with thefe more antient Sages of the Law Fortefaie alfo agrees in his 9th 
 Chapter De Laud/ I'Hs Legum A^iglLc, where he fays : Rex Anglia populmn giiberi:aty non 
 mera pctefiate regia, fed politicn : populiu etenhn iis legibus gubernatuy quai :pfe /eyt, dec. 
 What follows IS word for word the fame with what Byaflon liad before in his firft 
 Chapter, and therefore needs not to be repeated : So likewife in the 1 8 ch Chapter, 
 fpeaking of the Abfolute Legi/Iative Pov^er of Kings in fome other Kingdoms, he 
 thus proceeds : Sednon fie Anglix ftatuta or in pojfunt, dum nedum Principis voluntatSi 
 fed '& totim regni affenju ipfa conduntur, quo Ftpuli Ufurani nequiunt, vel non eorum 
 ■* commodum procurare. But if they after prove inconvenient, he immediately adds : 
 
 Concito refoymari ipfa pojfunt, fed non fine Communitatis & Prccenon rcgm tilmi afftnfuy 
 quali ipfa prifnituf ernanarunt. To which I may alfo add an Authority out of that 
 Learned Author St. German, in his Dialogue called the DoEior and Student, written 
 in Latin, in the loth Chapter, entitulcd, Defexto fundamento Legis Anglic. The 
 Student thus fpeaks : Sextum fundamemu?n Legis Anglia flat m diverjis Statutis per Do- 
 minum Regem, & Progenitores fuos, & per Dominos Spirituales t^ Temporales, & per 
 Communitatem totim regni in Payliamentis, editis ; ubi Lex ratioms. Lex divina. Con' 
 fuetudines. Maxima five alia fundamenta Legis Anglix prmi fufficeye minime vid^banttir. 
 Where you fee the Legiflative Pcv:er is here attributed to the Lords and Commons 
 jointly with the King. And therefore my Lord Coke, in his Notes upon the Sta- 
 tute oi Weftminfler, I. calls it a Compleat Payliament, as con/illing of all the EflateS 
 neceflary thereunto : For, fays he, a Parliament making or enaSiing Laws confifis of 
 the King, the Lords Spiritual and 'Temporal, and Commons ; and it is no AB of Parlia-' 
 ment, unkfs it be made by the King, Lords and Commons. 
 
 M. I fliall not much concern my felf with what your Common Lawyers, either 
 antient or modern, have writ upon this matter ; muchlefs what Sir Edward Coke, a 
 known Enemy to the King's Prerogative, doth maintain : Since I have as good 
 P. i- a.L or a better Authority than he, vizj. that of the Tear-Book of 22 Ed. j. wherein it is 
 exprefly declared by divers Earls and Barons, and by all the Juftices, in the Cafe 
 of one Headlov: and his Wife, who had a Suit with the King, That the King makes 
 the La'xs by the Affent of the Lords and Commons, and not the Lords and Commons ; and 
 that he could have no Peer in his own Land, and that the King ought not to be 
 judged by them. So that it is, I think, evident, that the Laws are primarily and 
 properly made by the King, and that the two Houfes may have a co-operative, 
 but no co-ordinate Power with him. And though at this Day I grant, that Cnf- 
 tom hath made the AlTent of the Lords and Commons necelfary to the paifmg of 
 all Laws, yet it is itiil the King's Word, or le Roy le veule, that makes them lb : 
 And I much doubt, whether even this were part of the antient Conftitution of 
 this Kingdom or nor, or proceeded at firft from the gracious Favour andPermil- 
 lion of former Kings, as I could fliew by a Series of Councils in the Saxon Times, 
 if it were not too tedious to mention them particularly j therefore I fliall only fe- 
 left fome of the moft remarkable. 
 
 For though I confcfs, the Englijh Saxon Kings performed all great and confide- 
 rable things by the Counfel and Advice of their Bifliops and Noblemen, compre- 
 hended under the general Names oi Unites; yet you will find by the Titles of al- 
 moft all the Councils in Spelman, Lambayd, &c. that thefe Kings alone made their 
 La\\'s, though by the Advice and Counfel of their JVittena Gemote ; which was 
 then no other than the King's Greater Council, fince he called what Great Men 
 and BiHiops he pleafedto it, and omitted the reft : And it is never mentioned, that 
 J. F. M. G. they were made by their Confent, as neceflary thereunto. Nay, fometimes we 
 ^- ' 5 '• frni that fome of the antient Saxon Kings made Laws widiout the Aflent of thf it 
 
 Great
 
 Dialogue the Fifth. zip 
 
 Great Council. Thus p/i?, King of the yl/c,-a'^z«y, being at /Jow/p, out ofln's Royal f'-'./W.'/.i'-- 
 Munificcnce, gave to the Support of the Peopli; of his Kingdom, x.\\i\t fliould come 'V ""'■"' ' 
 thither, aPenny to be paid Yearly forever out of every Family, whofe Goodsin •^*''P"'^'" 
 the Fields exceeded the Value of Thirty Pence. And this he made a perpetual 
 Conftitution througiiout all his Dominions, excepting the Lands conferred upon 
 the Monaftery of St. Albans. This Impolition and Law continued a long while 
 in force, though we find it not confirmed by any Great CoimciU in the Time of his l-^-Spelman'f 
 Succcllors ; only in the Laws ot King Edgar and King Edvcard it h enjoined to ^^''w/j. 
 be paid as the King's Alms \ which implies it was the King's Gift, and folely his, 
 without the Confent of a Great Coiimil. 
 
 But to give you a more particular Proof of the Supreme and Abfolutc Power qij. E. m.g. 
 our Saxon Kings, as well during the /ft^Mrr/y' as afterwards, in making and eftab-P-.'9°' ^ 
 lifting Laws ; 1 fliall begin with the firll we have extant, which arc thofc o£ L;a, ''""* 
 King of the M'^efl-Saxons, who began his Reign An. 712. In the Preface to his 
 Laws we find it thus exprefs'd, which I fljall render out of the Saxons Copy, pub- Vid. Lam- 
 lifted by l>,lr. Lan-.l/ard : /Lia, i>y or vjithGcd's Gift., King o/"//ie Weft-Saxons, -with 1'"^'^- ^r,ha!- 
 the Advice or Council of Centcd. my Father, and Heddes my Bijliop, and Ercenwold "'""»• i" the 
 my Bijhopy and -uchh my AlderJtten, and eldefl Wites, or Wife Men of my Kingdom, do j^'^^p , 
 command, &c. Then in the firft Chapter the King fpeaks in the firft Perfon Plural : 
 IVe bid or command, that all our People fiaH after hold faft or obferve thefe Laws and 
 Dooms. From this Preface you may obferve, i. That Kings are the Gift of God, 
 and that Cvd's Gift fignified the fame with Dei Gratia ; they are not tlie Creature 
 of the People. 2. That Princes, for the better Government of their People, in 
 the fettling of Laws in Church and State, did then Confult, Deliberate, and Ad- 
 vife with their Bifhops, Noblemen, and eminently Wife Men of their Kingdoms, 
 whom for their Wifdom they honoured with publick Employments in their Domi- 
 nions- 3. That aher fuch ConfultatioUj Deliberation, and Advice, the Sovereign 
 cftablifheth and makes the Laws. 
 
 The nextlnftance I fhall make ufe of, is out of the fame Author, in the Laws ihhl.ii. 
 o{ ¥k.mg Alfred, where, in the Conclu/ion of his Laws about Religion, and prefa- 
 tory to the Secular Laws, he faith, /Alfred, King, have gathered thefe (Sanilions) 
 together, and caiifed thum to be -written ; and then recites, that thofc tiut he liked not, 
 with the Council of his Wites, he had rejedted ; and thofe he liked, he bad or 
 commanded to be holden. And we may obferve, that the King here fpeaks in tiie 
 fingle Perfon, that He himfelf colkSied or chnfe, and alfo rejeiled, what Laws he 
 pleafed. The next material Illuftration where the Legiflative Power then relided, 
 maybe found in the Laws ofKingf^w/zri^ the Elder, where, after the Charge given 
 to the Judges, the firft Law begins, / IVILL ; and fo in others. In the 4th it 
 is thus exprefled : Ldward the King, -with his Wites, that -were at Exeter, ftriBly en- 
 quiring by -what means it might be better provided fw Peace and Tranquility, Sec. In the 
 2d and 3d Chapter it is : l-VE alfo Declare, Pronounce, or Sentence : And in the 
 7th, And J WILL- In which Laws wc have none mentioned with the King, 
 but his IVnes ; and his Commanding, Willing, or Pronouncing in the Imperative 
 Mood, is obfervablc. 
 
 The next Laws I find are thofe of King Atheljian, which begin thus : / Athel- W. t- 45' 
 ftan. King, xiith the Advice of Walfelm my High Bijhop, and other my Bifhops, com- ^t"'- C""'''- 
 manded or bid all 7ny Rieves (i.e. PrafeEis) of -what Degree fever, to pay fythes, &c. P' '^*^* 
 And this he commanded his Biftops, his Aldermen, and Prapofm (who were the 
 Judges in the Country Courts) to do the fame. In thcfc Laws, We, Cwadon, is 
 ufed, wiiich, I fuppofc, is fomething more than Somner undcrftands by his Cuide, 
 a Saying, Speech, or Sentence, and properly is, IVe will. But the Abfolutcnefs 
 of the King appears moft in the 26th Chapter, wherein it is exprefled. That if any 
 of the Graves (i. c. Judges) do not perform thefe Commands, or be rcnvf m the Execu- 
 tion of thofe he hath enjoined, hefiall be punijled fur his Excefs of Contumacy, according to 
 the Fines there ft doiin. 
 
 King Edmund is the next of our Kings, wliofe Laws are transferred to us, and S;>eL Condi. 
 the Proem tells us, that King Edmund ajfembled a Great Synod (or Council) to Lon- p. 4'9- ^ '• 
 don, at the Holy Eafter Tide : And the Perfons fummoncd are ftiled Gvdskmd and ■^"•^'■'- '"H* 
 IVurldibnd, i. e. Clergy and Laicks. After the firft iix Chapters of Laws, in the 
 Proem to the fecond Part of them, The King fignifiei to all Men, Old and Young, that 
 he had ask'd Advice in tlx Ajfembly of his IVites^ both Ecclefiajlicks and La/cki : And 111 
 
 Ff 3 the
 
 Z20 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 tlie Laws it is often faid, llmme c-wadon, Thefe we pronounce or appoint ; and 
 fometimes tlie fingle Perfon is ufed ; and in other places. Us bemeonan beoldan^ It 
 is holden betwixt us. Here we find the Great Council fiimmoned by the King, 
 and the conftituent Parts of it to be the Clergy and Laity ; yet ftill we find tlie 
 Legillative Power in the A^/>?g ^/c//e. ' ■ >^' ^\:-\ 
 
 It/d. p 444' ^° likewife in the Title to King Edgar's Ecclefiaftical Laws, it is thus : The 
 An. Chi 961. Laws v>bich Khig Edgar, in a fyeqtient AJJembly or Council of the Servants of God, hath 
 Ibid. p. 455- ovdained. Whereby you may fee, that the Enading'Part relates wholly to him- 
 felf. The fame King Edgar, in his Charter to Glajionbmy Abby, concludes it thus : 
 Hanc privtlegii paginam iicx Edgarus, anno 12 regnifui, facro fcripto apndhondomz.va. 
 commuiii Condlio optimatum fuorum confirmavit- So that though it appears this was 
 in the Prefence of a Great Council ; yet the Granting and EnaftingPart proceeded 
 wholly from Himfelf. 
 Coricin^Si. The Preface to the Laws of King C/J«?^f«i, in Sir Henry Spelman, runs thus : 
 7'hefe are the IVorldly Conflitutions, that I U'^tll or Command, -with my Wites Advice^ 
 that Men hold all over England. In moft of the Chapters it is faid, IVe teach. We 
 hid, ox command. We forbid: And in the Conclufion, it is in the fingle Perfon of the 
 King, Nuw I command all, and bid every Man in God's Name. And the Preface to 
 the Z,i^r/«.Verlion of them faith, Hjccfmt Inflituta Cnudi Regis Angkrim, Dacorum, 
 Norivegaritm, venerayido fapientum concilia ejpn, ad laudem& gloriam Dei, & fuam Re^ 
 Geff.Regum gahtatem, &c. Oi this Canutm, Wtlliam of Malmsbury fiith, that he commanded 
 lit. 2. c. II. to be obfcrved for ever all the Laws of antient Kings, efpecially thofe made by 
 King Ethelred his Predeceifor, under the Penalty of the King's Fine, to the bb- 
 fcrving of which, he faith, that in his own time they were fworn to, under the. 
 Name of King Edicard's Laws ; not that he had appointed them, but had ob-' 
 ferved them. So that I think, upon the whole matter, nothing is more plain, than 
 that our £w^///5, Saxon, and ZJaw/j Kings, did not only call Councils, and prefide 
 in them, but that the Legijlative Povcer was lodged folely in themfelves. 
 
 F. I perceive the Authority of our ancient Lawyers is a little too hard for 
 you to anfwer with your ufual DifHnftions ,• and therefore you feemingJy deny 
 their Authority, though in efteft you grant it, as I fliall fhew you by and by : Buc 
 as for your Qiiotation out of the Tear-Book, which you think fiifficient to counter- 
 ballance all the Authorities I have brought, I think I may much better queftion 
 the Judgment of thofe that gave tliat Opinion, fince I can fhew you that you your- 
 felf cannot allow it in all Points for Law : For in the firft place, it is not there, 
 faid, that it was fo judged by all the Lords and Judges who were appointed to 
 hear the Caufe there mentioned ; but only Fuit dit, que le Roy, &c. By which it 
 feems to have been the private Opinion only of fome one or more of the Lords 
 or Judges there prefent : For it is not faid, fuit adjiige. And if you will have it 
 to have been the Opinion of them all, pray read what follows after : Fuit dit quen 
 temps le Roy Henry, ZD" devant, le Roy fuit implede comme feroit autre fjomme de Peuple. 
 Mes Edward Roy fan fils ordeign que homme fiteroit veis Roy per Peticion ; Mes uncjues 
 Roys ne feront adjugex, : Si mn per eux mefmes <^ lotiryufiices. So that ii the former 
 part of it be Law, the latter muft be fo too ; and then it will direftly contradid:- 
 what you have quoted before out of Bracion : That in the time of Henry III. (in 
 which he liv'd ) there lay no Remedy againft the King, but only by Petition : 
 Whereas this Opinion makes him, before the time of Edward 1. to have been 
 liable to the fame legal Procefs with other Men. But notwithflanding, thisPaf- 
 fage in the Tear-Book may very well bear a legal Interpretation , only by fupply- 
 ing what is indeed to be underftood after the Words, mn pas les Peers, & le Com- 
 mune, [ viz. Sam ajjent du Roy ] which as it was then true, fo I hope it will ever 
 be fo. 
 
 But I think lean give you a much better Authority than thisTea>--Book, to prove 
 Chab. 11. where the Power of Making and Difpenfing with Laws doth truly relide, toz.. 
 The Solemn Declaration of the King, Lords and Commons, in the 25thof //. 8. 
 (a Prince as jealous of his Prerogative as any of his Predeceflbrs ) where in the 
 Preamble , read thefe Words : " It ftandeth therefore with Natural Equity and 
 " good Rcafon, that in all and every fuch Humane Laws made within this 
 *' Realm, or induced into this Realm by the faid SuHeranc-c, Confents and Cuf- 
 *'-tom, your Royal Majefty, and your Lords Spiritual and Temporal, andCom- 
 *' mons, reprefcnting the whole State of your Realm, in this yourHigh Court of, 
 " Parliament, have full Power and Authority not only to difpenfc with thofe, 
 
 " and 
 
 i
 
 Dialogue the Fifth. Hi 
 
 " and all other Humane Laws of ihis your Realm, as the Quality of the Pcrfons 
 " and Matter (hall require : Alfo the faid Laws, and every of them, to abrc^ate 
 " annul, amplify and diminilh, as it fliall feem to your Majefty, and the Nobles 
 *' and Commons of your Realm, prcfcnt in your Parliament, meet and conveni- 
 " ent for the Wealth of your Realm, eirc. " Whereby you may plainly ft:, that 
 the Power of Making, Abrogating, and alfo Difpenling witli Laws, is by this Aft 
 afcribed jointly to the King, and the Two Houfcs ol Parliament ; and not to the 
 King alone. 
 
 But though I do not affirm, that they have a Co-ordinate Power with the Kiii^r 
 in making Laws, yet they have a Co-operative Power therein, as yoiirfclf have 
 granted ; for what is Co-operation, but a Power of working together ? and how 
 can three diftinft Bodies work together, without each contribute their fljare to pro- 
 duce the intended Eftcft ? 
 
 M Perhaps I may have been too unwary in my Expreffion : But pray anfwer 
 the Authorities I have brought from our ancient Eaghjh Saxon Laws ; wherein it • 
 
 fcems plain to me, tliat the King had then the fole Legiilative Power- 
 
 F. I grant, he had a chief Share in the Legiflative Power ; but not the Sole 
 Power, that is. He could make no Laws but in the Great Council, and by their 
 G)nfent : And this )ou might have feen as well as I, .f you had not llily pafl by 
 what made againll you ; and therefore, in the firft place, to begin with your In- 
 ftance of Of as giving that Boon to the Roman School, 1 think the Authority you 
 bring for it is very fliglit : For though I own that Matthew Paris, who vrates his 
 Life, relates this Donation to have been made at Rome, without mentioning any 
 Conicnt or Confirmation of his Great Council : Yet this feems but an imperfedt 
 Account of the Matter j and according to the ufual Way of the Monkifh Wri- 
 ters of thofc Times, who are not fo exad: in fuch Matters as they fliould be : 
 And therefore, though Ojfa did give, or vow thefe Pence at Rome ; yet the Gift 
 might receive its force from the Confent of his Great Council, after he came 
 home : Since all his Laws, and the Afts of his Councils are loft, unlefs it be one, 
 which Sir H. Spelman hath given us from fuch Remains as l:ave been faved out of 
 the Libraries of feveral Monafteries at their Dillblution : And this contains no 
 left than the Confent and Confirmation of his Great Council afl'embled at Cukuitby 
 Aiiuo 940. for the Foundation and Endowment of the Abby of Sl AWans, as alfo 
 that of anotiier Council at Verulam, for the conferring of divers othei Lands of his 
 own to that Monaftery. Now I leave it to any indifferent Man to judge, whether 
 that King who could not beftow his own Demefnes upon the Church, without the 
 Confent of the Common-Council of the Kingdom, could give away "at once the 
 30th Penny of all his Subjefts Eftates for ever, without their Confents : I am fure 
 the Donation of the fame fort of Pence by King Ed-xard the ConfeJJor , which is 
 now to be found among the Laws ci YiAW^Wiiliam thcFirft, is faid to be granted 
 Comimmt Concilio Regnr, and that the Saxon Kings could nor beftow their Lands 
 upon Religious Ufcs. See Sir H. Spelman's Councils, where Baldred King of Kent ShI. Comil. 
 is an evident Example ; who, though he had given the Manor of Mailings in '^'>'- ••7- 34'^' 
 Sujfex to Chiifi-Chiiych, Canterbury ; yet bccaufe his Principes, or Great Men, that 
 is, his Great Council confcnted not thereto , it was revoked, until King £gtof, 
 and his Son Ethel-wtilf did afterwards renew the faid Grant, with tiic Confent of /^. *. 340. 
 a Great Council held at Kingfton, An. 840. as you may fee in the fame Volume,* 
 Jaft cited. And I am lure after theHcptarcliy, when our Kings were more power- 
 ful, the fame King Etbilwulf could not by his mecr Prerogative grant the Tythes 
 of his Subjects Eftates to the Clergy, without the Confent of a Great Council of 
 his Biftops and principal Men, held at Wmchejler, An. Gratis 855. and intituled 
 thus ; Celebris liln donatio Ethelwulfi Regis deeima manfionis & omnium bonorum per ter- y}^_ y^fj 
 ram fuam Deo U Ecclcfi.x: facia: confirmatur. p. 34.8, 
 
 M. I grant, tliat perhaps thefe Kings could not difpofe of their own Lands, or 
 the Eftates of their Subjects, without the Confent of their Great Council, any 
 more than the Kings of France could formerly ; yet I hope they were abfolute Mo- 
 narchs for all that. 
 
 . -f- I beg your Pardon if I have been fomcwhat long in anfwering your Example 
 of King Ojfa .• But 1 will now fhcw you, that they could no more make Law s, 
 than difpofc of their own, or their Subjects Eftates, without their Confent ; and 
 which you yourfclf might cafily have fecn, if you had pleafcd to have confultcd 
 
 Sir
 
 222 iB I B L I O^T^ H EGA P O L I T I C A. 
 
 ILU.to»;.i. Sit tlenry Spelmtvi as diligently as you have done yir. Lambm-d : For there 'you 
 
 /. 219. might have found, that about tlic Year 712 King Ina aflembled a Great Council 
 
 or Parliament, wherein he made EccleHaflical Laws concerning Marriages, CTc. and 
 
 F/W. CAfcr/r. did other things, ad concordimn publicum promovendam per commune Co>!filhi.m, <l!!X AJJea- 
 
 Bromp. Col. fum Epifcoporum, Principum, Procerttm, Comitum, tf omnmn Sapienmm Sumonim, & 
 
 S4S. ihi. 5+- popuknim totimRegni- So likewife, if you will pleafc to look into the Decem-Scrip- -, 
 
 tores, you will find how Ahhcjlans Laws were made by the Title of them, which 
 
 runs thus ; H.t:c fum judicia qua Sapkmes Exonia Confiito Adelfiani Regis inflhueruKty 
 
 Cir itcrum apud Feurefliam , & tertm vice aptid Thuhdresfeldium , ubi hoc def.nitwin 
 
 Heir, y^'k^y"- jiniui dr confirmatum efi. So alfo King EtMred held at London a Great Council, and 
 
 A. r. 99:. j^jijIj; Laws, Conjiliojujfuque Regis Anglomm .^thelredi, Procertimque fuorum de ma 
 
 Ariglia, &c. Look alfo into the Title of King Ethelred's Laws in Brompton's Chro- 
 
 Brompt. lit niclc, where you will read thefe Words; Hoc efl Concilium quod Ethelredm Rex & 
 
 flip. Col.Sif^, Sapientes Jui condixerunt ad Emendationem (!X augmentmn pads omni populo apudlVodefio- 
 
 ^94- cam in Mircena Landa, id efi in terra Mircemytim, &c. Where by Concilium, muft be 
 
 underftood Law or Decree. To inftance in one more out of the fame Author 
 
 Ibid.Cel.89s. ftill, from the Title to another Set of Laws made by the fame King : Ha fum 
 
 Leges quas Ethelredm Rex & Sapientes fui couflituerunt apud Venetyngum ad Emendation 
 
 nem pncis (JT' feltcitatis Incrementum. See likewife in Monaflicon Anglicaniim, the ift 
 
 Volume, Anno Dom. 1024- Canutns, Rex Anglia cum Conjil/o & Decreto Archiepifcopo^ 
 
 rum, Epifcoporum, & Primattim fuorum expulit Ckricos inhoiiefie viventes ab Ecclejia 
 
 ii^K^"?/ Edmundi, & Monachos in ilia conftituit. And the fame King Cwwe bellowed 
 
 divers Lands, and other Privileges, on the Monaftery then call'd Briadricefworth 
 
 ( a(Kr\va.rds St. Edmiindsbtiry) cumConJilio, & Decreto Archiepijcoporum , Epifcopo^ 
 
 rum, Abbatum, Comitian aliorumque omnium Fidelium. The like we find in a Charter 
 
 of King Ed-c^ard the Confejfor ; by which he granted divers Lands and Privileges to 
 
 the Abby of Weflyninfter ; Cum Confilio U Dtcreto Archiepifcoporum, Eptfcoporum, Comi' 
 
 turn aliorumque Optifnatum. 
 
 From all which it manifellly appears, that under the Englijb Saxon Kings the 
 Lcgiflative, or Ena(5ting Power, was i;i the Council of the Sapientes or Wites, con- 
 juni^tly with the King ; and that none of thefe Saxon Kings could pafs any Laws, 
 or make any conliderable Alteration in the State, widiout not only the Advice, 
 but Confent of their Great Council ; which then confifled of their Bifhops, Great 
 Lords, Principal Freeholders, and the Reprefentatives of Cities and Towns, as 
 1 fliall prove another time, and was not left to the King, adhbitum, tocall-whom 
 he plcafed thereunto. And as the Word Decretum lignifies Decree or Order ; (o like- 
 wife may the Word Conjtlium here fignify fomething more than bare Advice, viz,. 
 Agreement, or Appointment ; which if you pleafe to perufe any ordinary Dictionary, 
 you may prefently fatisfy yourfclf in. 
 
 But before I difmifs this Argument, I cannot but remark upon your Inftance of 
 Vul Gold- King Edmund's making Laws alone, becaufe he there fpeaks in the hrftPerfon plu- 
 maii'i Dici. pal • whcreas if you will but confult the Proem to thofe Laws once again, yon will, 
 I doubt not, be fatisfied of the contrary, tor the Words are : T^hat having ask'd Ad- 
 vice of the Council or AJfembly of Clergy and Laicks, th.it it feemed good to them all, cw 
 •well oi to the King, and therefore zue thm ordain : By which it appears, that the lafl: 
 Words , wherein the Ordaining part refides , refer as well to the whole Allembly, 
 'as to the King. 
 
 M The Government of our Englijh Saxon Kings, is, I confefs, very dark and 
 obfcure ; though, according to our ancient Hiflorians, they fcem to have been 
 very abfolute ; though when we come to look into the Laws themfelves, I confels 
 they fcem rather to have been limited Kings, than ablolute Monarchs ; though 
 whether that Limitation proceeded from the original Conflitution of the Govern- 
 ment, or their own free Confent and Concelfions, is a very great Queftion ; 
 though I rather incline to the former, and fhall give you my Reafons for it when 
 wc come to diic.ourfe on that Subjeft : But in the mean time , I muf: tell you in 
 Reply to wliat you have laid, that if we conlider the Times i;ot long after the 
 Cunqiieft, you will find the Supreme Lcgiflative Power to have been then wholly 
 in the King (as it is fo ftill) notwithftandiiig fome ambiguous E.\preflions to the 
 contrary ; or clfe our Kings would not be, wliat I think they really are, ablolute 
 IJ.S.B.T). Monarchs. But to defcend to Times lefs obfcure , it is certain, that when the 
 p. -za. ni- Nviman Conqueror lirft came in, as he won the Kingdom bv the Sword, fo did 
 £^ </./>;. 'he
 
 Dialogue the Fifth, Zl^ 
 
 he govern it by his Sole Power : His Sword was then the Sceptei, and his Will 
 thc^Law : There was no need on his pare of an Ad ot Padiamcnt, much Icfsof 
 calling all the Eftates together to know of them after what Form, and by what 
 Laws they would be go\erned. It might as well be faid of him, as in the flou- 
 riftiing and beft Times of the Roman Emperors ; Qitod Priacipi placuit, Ugis hahct 
 JAgorem, that whatibevcr the King willed, did pafs for Law. This King, and 
 ibrae of his Succedbrs , being then nar/A(J«!(riAcr; , and having a Defpotical Power 
 over the Lives and Fortunes of their Subjefts, which they difpofed of for the Be- 
 nefit of their Friends and Followers, Normaiu, Rcnch and Fktnmwg^, as to them 
 feem'd befl. But as tiie Subjefts found the Yoke to be too licavy and infupporta- 
 blc ; fo they addreil'ed themfelvcs in their Petitions to the Kings their Sovereigns, 
 to have that Yoke made ealier, and their Burden lighter, efpccially in fuch Parti- 
 culars of which they were m.ofl fenlible at the prefent time. By tliis means tliey 
 obtain'd, firil to have the Laws of Edward the Confcjfor ; and by the fame (that 
 is to fay, by pouring out their Prayers and Deiires unto them) did they obtain 
 moft of the Laws and Statutes which are now remaining of \\.ir\^ Henry the Third 
 and King Edward the Firff. From whom, as alfb from Henry I. and King John, 
 we may derive all tholl- Privileges we now enjoy ; moft of which, as they were 
 ilTued at the firft, either in form of Charters under the Great Seal, or clfe as Pro- 
 clamations of Grace and Favour ,• fo do they carry ftill this Mark of their firll 
 procuring by thefe Exprefllons, "The King •wilkth, the King commandeth, the King ordain- 
 ethy the King providith, the King grants, &c. And when tiie Kings were pleafed to 
 call their Eftates together, it was not out of an opinion that they could not part 
 ^rith their Power, or difpenfc tlieir Favours as they thouglit good, or abate any 
 thing of the Severity of their former Government without the Approbation and 
 Confent of their People ; but out of a juft Fear, left any one of the Three Eftates 
 (I mean the Clergy, Nobility, and the Commons) Ihould inlift on any thing which 
 might be prejudicial to the other two. The Commons being always on the cra- 
 ving Parr, and futfcring as much perhaps from their immediate Lords, as from their 
 King, might pofTibly have asked fome things which were as much derogatory to 
 the Lords, (under whom they held) as of their Sovereign Liege the King, the , 
 chief Lord of all. In this xc(^^ the Council and Confent, as well of the Pre- 
 lates as the Temporal Lords, was accounted neceiTary in palling of all Afts of 
 Grace and Favour to the People : Becaufe that having many Royalties, and large 
 Immunities of their own, with a more near relation to the Perfon, and a greater 
 Intereft in the Honour of their Lord the King ; nothing fliould pafs unto the Pre- 
 judice and Diminution of their own Eftates, or the Difabling of the King to fup- 
 port his Sovereignty. 
 
 F. I conlvis you have given a plaulible Account concerning the Government of 
 Wtliiam I. whom you call the Conqueror : V/hereas if it be more e.xaftly look'd 
 into, it will be found that he had no more Power of making Laws without the 
 Confent of his Great Council, than any of liis PrcdecelTors ; neither had he any 
 fnch Defpotical Power as you imagine, over the Lives and Fortunes of all his Sub- 
 jeds ; for whether we conlider them as Normans, French or Fhmmings, or whetlier 
 as Englijh, k will be all one : For ilj as Dr. Brady fuppofes, thefe latter were quite 
 turned out of their Eftates, and that they were by him wholly given to the for- 
 mer ; then thefe French and Normans, being Conquerors togetlier with him, woulcf 
 never have fubmitted to any other Government than what they enjoyed in their 
 own Countries, each of which was then governed by Kings or Dukes, together 
 with a Great Council, or Aflembly of tlie Eftates : And we find, tliat when fuc- 
 ceeding Kings would have opprcfled and tyrannized over their Heirs and Dcfcen- 
 dants, they, together with the old Englijh, took up Arms, and defended their Li- 
 berties, and never laid them down until tiicy iiad obtained their juft Rights and 
 Liberties contain'd in the Great Charters of King Jo/w, and Henry the Third. And 
 which (as Matth. Paris himfelf tells us in the Reign of K'nv^'John) contained for Aiwo 1115. 
 the greatefl part the ancient Laii's and Cujioms of the Kingdun . And therefore by the 
 Statute, called Confirmatio Chanarum, 25 Edw.l. it is adjudged in fiiU Parlia- 
 ment, 'I hat the Great Charter, and Cha) ter of the Forefl, fmll ie taken as Co?n}non Lav.\ 
 So that they were not any new Grants, bur rather Confiim.itionsof their ancient 
 Rights and Liberties, as my Lord Ccke very well obfer\es in his excellent Preface 
 to his 2d Infiitutes ; where he tells us. That Magiu Cliarta is for the mft part Je- 
 
 (.hirat^'j
 
 224 BlBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 claratory of the frincipal Grounds of the Fundamental Laws of England ; and for the 
 Refidue, is Additional to ftipply fo?ne Defe'cls of t/je Common Law : With wliom like- 
 Chap. 14. -vvife agrees one of his learned Siiccenbrs, the late Earl oi' Clarendon, in his Survey 
 •p. 110. q£ i\yc l^eviathan^ when he tells vs, That thofe Laves and Ciifioms ubich iivre before the 
 
 Conquefl, are the fame -which this Nation or Kingdom have been ever Jlnce governed by td 
 this Day. 
 
 And as for the Laws of Edward the Confejfor, though it is true, that William the 
 Conqueror regranted and confirmed them ; yet was it no more than what he was 
 oblig'd in Confcience and Honour to perform and obferve, fince he was admitted 
 to the Crown by the general Confent of the Clergy, Nobility and People ; and 
 at his Coronation (as well as afterward) fwore to obferve the Laws of King Ed- 
 ward : And by the way, though thefe Laws are called the Laws of King Edward, 
 yet IVilliatn of Malnisbury long (ince obferv'd. That they were called his Laws, Non 
 quas tulit, fed quas obfervaverit ; that is, he had only collefted them into one body, 
 and ratified them with the Aflent of his Great Council. And that thefe Laws 
 were more than once fworn to, and confirmed by King IF'lliajn himfelf, appears 
 by the Story of Frederick Abbat of St. Albans, who frighted him into a Confirma- 
 tion of them by Oath, for fear of a general Infurreftion of the People : So that 
 if he, or his Son Rufm, made any Breaches upon their Liberties, they were, ex 
 fofilmimo, reftored to them by the Magna Chartds of Henry 1. King Stephen i 
 King H<.'ary II. King John, and King Henry the Third. And thofe OpprelTions, 
 contrary thereunto, are branded by all Hiftorians as notorious Perjuries and Wrongs 
 to the Subjefts. 
 
 But that King William the Firft altered nothing material in the Fundamental 
 Conftitutions of the Government, whatever he might do in fome lefs material 
 Cuftoms or Laws, which he brought with him out of his own Country, appears 
 plainly by this, which you cannot deny, that he often afiembled his Great Coun- 
 cil, (as his Englijh Predeceflors had done) and that in them were difpatched all 
 the great Caufes and Complaints of the Kingdom. And for this, I will give 
 „. - t you the Teftimony of two very ancient Hiftorians : The firft is Radolphm 
 s'ii'pt. "x. ^^ Diceto, who in Anno 1071, tells us. That the Plaint of Wulftan Bijhop of Wor- 
 Cc/. 483. cefter, was heard and ended in ConiWio cekbrato in loco qui vacatur Fcdrcdd, coram Rege, 
 Cjr DorobernitE Archiepifopo, & Pri7natibi:i totiin Regni. The next is Gervafi^ji Do- 
 Ib Col i6'>x.''"^'^''"^"fi^ ■> ^^^ ^'^"^ relates it of Lanjranc Archbifliop of Canterbury ; Eligentibm 
 eum Senioribm ejufdem Eccleftx, & Epifcopis, ac Principibus, Clero, & Populo Anglia^ 
 in Curia Regis, in Afjumptione SanEia Maria. Here the Epifcopi & Principes, Bif- 
 hops and Primes, the Cleri & Populus, the Clergy and People, or Laity, were the 
 fame Perfons, and only exprefllve of one anotlier, and all had Votes in this 
 Elcftion. 
 
 M. I pray give me leave to interrupt you a little : I will not deny but that 
 the Conqueror did often aflemble Great Councils of his Bifliops, and Great Lords, 
 commonly called in Hiftorians, Principes or Primates ; yet I think I may boldly af- 
 firm, that there were noEnglijhnen in thofe Councils, or that they made any Laws 
 for the Benefit of EngUjhmen, who were kept under by thofe Nortnans, who then 
 enjoyed their Eftates ; much lefs was there any fuch thing as Commons either by 
 themfelves, or their Reprefentatives in thofe Aflemblies, which then confifted 
 'wholly of the King's Feudal Tenants in Cap'ne, and of no other, as Dr. B. hath 
 very plainly fliewii us : And when King William made Laws, it is much to be 
 doubted whether he made them fo much as with the Confent of his Great Coun- 
 cil, or not ; for tlie Title to the French and Latin Copies of his Laws, runs thus, 
 7 E. M.G put into Englifi, T'hefe are the Laws and Cujicins which William the King granted to all 
 k 20(f . his People of England after the Conquefi, or Subduing of the Land : T'hey are the fame which 
 
 Edward the King, his Kinfman, before htm obferved. In this Preface we have only 
 to note, that the Laws are exprelly faid to be the King's Grant, and the Supple- 
 mental Laws writ in the Red Book of the Exchequer, are by way of Charter, or 
 Grant, thus j IVilhelmus Rex Anghrum, &:c. Omnibus hominibus fuis Francis, O'Angli!, 
 falutem; and all along the Autlioritative Parts are exprefled by Statuimus, volumus, 
 inter dicimus, prohibemus, pr^cipimus. So that by thefe Expreffions in his Laws, the 
 abfolute Sovereignty of the Conqueror in the point of Law-giving is manifeft. 
 I fluli content myfolf witli a very few Authorities, becaufe the matter is fo plain; 
 Jd S>-'. Otdertcus Vttalis faith thus, Eamque (i. e. England) Gulielmtts Rex fuis Legibus com- 
 ' '* mode 
 
 B. A. P.
 
 Dialogue the Fifth. li^ 
 
 mod- fuhegit. And Eadmn; Contcmporaxy with the Conqueror, in his Hiflory, 
 thus; VJ us atqtie leges, quoi patrcs fui, & ipfc in Normamiafolebaiit, in A,igliafatbere Fol. 6. 
 •voUns ■■ Ctinfiti drvwa, Jimul & htimana ejus nutum espetlabant. From wliencc }OU 
 may fee, that all Matters, as well Spiritual as Temporal, depended upon his Iblc 
 
 Will. 
 
 And though we have no particular Account of what Laws his Son William Rufus 
 made, yet wc may prefume, according to tiie Teflimony of Hiftorians, that he was 
 altogether as abfolute in thofe Councils he caliM, as his Father, as may be fecn in 
 £ij<i?«n«i his Account of his Tranfaifcion'i with Archbifiiop ^/j/t/w. So that it is Endmer. Bp 
 certain he governed by his own abfolute Authority, railing what Money he pleas'd ^""^l- '• '• 
 upon his Sabjefts. 'Tis true, that in the RcigiiofhisSucceflbr /ft/?;-/ thePirft, the- 
 People found fome little Relaxation, by reafon of the Charter he made trem, 
 containing feveral Mitigations of the Seventy of the Feudal Laws, as alfo thofe 
 of Fotefts i yet even thefe are faid to be made by his own fingle Gram and Antno- • 
 rity, though 1 coniefs it was granted in a Great Council. So likewife in Florence 
 of fVoneJler, we find that in 28 of Henry I. That King confirmed the AEis of a Sy- Pa^. 509. 
 ttoJt or Council of the Clergy of the Province of Canterbury', and gave his Royal AJfent to 
 them. 
 
 As for King Stephen, though he was a notorious Ufurper, and fet up and crown 'd 
 by a Fattion of Bifhops, and fome few Temporal Lords ; and that not long after 7. E. M. G. 
 his Coronation, he in a Great Council at Oxfo; d granted to all his Si.bjefts another Png- 2. 1 5. 
 Charter of divets Privileges, and Freedoms from the former Exaftions : Yet the 
 Words of the Charter are in his own Karae, and by iiis oum Authority folely, as 
 appears by thefe Words ; Ohfervari practpio, & con/iituo. But Richard, Prior of 
 flexham aWis Hiigulftad, in his Chronicle, clofes his Charter thus ; H^c omnia con- f^^^j^ x^ c , 
 ado, & coiifirmo falva Regta, ^ jufla Dignitate mea. From which Wcrds it is piafli, iV. 5; , f. 
 that he never meant to part with any of the juft and necefl'ary Prerogatii^esof his ^f""> ^"'■'i^- 
 Crown. 
 
 So likewife King Henry the Second, in a Great or General Council held at London, vid.SfeLCoi:- 
 confirmed the Great Charter granted by King ^^ary the Firft, his Grandfather i-f//- tom.z. 
 but this Charter alfo runs wiiolly in the King's own Name, without any mjntion/"'- 54- 
 of its being aflented to cither by the Bifliops or Nobles : And as for the Conilitu- 
 tions made at the Great Courcil of Clarendon, though that King made the Arch- 
 bifhops, Bifliops, with all the Clergy, as alfo the Earls, Barons and Nobilitv, ail 
 fwear to obfcrve them ; yet the enafting Part proceeaed only from the King, as 
 appears by their very Title thus, Ajfjfae Henrici Regis faBa apud Clarendon, &c. 
 And Mat. Paris concludes thefe Conflitutions with, Decrevit emm Res. Front 
 whence it appears, that it was the King alone that decreed and conftituted thofe. 
 Laws. 
 
 I fhall not fay much of the Great Councils in Richard the Firft's Time, fince he /„ /?. //■„:(.- 
 did not reign long enough to call many, but in that held at Nottingham, we find rfc-;;, /.. 419. 
 that the King difleized Gerard de Canville and others ; and that the King appoin- 
 ted to be given him two Shillings on every Carucate of Land throughout England, 
 tfc. From whence I (hall obferve that the Words Rex pracepit, conflhmt, Ike. as they 
 are in this Hiftorian, ihcw, that the King tlicn had folely the authoritative Power 
 of pafling all Confultations of thefe Councils into binding Laws, even where 
 Money was to be levied on the Subjefts, and that feizure was to be made of tlicir 
 Eftates. But to come to the more troublefome and perplcx'd Reign of King John, 
 in which there were many Great Councils holden, yet I fliall inftance but in ibme 
 few of them mention'd in Mat. Paris, as that of St. Albans, held by Jeffery Fitz.- Fo!. 101. 
 peter and the Bifliop of IVinchejler, in this King's Abfcnce, where ex parte Regis it 
 was firmly enjoyn'd, under penalty of Life and Limb, that tlic Laws of King 
 Henry, his Grandfather, ihould be kept by all in his Kingdom. F'rom whence 
 we may obferve, that the Laws had tlieir Force only from the King's Authority, 
 as appears by this Expreffion, ex parte Regis fmniter eft prxceptum. And wiien after- 
 wards at Rumtingmead he was compelled to fign the firft Magna Charta, I own it 
 was done in a Great Council of Bifiiops, Earls and Barons, as well thofe who flood 
 for him as againfl him : Yet that it proceeded wholly from his own good Will, is plain 
 from the Charta de Forefla of this King, as appears by thefe Words, Ad emenda- 
 tionem Regni noftri, fpontanea, & bona voluntate nofira dedimm, conceffimm pro nobii, & v ;r. 2i^, q. 
 haredibmnoftris, hoi Lbcrtates fubfcriptcti. From all which Charters of Liberties we/,. 211. 
 
 G g may
 
 ZZ6 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 may conclude, that the Petitions of the, People were drawn into the Form <rfa 
 Charter, and pafled under the King's Seal as his meer voluntary free Grants and 
 Conceffions, without their Votes, Suffrages and Authority. And fometimes fuch 
 Rights of Liberties have been bellowed and declared by our Kings, by way of 
 Anfwer to the Petitions of the Lords and Commons j and that this Cuftom is not 
 yet difcontinued, appears by the Anfwer of King Charles the Firft to the Pemion 
 of Right, when no other Anfwer would pleafe the Commons but the King's eii* 
 prefs Aflent to their Petition, in thefe Words, Soit Droiti faiEi mmne eft defire. 
 But to return to the Reign of King Henry the Third. 
 
 F. I befeech you. Sir, give me leave now to anfwer what you have already alledged 
 
 out of our Hiflorians for the Supreme and Abfolute Power of our Kings, before 
 
 we proceed further to lefs obfcure Times. And therefore I muft tell you, that 
 
 you have in this long Speech of yours made ufe of all the Artifice of an Advocate 
 
 • for a Party, viz.. in urging all that can any way make for you, and flily paffing 
 
 over whatfoever may make againfl you. And to begin with your Scory of King 
 
 IVillinm the Firft, I fhall not now difpute whether there were any Enghjhnen in 
 
 thofe Great Councils, or whether they confifted only of Tenants in Capite, fuice 
 
 I fhall defer that Queftion till anon. But as for the Englifli you have put upon the 
 
 French Title of the Laws of this King, it is not fairly rendered ; for in the French 
 
 it is, Apes le Cmquefl de la terve, which doth not always fignifie zfubduing by ForcCy 
 
 but by any other ways of Acquilition different from that of Hereditary SuccelSon ; 
 
 Matt. Paris, which Matt. Paris was long iince aware of, when, writing of this King, he fays, Reit 
 
 p.941. Anglia ex Conqueftu dicitur, tamen quod beatta Edvardm, eo quodhxrede caruit, Regmtm 
 
 Sir H. Spell, legavit IViUielmo Baflardo Duct Normamioruvt. With whom Sir Henry Sfeliman, iniiis 
 
 Glojf. Tit. Qioflary, agrees, IVilMmm primm Conqueflor dicitur, quia AngUam conquijivit, i. ^, 
 
 onqnej US. ^^^^y^^,-^^ purchafed, non quodfubegit. And the learned Sir yolm Skene, in his Boc^ 
 
 Tag. 59. Tit. de verborumjignificatione, writes thus, Conqueflm Jignifyes Lands quhilk ony Perfon dt* 
 
 Coitqiiej!. quiris and ppjfejjis, privato "Jure, vel fingulari titulo, vel donatione, vel fmgulari ali^tih 
 
 comraciu. And therefore I very much doubt, whether or no the Latin Verfiori of 
 
 thefe Words, Apres k Conquefi de la terre, pofi fubaElam terram, be as antient as the 
 
 French Original, and be not rather the Verlion of fome Clerk or Monk who lived 
 
 long after. 
 
 But whether thefe Laws were not intended as well for the benefit of the Englijh 
 
 as Norman Subjefts, I appeal to this Title itfelf, tho' you have omitted part of it, 
 
 V. Leges Hj: funt Leges & Confuetudines quas Guliehntu Rex concejjh Univerfo Populo Anglia pofi 
 
 Guil. I. ^^it-fubaLlam terram. So that unlefs the Englijh were none of the People oi England, 
 
 if 'h"^Ji' ^^^^ Laws were as well intended for the one as the other : And I appeal to that 
 
 Ar'chntomm. Chatter of King William you have now quoted, whether or no it dotii not begin, 
 
 per Bog, Omnibpii hominibus fuis Francis & Anglis; by which Words certai;;iy the £h^///,6, as 
 
 Twifden. well as Normans, had an intereft in thofe Laws and Privileges therein granted. I 
 
 mention this only by the by, in anfwer to what you have faid. 
 
 But to return to what I am chiefly concerned 10 fpeak of, ttieKmg's fole Legifla- 
 tive Power. In the firft place, I fliall not deny, but as this Kingdom is a limited 
 Monarchy, foit is fuitable to the Honour and Dignity of tije Monarch, that all 
 Laws and Conftitutions fliould run in his Name, and are often faid to be made by 
 him, tho' in a Political or Legal Senfe, they couki not be made without the Ad- 
 vice and Confent of his Great Council or Parliament: Ard that this was the 
 CuHom in the Time of William the Firft, as of all others his Succeflbrs, I need 
 lhiJ.p. 170. quote only the jjth Law of this King, in thefe Words, Preut Stat mum eft eis (fcil. 
 Liberis hominibus) 6" iHis a nobis datum & concejfum jure harednarh in perpetuum, per 
 Commune Concilium totius Regru ncftri pradiSli. From whence you may obfervc, 
 that this King could not then make Laws without the Confent of the Common 
 Council of his whole Kingdom : And tho' he miglit do many arbitrary and illegal 
 Things to the prejudice of the old Engltjh Liberties, yet this was no more his 
 Right, nor any more to be quoted as a Precedent, than his feizing upon the Bi- 
 fliops and Abbots Lands, and violently taking away the Plate out of Churches 
 and Monafteries (as Hiftorians tell us he did) could give him a Right to them. 
 
 I have not much to obferve upon the Reign of William Rufus, finccwehave 
 
 none of his Lavi.'s left us, if ever he made any. But thus much we plainly find 
 
 from the Hiftorians, andefpecially Eadmerus, that he called divers Great Councils 
 
 of all the Nobility of the Kingdom j efpecially about his difference with Anfelm, 
 
 -r. ' whom.
 
 Dialogue the Fifth. 227 
 
 whom, it is plain, he could not condemn without the Confent of this Great Coun- 
 cil. But to come to the Reign of King Henry the 1 jrft, it appears plainly by 
 JV- Malntihury and Man. Parti, that he was clefted and crowned King ty the com- 
 mon Suffrages and Favour of the Clergy and People; aud certainly that Council, 
 whofe Votes could make a King, was alfo necelfary to all fuch Laws a-: iie was 
 to make : And you yourfelf have granted, that this Charter of his was m.;de in a 
 Great Council ; and it appears in Matt. Paris, as alfo in the Laws of tiiis King, -p, p p q 
 publifhed by Mr, Lambard, 'That the Archbifinps, Brfhops, Barons, Earls, Vifcou;.: or ^. c'z. 
 Shaiffs, Optimates (j totiui Regni A}iglia, were Witneflcs uo tnis Chaitci. All 
 can tell you of a very antient Charter of King John, which recites t.,at t.o c "' rta n-.cde- 
 Laws were made de Communi ConftUo, & Affenfu Baronum Regni AngUa;. It h^....] is fecdl 
 
 ufual in fuccceding Ages, at the Coronations oi' our Engl/j/j Kings, to corFr; :. V/W. 
 
 make and ordain Laws, de AJfenfu Baronwn Regni, vel per Commune Concilium Regm, '/'^'fv. 
 i, e. the Parliament, as it was afterwards called. „ ,^ Arhiepif- 
 
 As for Henry the Second's Reign, it is apparent by the Laws of this King, in rr . Cant. 
 Spellman's Councils, that he granted his Charter in a Great or General Council, ^'"^^' 
 and confequently they muft likewife give their Aflents to it, as well as to that of 
 his Grandfather Henry the Firft. And tho' in the Conftitutions of Clarendon, the 
 King alone is faid to have made or decreed them ; yet nothing is plainer than 
 that the King could not make them without the Advice and Confent of his Great 
 Council ; or elfe to what purpofe were they to be called ? and if their Ailent was 
 neceflary, certainly they had alfo a hand in making thofe Conftitutions. 
 
 But that tlie King could not condemn any Peer or Great Man of the King- 
 dom ill thofe Days, without a legal Tryal in the Great Council of the Kingdom, 
 I need go no further than a Council fummOned by Hubert Archbifiiop of Canterbury^ 
 as King Richard's Jufticiary in his Abfence ; where Rf^ger Hoveden tells us, that ha- 
 ving (hewed the Letters of Earl John to the Bifiiops, Earls and Barons, per Com- 
 mune Concilium Re^i defnitmn efi, quod Comes yohannes dijfaifetur ; which interprets 
 that Paflage you have quoted out of the fame Author, that the King, in a Great 
 Council, difcized Gerard Canville and others ; that is, by the Auu.ority and Sen- 
 tence of the faid Council. And fo likewife in the fame Senfe is to be underftood 
 thofe Words you mentioned. The King appointed to be gi'ven him, conflituit Jibi dariy 
 two Shillings on every Plough-land ; that is, he delircd it to be given him by 
 them : For if he could have taken it without their Confent, to what parpofe did 
 he propofe it in that Council ? if he could have abfolutely demanded it, why 
 fliould he only requell or defire it of them ? 
 
 So likewife for the Great Council in King Johns Time, nothing is more plain 
 than that they were Parties to all the Laws that were made in liis 1 ime ; ani 
 that even the Great Charter was a Statute to which their Afl'ent was lik.'vife nt^ 
 ceflary, I fhall fhcw you by and by, when I come to fpeak of the Gic c Charter 
 of King Henry the Third, and the feveral Confirmations of it by his Siiccdiors. 
 But if either IVdliajn Rufus, King John, or any other King, ever levied any 
 Taxes upon the People, witiiout Confent of the Great Council or Parliamtiu, i: 
 was contrary to our ancient Laws and the Liberties of the Subjects, and par- 
 ticularly to the 55th Law oi IVtlliam the Firfl (part of which I havea!r;ady ci- 
 ted) It begins thus ; Volumus etiam ac firmiter pracipijnus (j concedimus, ut in:>:^i It" 
 beri homines totius Monarchic Regni nofiri praditii habeant, & teneant terras fuas, & 
 pojfefjionei fuas, bene & in pace libere ab omni exaclione injufia, & ab omni Tallagio ; ira 
 quod nihil ab eis exigatur, lel capiatur, nift Sewiiium Juiim liberum, quid de jtae nobis 
 facere debent, & facere teneutur, & prout fiatutum efi eis, &c. So that whatfoeverwas 
 done at any time contrary to this Statute was ilk-gal, and confequently o ight not 
 to be quoted as any part of the King's Prerogative. 
 
 But that the Nobility and People of England had divers Rights and Liberties 
 before tiie Time of King John, and of his granting that Charter, appeais by 
 its Conclufion in thefc Words ; Salvis Archieptfcopis, Abbatibus, Pnonbus, 'lemplariis. In ^'ux. 
 Hofpttalariis, Comitibiis, Baronibus, Altlitibus, & omnibus aliis tarn Ecckf.nfiias, perj^nis ''"'■"= ';' 
 quam fctulavibus Itbertatibus, qtioi pritis habuerunt. And as for the rell of tlie Liber- 'J^ umus, 
 ties granted by this Charter, tho' they are faid to have been granivd from the 
 King's meer good Will, yet that is recited only to make it more ftrong aga^ali: 
 himfelf, riince the Nobility and People of England cLtimeu thofe Libcrtier as 
 their ancient undoubted Right. And the fame Autiior (as I have ulicady hinted) Idem 254. 
 
 Gg z exprefly
 
 2L28 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 exprcfly tells us, that this Charter contained Maxhna ex parte leges antiquas.- 
 
 And a little lower he relates where thofe Liberties were to be found) Cafitula quvque 
 legum & libertatuin qua: ibi Magnates confirmari quxrehant partim in Charta Regis Henrici 
 fuperim fcripta fum, partirnqtie ex Legibm Regis Edward i antiquis excerpta. So tiiac 
 they were not only the effett of the King's meet Grace and Favour, as you fup- 
 pofc. But if you pleafe now to defcend to the Reign of Hemy the Third, and fo 
 downward, from which Time our eldefl; printed Statutes bare Date, let us fee if 
 I cannot anfwer all thofe Arguments which the Gentlemen of yout Opinion have 
 tlience brought for the King's fole legiflative Power. 
 
 M. The' I do not allow of your Notion of the Conqueror's not being properly 
 and really fo, as I fhall Ihew you another Time, when I (hall more particularly 
 conlider that Argument of the Right of Conqueft in King William and all his Suc- 
 cefl'ors ; therefore I do at prefent readily aflent to your Propofal, and it was the 
 very thing I was coming to : And therefore I fliall begin with the Magna Charta 
 of Henry the Third, which begins thus. Know ye^ that -we of our meer and free Will 
 have given thefe Liberties. The Statute ^e 5ci2cfflm, amio 51 Hen. 3. begins thus; 
 77j(? King commandeth that all jnanner of Bayliffs^ &c. Tlie Statute de Dtfiriilione 
 Scaccarii made the fame Year, runs thus j It is provided and ordained. 'The King 
 •willeth. ThcS.dXuxc oi Malbridge '^2 Hen. ^. And he, i. e. the King, hath appointed 
 allthcfe Atis, Ordinances and Statutes to be obferved of all his Subjecis. It we come tO 
 the Reign of his Son Edward the Firft, and begin with the Statute of Weflmtnflery i . 
 it is there faid in the Preamble, ''thefe are the Acts of King Edward the Firfl, made 
 at his fir fi Parliament by his Council^ and by the Affent of the Archbijhops, Bijhops, &C. 
 And in the firft Chapter 'tis faid, "The King hath ordained and efiablijhed thefe A^s. 
 And tho' I grant that in divers Statutes of this King, as in this of IVefimin/ier^ 
 it is recited that the King, by the Advice of his Council, or Aflent of the Arch- 
 biftops, Bifliops, Earls, Barons, &c. have made, provided, ordained or eftabliflied 
 fuch and fuch Laws ; yet it is plain, that the enading or decreeing part is wholly 
 afcribed to the King, in all thofe Statutes wherein fuch Words are found, as I fhall 
 make it appear more plainly by the Statute of ABon Bumel, made in 1 3 Edw. I. 
 where it is faid, the King by himfelf, and all his Council hath ordained and efiablijhed. 
 And in the Statute of Weftminfler 3. i8 Edw. L chap. i. Our Lord the King, in hii 
 Parliajnent at Wellrainfter, at the Inflance of the great Men of the Realm, hath granted, 
 provided and ordained. Li the Statute De iis qui ponendi fum in Affiz.es, 2 1 Edw. I. 
 Our Lord the King in his Parliament holden, &c. hath ordained, that, &c. The Statute 
 of Quo Warranto 1 8 Edw. L runs thus ,• Our Lord the King, at his Parliament holden 
 flf Weftminfter, of his fpecial Grace, and for the AffeEiion he beareth ttnto his Prelates^ 
 Earls and Barons, hath granted, that, dec. i Edw. IL begins thus ,• Our Lord the 
 aing hath granted. The Statute of Gavelet, lo Edw. II. begins thus; It is provided 
 by our Lord the King, and his yufiices. The Statute of Carlijle, 15 Edw. II. begins, 
 thus ; the King unto the fujiices of his Bench fendeth greeting. Whereas of late "we havei 
 ordained, &i.c. 
 
 But if we come to the Reign of his Son Edward the Third, the Prefaces to 
 raoft of the Statutes made in his Reign run thus ; Our Lord the King, by the Affent 
 of the Prelates, Earls, Sec. and at the Requefl of his People, hath granted and efiablrj/jed ;■ 
 or elfe at the Requefl of the Co?nmonalty, hath ordained, &c. The like Stile continued 
 during the Reigns of Richard the Second, Henry the Fourth and Henry the Fifth, 
 •with very little Alteration only it ran thus commonly ; At the Requefl of the Prelates, 
 Dukes, Earls and Barons, and at the Infiance and fpecial Requefl of the Commons, the 
 King hath ordained, &c. Whereby we fee a plain difterence in the Phrafes of the Sta- 
 tutes of thofe Times ; for it is the Lords that give their Aflent, whereas the 
 Commons only Petitioned ; but it is the King alone who ordains and eftablifhes. 
 I confefs indeed, that under fome Princes of bad Titles, as in particular, under 
 the Minority of Henry the Sixth, there began fome Alteration in the form of pen- 
 ning the enading part of raoft Statutes that were then made, and that unto thofe 
 ufual Words, which were infcrtcd ordinarily into the Body of the Ads, from the 
 11 S. B. R.p. beginning of the Reign of that King, viz,, by the Advice and Affent of the Lords Spi- 
 -zu ritual and Temporal, and at the fpecial Inftance and Requefl of the Commons,, there was 
 
 added, by the Atithsrity of the faid Parliament. But it is ftill to be obferved, that tho' 
 thefe Words were added to tlie former Claufe, yet the Power of granting and or- 
 daining was ftill. acknowledged to belong to the King alone, as appears by thefe 
 
 Ads
 
 Dialogue the Fifth, '-' iz^ 
 
 Acis of Parliament of that King, viz,. 3 Hen. VI. ch. 2. 8 Hen. VI. cL 3. \Vlicrc it 
 is faid, Om- Lord t/v Kwg, by the Advice and JJfsm, mid at the Requcfl ajhrefaid, hath 
 ordained and granted, or ordained and eflablijhed by the Aiitho-nty cf this Parliament. 
 And thus it generally ftood (tho' a general Rule may have fome Exceptions) till 
 the beginning of the Rjign of Heury the Seventh, about which time, that ufual 
 Claiife rt/ the /fecial Injlmice or Requefl of the Cominons, began by little and little to 
 be laid a(ide, and tiiat of their Advice or Ajjent, to be infcrted in the place thereof: 
 For which I do refer you to the Statute Bool; at large ; which Form, I confefs' 
 continues to this Day ; yet even in Henry the Seventh's Time, in the firft of that 
 King and the feve.ntli Chapter it runs in this Stile, Ti.e King oar Sovereign Lord, of 
 his ncble and abundant Grace, by the Advice andAJfent of the Lords Spiritual andTe?nporal, 
 at the Supplication of the Commons in the faid Parliamem affembled, dnd by Authority of 
 the fame, ordaineth. And tho' the Statutes of Henry the Eighth do generally agree 
 in their Stile with thofc of his Father; yet in his Time alfo many Afts were 
 drawn up in Form of Petitions; as 5 Hen. VIII. ch. 14. Praying your Higbnefs, the 
 Commons in thisprefent Parliament ajfembled. And 5 Hn. VIII. ch. 4. Praying the Com- 
 mons in thts prefent Parliament. And in the Reign of his Son Edv:aid the Si.xth, tho' 
 I grant that moft of his Afts do run in the ufual Form ,• yet this one {% very re- 
 markable, I jErfu'. VI. ch. 4. Wl:erefore the King ottr Sovereign Lord, ccc. at the humble 
 Petition and Suit of the Lords and Co!nmons in this prefent Parliament ajfembled, dcth De- 
 dare, Ordain and Enaci, by the AJfent of' the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Com- 
 mons in this prefeiH Parliament affembled, and by the Authority of the fame : which laft 
 Words, tho' they may feem to refer to the Parliament, and may make Men think r s. b. D. ». 
 that the Lords and Commons did then pretend fome Title unto the Power of ma- 711. 
 king Laws : Yet rieither Advidng nor AfTcnting arc fo operative in the prefent 
 Cafe,asto trans ferthe Power of making Laws to fuch as doadvifc about tlieiti, ot 
 affent unto them. Nor can the Alteration of the Forms and Stiles tifed in antient 
 Times import an Alteration of the Form of Government, unlefs it can be fliewed 
 (as I think it cannot) that any of our Kings did rcnotince that Power which pro- 
 perly and folely did belong unto them, or did by any folemn Aft of Communi- 
 cation confer the fame upon the Lords and Commons convened in Parliament: 
 And therefore upon the whole Matter, fince in alraoft all our moft antient Statutes, p r ^ 7 . 
 it is precifely e\prefs'd that they were made by the Kir.g himfelf ; the meaning of 4*1. * * 
 
 thofe general Words ufcd in latter Tiihes, that the Statutes are made by Autho- 
 rity of P.frliament, are particularly explained in forjVier Statutes, vit. That the 
 King Ordaineth, the Lords Advife, the Commons Coiifent, as by comparing the 
 Writs with the Statutes that expound the Writs will evidently appear. • ■ 
 F. In anfwcr to thofc Authorities you have rto'W' broiVght, I doubt not but I 
 fhallgive you others of as great wefght, that prove the dired: contrary to what 
 you now aflert. To begin with your Inftance of Magna Charta. I fliall fliew that 
 thofe Charters that were granted and confirmed by Henry the Third, were not his 
 A<fts or Grants alone, but the Afts alfo of the whole Kingdom rcprefented in 
 Parliament. We have two exprefs Declarations for the one, in the 25th of A^^w. 3S. 
 King Edward the Firft ; where is to be found in the Parliament Roll of that Year, 
 a Confirmation of the great Charter of Liberties and Forefts,.in thefj Words, which 
 I fhall render to you in Englijh, out of the old F,ench, lor your better underftan- 
 ding. Knovj ye, that the Homur of God and Holy Church, and for the profit of cur whole 
 Realm; IVe have granted for m and to our Heirs, that the Great Charter of Frarichifes 
 md Forejls, -which were made by the common AJfent of the whole Realm, in the Time of 
 King Henry our Father, jhould be held in all Points withotit any Blemijhment. So like- N. 50. Dotfo. 
 wife we find another Confirmation of thofc Charters in the Parliament Rolls of 
 the 15th Year of£rMv«v/'thc Third, which being in oid French I fliall render it in- 
 to Englijh. Imprimis, It is! accorded and affented, that the Franchife of Holy Church and 
 the Great Charter oj Forefi, and the other Statutes made by our faid Lord the King-, and his 
 Progenitors the Pee-rs and the Commons of the Land, for the common profit of the Pcuplejhall 
 be firmly kept and maintained in all Points. So that you may hence plainly fee, that 
 die King himfclf, with the whole Parliament, declare, and that in two fevcral Kings 
 Reigns that the Great Charters were not only the free Grants of King Hemy, 
 but alfo the joint Afts of the Common Council of the whole Kingdom; and wliy 
 King fohns Charter ftionld not be made by the like Authority, 'being one of his 
 Progenitors, I- fee no reafon, cfpccially if wc confidcr that that Charter was firft 
 
 drawn
 
 23< 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 drawn up by the Barons in the Form in which wc find it, and was pafTed by that 
 King, under his Great Seal, in that vaft General Council or AflembJy at Running- 
 mead. And certainly, whoever can draw up a Law, and can offer it to a Prince 
 to confiriri, and without whofe Confent and Acceptance it would not be good, muft 
 needs have a fliare in the making of it. 
 
 As for your other Inftances of thofc old Statutes made in the Reign of Henry the 
 Third, though I grant they begin, as you fay, in the King's Name : Yet if you 
 ■would but have read a little further, you would have found that in divers of them 
 the Bifhops, Earls and Barons gave their Confents to them : And for the Proof of 
 this I fliall begin with one of the antienteft Statutes we have left us, "viz,, that of 
 aofT. 3. Merton, in the Preamble of which it is recited, Prov'/um efi in Curia Domini Regis 
 apud Merton, where after the Parties that were prefent at the making of the Laws 
 it concludes thus in the Lniin Copies, ita provijum efi & concejfum tarn a pradiElis 
 Archiopifcopis, Epifcopis, Comitthn, Baronibpti, quam ab ipfo Rege, & aliis ; where you 
 fee the providing and enafting part is afcribed to the Bilhops, Earls and Barons, 
 as well as to the King, who is here mentioned almoft laftof all. And tho' I con- 
 fcfs that there was then no fet Form of penning of Statutes in that honeft and plain 
 Age, wlien Parliaments did not lafl fo many Days as they do now Weeks ; and 
 that the King's Judges and Council drew up the Ads, after the Parliament was up, 
 in what Form they pleafed, fometimes leaving out any mention of the Billiops, 
 fometimes of the Temporal Lords, and moft commonly of the Commons j yet chat 
 they did all give their Confents to fuch Afts, appears by the Statute oiJVeftminfier i. 
 which you have already cited, where the AlTent of the Archbifhops, Bifhops, 
 tire. Counts, Earls, Barons, and all the Commonalty of the Land, is expreily 
 mentioned. So likewife the Statute of the 51ft Year of King Henry the Third, 
 concerning Meafures, begins thus i Per ordinationes totius Regni Anglia fuit menfura 
 Domini Regis ccmpojita. 
 » But farther to convince you, that in the Opinion of the Lord Chancellor, 
 
 and thofe learned Judges who framed the Writs that were illued out upon any of 
 thcfe antient Statutes, you will find that they who lived in thofe very Times, be- 
 lieved thofe Statutes were made not by the King alone, but by him and the 
 Common Council of the Kingdom ; which Writs, as you may fee in the Regifter 
 Vi. Rcgifi.oi Wvits, runs thus J Rex Vicecom, &c.Salut. S: Afecerit, &c.tuncfummonias,&c.B. 
 Brei. p. i'^- quod fit coram 'Jufiiciarijsy &c. Ofienfuru quart, cum de Communi Concilia Regni Noftri 
 &> dein. per jinglix provtjumfit, dye. as you may fee in the Writs granted upon the Statutes of 
 ^Brev'JdeSta- ^'^S"^ Charta, Marlbridge, Melton, Glocefter, &c. which have all of them this or the 
 tuto. like Recitals, cum de Statuto,or juxta forma?n Statuti, de Coummuni Concilio Regni mfiri 
 
 Ang. indeprovifi. The like Liftances I could give you upon the Statute oi Marlbridge, 
 and divers other old Statutes, in which the King, by ine Statute itfelf, feems on- 
 ly to have enafted it ; and yet you may fee that oar Sag^i of the Law were very 
 well convinced that thofe Statutes were made not by the Kmg alone, but by the 
 whole Common Council oi England: So that there is no ^-o.ding the Conclufion, 
 that the Great Council, or Parliament, had then a grei^t ohare in the Legiflative 
 Power ; unlefs you can fuppofe the King alone to have beeri the whole Common 
 Council of the Kingdom, mentioned in thefe antient Writs 
 
 But as for the reft of your Inftances of Edward the Second's and Edward the 
 Third's Times, I think I can fhew you that there is no general Rule to be drawn, 
 from fome few Examples i for though it is very true that the firft of Edward the 
 Second begins thus ; Our Lord the King l.Jth granted, &c. Yet it is plain, by the 
 Statute itfelf, that it was made in and with the Afient of P.iriiamcnt. The like 
 I may fay of the reft of the Statutes of this King's Reign, thoi.gii they do not all 
 agree in Form, as you may fee by the Statute of Sheritis, p Edw. il. Our Lord the 
 King, by the AJfent of the Prelates^Earh, Barons^ and other great Eflates, hath ordained and 
 efiablijied. And though you A'ould fain draw fome mighty Confequencc from thofe 
 Phrafes in the Statutes o( Edu'ard the Third, and many of his SuccelTors, by the AJfent 
 cfthe iM-df, and at the Requefi of the Commons i as if the Confent of the latter were not 
 as necefl'ary as the former :Yet indeed it is a mecr difference in Form, and proceeds 
 only from hence, that that Eftate which found itfeJf grieved, always Petitioned 
 the King for Redrefs, and which amounted to as much as a Confent j for you fhall 
 always find that the petitioning Partftill refers to that Body which was then oppref- 
 fcd, without their giving anv other AUcat ; for certainly their requefting to have an 
 
 Aa
 
 Dialogue the Fifth. 231 
 
 Aft made, doth ncccflarily cxprcfs tlicir Confent. And to prove wliat I liavc 
 now faid by Examples, pray fee the 8th oi Hen. VI. c. x. where it is recited m 
 the Preamble, " Tiiat our So\ercign Lord the King, willing gracioiifly to pro- 
 " vide for the Security and Qiiiet of the faid Prelates and Clergy, at the Snppli- 
 ♦* cation of the fiid Prelates, Uc. and of tlie Alfent of tlie Great Jvlen and Cora- 
 ** mons aforefaid, hatli Ordained and Eflablifli'd. " Where you may lee, that 
 the Aflent of the Prelates is not here atalJ mentioned, bccaulc it was ncedlcfs 
 as being made at their Requeft. And if Praying and Requeuing fiiould dcftroy 
 the Lcgiflative Power, I doubt whether ELhairdWl. did not give away his, in his 
 i4t'h Year, in a Statute concerning the Siibfidy of Wools. Tiie Preamble runs 
 thus : " Neverthclefs the King prayeth the Earls, Barons, and all the Commo- 
 ** nalty, for the great Bulinefs which he hath in hand, ^c. that tliey would grant 
 *' him'fomc Aid upon Wools, Leather, 6-f. Whereupon Deliberation being had, 
 " tlic faid Prelates, Barons, and Commons of the Kingdom, have granted him 
 *• 40, Shillings to be taken on every Sack of Wool." 
 
 But to convince you, that in the Reigns of Edward III. and Richard II. the 
 Three Eftates had a concurrent Authority with the King in the Lcgiflative, I 
 fljall give you two Precedents more out of our imprinted Parliament Rolls : The 
 firft is 31 Ed. III. m.ii. which, being a Title to certain Statutes, begins thus : 
 Qugdam Ordinationes & Statuta, faEia pro communi militate Regniy per Regem, Pra'- 
 latos. Duces, Comites, Barones, & Communitatcm Regni Anglia. So likewife 
 in Stat. Roll of 5 Rich. II. m.21. the Title is, Quadajti Concordia, five Ordinationes, 
 faSlf de communi ajfenfu Regis, Procerum, Magnatum, (:} Communiratis Regni An- 
 gliti. Wliere no Man can doubt but that the W ord Communitates, in thefe Records, 
 muft mean the Commons^ all the other EUatcs haviiig been already mentioned. 
 
 But to return to the matter, to let you fee that not only the Commons^ but alfo' 
 the Lordii have been oftentimes Petitioners, pray fee thefe Authorities. The ilt 
 is the Statute of Provifors, z-jEdw.-^. runs thus : " Our Sovereign Lord the 
 " King, with the Alfent and Prayers of the Great Men, and the Commons of ' 
 " the Realm oi England, hath Ordained, &c.'' And in the 4th o(Edu>. IV. it 
 is recited thus : " The King, by the Aii'ent, Advice, Requeft, and Authority, 
 " of his Lords Spiritual, Temporal, and Commons, &c. hath Ordain'd and 
 " Eftablifh'd." In the Preamble of the Statute of i Edw. VI. c. 4. it is tlius : 
 
 *' WTiercfore the King, our Sovereign Lord, minding and entirely delirin" 
 
 *• at the humble Petition and Suit of the Lords and Commons in this prefent Par- 
 " liament aflcmblcd, doth Declare, Ordain and Enaft, by the Aflent of the Lords 
 *' Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons in this prefent Parliament aflem- 
 " bled, and by the Authority of the fame." And that the Aflent of the Co?7t- 
 mom was always neceflary to the making ot Laws, not as bare Petitioners, but as 
 Aflentcrs too, as well as the Lords, appears by this Proteflation or Declaration of 
 the Commons to Edw.llly wliich is fliU to be found in the Parliament Rolls of 51 oi'N- 4<J- 
 that King, which I fliall read to you in Ehglijh, out of the Laiw French, which 
 perhaps you arc not ufed to : " Alfo the faid Commons do petition our Lord the 
 *' King, that no Statute or Ordinance may be made or granted at the Petition 
 ** of the Clergy, unlefs it be by the Aflent of the Commons ; neither that the faid 
 " Commons fliould be obliged by any Conftitution, which they may maiie tor their 
 " Advantage, without the Aflent of the faid Commons: For they will i;ot be obli- 
 " ged to any of your (viz,, the King's) Statures or Ordinances made without 
 2 tlieir Alfent." 
 
 M. I do not deny, but that the Aflent of the Commons, as well as Lords, hath 
 been allowed as neceflary for a long time ; but whether the Confcnt of either at 
 firft was fo, is a great doubt, lince we iind the lirft antient Statutes (as I have 
 already obferved) to have been made wholly by the King alone. And I think the 
 moft antient Laws are the belt Interpreters of the Original Lcgillative Power ; F. F. G. J. 
 and thence it appears, tlut many Provilions, Ordinances and Proclamations, made P- J^- 
 heretofore out of Parliament, have been alwaj s acknowledged for Laws and Sta- 
 tutes. VVc have among the printed Statutes, to this purpofe, one called the Sta- 
 tute of Ireland, dated at IVellminJler the pth o'i Fe'jrmvy, 14 Hen. III. which is no- 
 thing but a Letter of the King to Gerard Fitz.-MMiKj,e, Jufliciar of / eland. The 
 Explanations of the Statute ot Gloucefer, made by the King and his Juftices only, 
 were received always for Statutes, and are fiill printed with them. Alfo the Sta- 
 tute
 
 2-3^ 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 tute made for the Correftion of the 12th Chap, of the Statute of Gloucefier, was 
 figned under the Great Seal, and fent to the JulHces of the Bench, after the man- 
 ner of a Writ Patent, with a certain Writ clofed, dated by the King's Hand at 
 Ibid. p. 51. IVeftminfier, 2 Maii 9 Ed. I. requiring, " That they flioiild do and execute all and 
 " every thing contained in it, though the fame doth not accord with the Statute 
 *' of Glouceflev in all things." 19 Hen. III. a Provifion was made de j40a Prafenta" 
 tionis, which was continued and allowed for a Law until the Statute of IVefl^ 
 minfter II. which provides the contrary in exprefs Words. So that in the old Sta- 
 tutes it is hard to diflinguifh what Laws were made by Kings in Parbament, and 
 what out of Parliament, efpecially when Kings called the Peers only to Parlia- 
 ment, and of thofe how many, or whom they plcafed (as it appears antiently 
 they did) it was no eafy matter to put a Difference between a Council Table and 
 a Parliament, or between a Proclamation and a Statute. Not but that I own, 
 in old Times there was a DiiHnftion between the King's Special or Privy Coun- 
 cil, and the Common Council of the Kingdom ; and yet his Special Council did 
 fit with the Peers in Parliament, and were as Part thereof, and were of great, and 
 extraordinary Authority there, as may appear by divers Afts of Parliament, fome 
 of which I have already recited, as the Statute of TVeftminfler I. where it is faid; 
 Thefe are the A£is of Edward, made at his ifi Parliament, by his Council. The Sta- 
 tute of AElm Burnely 13 Ed. I. hath thefe Words : "The King fey himfelf and by his 
 Council, hath Ordained and Efiablijhed. And in Articidis fu^er Chartcu there are thefe 
 Provilions : Neverthelefs, the King and his Council do not intend : And, Both the 
 King and his Council, and all they that -ivere p-efent, TViU and Intend, that the Right and 
 Prerogative of his Crown Jball be faved to him in all things. And before thefe the Com" 
 I E. 3. Stfit. mons often petitioned the King ; as i Edw. III. where Magna Cbarta was con- 
 j, Freamb. firm'd, the Preamble is thus : At the Requefl of the Commonalty, by their Petition made 
 hefore the King and his Council in Parliament, by the Ajfent of the Prelates, Earls and 
 Barons, &c. I could give yoa many more Examples of this kind, but that it is 
 needlefs ; only thefe may fuffice to let you fee, that the King's Council had a 
 great Authority in thofe Times, and perhaps was as antient as the Great Coun- 
 cil it felf. 
 7. E. M G. Yet I cannot forbear to give you ore or two Authorities more, to prove that the 
 p. 234. King, with the Advice and Confent of a Council of his Earls, Barons, and other 
 Wife Men, hath fometimes taken upon him to repeal all the Statutes made in a 
 precedent Parliament, as contrary to the Laws and Cuftoms of this Realm, and 
 to his Prerogatives and Rights Royal, tho' granted by him in manner of a Statute. 
 TuH. p. I J 1. ^^ ^o*^ ^'^'^ yo" '"^y ^^^ '^he Statute of 1 5 Ed. III. at large in Pulton' sCo\\&&.ion. 
 So likewife the Preface of the Statute of Weflminfier, 20 Ed. III. runs thus : That 
 " We (viz,, the King) by the Aflent of our Great Men, and other Wife Men of 
 " our Council, have ordained, &c." Where you may obferve, that here is no 
 mention either of Lords Temporal or Commons. I could give you more Exam- 
 ples of this kind, were it not too tedious. From which Statutes it feems plain to 
 me, that this King did fometimes exercife a Prerogative of making' and repealing 
 Laws without Confent of Parliament. 
 JJ. S. B. D. I" t^^ ^^^^ place, I defire you to take notice, that thefe Words you fo much 
 p. 7:1. rely upon, viz.. By the Authority of this prefent Parliament, and, Beit EnaEied by the 
 
 King, Lords and Commons, as if they were three co-ordinate Eftates, was never in 
 ufe till the Reign of Hen. VI. and Hen. VII. two notorious Ufurpers. And that 
 the King's fingle Anfwer to the Lords and Commons Requeft is a fufEcient Aft of 
 Parliament, without any mention of the concurrent Authority of the Lords and 
 Commons enafting the fame, the Precedent I gave you of K. Charles's Anfwer to the 
 Petition of Right may fufBce, though you have not vouchfafed to give me any Re- 
 turn to it. So that I think thefe Liftances may ferve, inftead of many Arguments, 
 for the proof of this Truth, "That the Legiflative Power (as we phrafe it now) is 
 wholly andfolely in the King, although retrained in the Exercife and Vfe thereof, by cort- 
 fiant Cuflojn, unto the Counfeland Confent of the Lords and Commons : For LeRoy le veulty 
 or the King will have it fo, \% the Imperative Phrafe, by which the Propositions 
 of the Lords and Commons are made Afts of Parliament. And let the Lords and 
 Commons agitate and propound what Laws they pleafe for their Eale and Bene- 
 fit (as generally all Laws and Statutes are more for the Eafe and Benefit of the 
 Subjeft, than the Advantages of the King) yet as well now, as formerly, in the 
 
 time
 
 Dialogue the Fifth. 235 
 
 limeof the /J«/»<7« Emperors, or\\y quod Prhjctpi placet, Icgis hahtvigonm; notlinif; 
 but that which tlie King plcafes to allow of, is to pafs tor Law : Tiic Laws not 
 taking their cocrci\e Force (as Jiulicious hLoker well obfcrves) from the Quality 
 of fuch as devife them, but from the Power that giveth them the Strength of //.d.L. 
 Laws. So that, to determiiie the Matter logicall)-, the Lcgifiative Power is ci- 49- 
 ther Largely and Improperly, or Striddy and Properly taken : Largely taken, it 
 ligniticsany Power, which hath the Authority to provide the Materials of a Law, 
 and to judge what is juft, convenient, or necelTary to be cnaftcd j aixl to declare 
 when any Matters, duly prepared, are made and granted into a Law : And this 
 Miiiifterial fort of Legillative Power, improperly fo called, tiic two Houfeshavc and 
 exercife, yet by Authority from the Crown. But then the Legillative Power is 
 Stri(5tly and Properly taken for the Power of Sanftion, or for tna;; Commanding:, 
 Ordaining Power, which gives Life and Being to the Law, 'and Force to oblige 
 the Confcience of the Subjed ; and this is radically and incommunicably in the 
 King, as Sovereign. And therefore (as I have already faid) all tli^ antient Afts 
 run in the King's Name alone ; and from tlie Legilladve Power, tuus properly 
 taken, the Laws are properly called the King's Laws, and the Violation of rhem 
 is puniQiable as fuch. 
 
 F. You have made a very long Speech, and taken a great deal of pains to per- 
 plex a Qiiellion in it felf very eafy to be refolved ; and to which I need return 
 you no other Anfwer than what Braclon tells" r.s, in his third Book, Chap. p. De 
 Achonibm. Nihil altud poteft Rex in terris fids, aim fit Dei 7nii2ifter & 'vicarmi, niji 
 idfoliim quod de jure poteji : Nee objlat quod dicitur, Qttod Principi placet, legis hahet vi- 
 gorem j quia fequittir in fine legis. Cum lege regia, qua: de imperio ejus lata eji ; i. e. ncn 
 quicquid de vvluntate Rsgn ternere prefumpttm efi, Jed quod corijilio Magiflyatuum fuonnn, 
 Rfge authoritatem pr^Jiame, (j habitajuper hoc deliheratione. So that you fee, in the 
 time when this Author writ, the King could do,no more by his Prerogative, than 
 the Law allowed him to do : And tho' it is true, it is his Will and Authority 
 that gives Vigour to the Lawj yet this only, as it is declared in Parliament, and 
 in thofe Aixs wiiicli liad before received the Confent of his Great Council, here 
 called the King's Magiilrates ; And therefore you have done what you'can to con- 
 found the diftcrcnce between the King's Declaration, or Writs explaining ai:d enfor- 
 cing the Common Laws of £«^/rt;/(/, or elfe interpreting former Acts of Parliament al- 
 ready made ; which was a Prerogative often exercifed by the King and his Council 
 in Parliament, whicii then conlilledof all ormofl of the Judges, and Great Officers 
 of the Kingdom, of which I (hall fpeak more at large by and by. And I confeis, wc 
 are much in the dark, becaufe our antient Parliament Rolls are all loft, and confe- 
 quently the Statutes therein contained : So that we have almoll: nothing left of 
 them, but fuch Copies or Remains, as were prcferved by Judges and Lawyers in 
 thofe and fucceeding Times, whiljft they were flill in being. 
 
 Therefore I think I may at prefent boldly affirm, that if that, which you call 
 the Statute oi L eland, was fo far from being founded upon fome former Statute not 
 now in being, it was no Aft of Parliament at all, but only the King's Writ to 
 the Chief Jufticiar ot Lelund, commanding and enforcing the Common Law of 
 England, in the Cafe of Coparceners, to be obfcrvcd in lelaiid. The like I ma}' fay 
 to the Explanation of the Statute of Glottcefier, which might be no more than tiie In- 
 terpretation of the King and his Juftices, of the Senfe of fome Articles in that Sta- 
 tute ; and this for its greater Authority was exemplified under the Great Seal, 
 and fo fent to all the Courts at IVcftimnfter, and often to the Shei iHs of all the 
 Counties in England ; yet without altering the Statute in fome Points, as you 
 would have it. The like I may fay of that Statute of AElm Bumcl ; and therefore 
 it is very raftily done, to conclude, that tho' we have not the Original Afts and 
 Records of Parliament of that time, that therefore fuch Statutes were made by 
 by the King alone, in his Privy Council. So that I mufl: Hill continue of the iamo 
 Opinion witii tlie Great Leiden in tliis Point, who in his Mare Claiijum tells us : 
 It is moft certain, that according to antient Cuftom, no Anfwer is given either 
 " by the King, or in the King's Name, to any Parh'amentary Bill, before that 
 Bill, whether it be brought in Hrft by the Lords, or by the Commons, 
 hath pafs'd both Houfes, as is known to all that are vcrfed in Parliamen- 
 tary Affairs." Which if it hath been the antient Cuftom of this King- 
 dom, it figiulics very little in wliat Form the Law is cxprefs'd, whether in the 
 
 H h King's
 
 234 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTICA. 
 
 King's Name only, as giving the laft Aflent thereto, or elfe as his ConcefTion to 
 the Lords and Commons Petition, as long as you grant that their AlVent was necef- 
 fary : For fure, whofoever petitions another to do a thing, which he cannot impofe 
 upon him without his Requeft, muft give his Confent to the doing it, iinlefs you 
 can prove, that it could be done vt'hether the Petitioner would or nor. And this, 
 by the way, will ferve to anfv/er an Ob/e6tion, which, tho' you inlift mucli upon 
 it, is fcarce worth it, viz. the King's Anfwer to the Lords and Commons Pet^tton 
 of Right, which was indeed no Grant or ConcefTion ot'any new Rights cr Privileges 
 from the King to the People ; but only a Declaration of fcveral anticnt Rights 
 and Liberties of the Subjefts, which had been very mucii broken and infringed of 
 late ; and therefore the King's Anfwer was very proper, Soit Droicl faici cojnmeefi 
 defire : But that there is a Right plainly acknowledged, I fuppofe you will not 
 deny. 
 
 The next Miftake you fall into proceeds from your confounding the Kir.g's Ex- 
 traordinary Cpuncil in Parliament with the King's Special or Privy CoLUcii, and 
 in a manner making tins a fourth Eflate ; by whom (as you fuppofe) as w;;ll as 
 by the Lords and Commons, Laws were often made ; whereas indeed neither the 
 one nor the other is true. For tho' I grant that there is ohen mention made, in 
 our antient Statutes or Records, of the King's Council in Parliament ; yet this is 
 not to be underftood of his Privy Council, but of a Special Council, with whom 
 our Kings formerly fate during the Time of Parliament, and before whom and to 
 whom, we find, by divers Records, that both the Lords and Commons did often 
 petition, as you your felf do truly affirm ; but that this was not the King's Privy 
 * Council, but another quite difterent from it : And to which it feems to me that 
 
 i Fleta refers, in his 2d Book, Cap. 2. Habet enim Rex Ciiria'mfuam in Concilia fuo in Par- 
 
 liamemisfuis ; prxfimibm Prj-latis, Coinitibm, &c. And this Council confiflcd of all the 
 great Officers of the Kingdom, iiiz.: the Lord Treafurcr, Chancellor, and Keeper 
 of the Privy Seal, Mafler of the Wardrobe, the Judges of the King's Bench, 
 Common Pleas, Barons of the Exchequer, ]uQ.ices Itinerant, and Juftices of Affi- 
 zes, with fi^Qh of the dignified Clergy, as it pleafed the King to call : Which 
 that they were altogether diftinfl: from the King's Privy Council, appears plainly 
 by this, that the latter never included all the Judges, nor did the Privy Coupcil 
 ever exercife any Ji:dicial Authority in Parliament, as this Council did in tnofe 
 days ; but that this Council confifted of the Parties above mentioned, fee the Sca- 
 I„ R.iftal'i tute of Efcheators, made 2p Edw. I. And in the Placita Parliamentar.'a o(tha.t Year, 
 fip Pulton ' ^i^Q Statute runs thus : Per Concilium Regis concordatum efl coram Do7nino Regs iffo 
 Stat.foL 5;. ^g^j^fuj^iiig^ 3^c. But in the Ckfe Roll of this Year it is clearly explain'd who were 
 Pt'.r. ?ml. of this Council, their Names being there particularly recited, wz.. ail the Great 
 29 Edw. I. Officers above mentioned, together with the Judges of the King's Courts, and 
 fol. 275. J^ ftices Itinerant, &c. Which is likewife explained by the Parliament Roll, 9 Ed. IL 
 Fd "l" ^^^ vvluit quod Domimu Cancellarim, T'hefaiirarim, Barones, Scaccarit, yufiidarii, & 
 7ir.i]. cLofi. ^^" ^^ Conftlio Domini Regis Londin. exifientc, convenirent. I could give you many 
 Numb. 9. more Examples of this kind, but I fhall give you but two more, to prove that 
 this Council in Parliament could not be the King's ordinary Piivy Council. The 
 Koi. p7. firft is in Placit. Parliament. 2 Ed. III. in a Caufe betwixt T'hf.mm Faz-Peter and Alie- 
 mra Wife of "John de Movabray, coram Rege. The Record is long, but concludes 
 thus, direded to the Juflices : Et Ji difficultas aliqua fubfuem, quare pra:mijfa facere 
 non pofptis, tunc Placitum illud tifque in prox. Parliamentum nofirum adjornetis, ut ibidem 
 tunc inde fieri valeat quod de Confilio nodio fuerit faciendum. 
 
 By which we may very well gatiier, that this was none of the King's Ordi- 
 nary or Privy Council, or elfe to what purpofe was this Caufe adjourned to the 
 Meeting of the next Parliament ; fince, it it had been to have been determined 
 by the Privy Council, it might have been heard forthwith. 
 M. 12. 13, I fhall give you but one Inftance more, out of the Clofe RoH oi the 41ft of 
 the King, wherein a Caufe between Elizabeth Wife of Nicholas D'Audley, and 
 James D'Audky, in a Controverfy between them (touching certain Lands con- 
 tained in the Covenants of her Marriage) is faid to have been adjudged devant 
 jonConfeil, c efl a fcaijoir , Chancellor, T^hreforier, Juflices, (j autre s Sages, ajfemhlez en 
 la Chambre des Etoiles ; i. e. before his Council, viz. the Chancellor, Treafurer, 
 Juftices, and other Wife Men, aflembled in the Scat-Chamber. So that v.hen any 
 thing in our old Statutes is faid to be ordained by the King and his Council, it is 
 
 always
 
 Dialogue the Fifth, 155; 
 
 always to be undcrflood, not as it" this Council were a fourth Eflate, wJiofe Af- 
 fent or Adiice was nccellary to the making ot Laws, for then they would have 
 had tlie fame Power ftiJl ; but only according to the Cuflom of thofe Times, 
 when mofi: Adts of Parliament were drawn by them, and that the King pafs'd none 
 without their Advice : It was then faid to be done by the King and his Council 
 (viz.. ill Parliament) and I conceive the Power of this Council continued till the 
 Beginning of the Reign of Henry the feventh, when this Court was by Ad of Par- 
 liament annexed to that of the Star-Chambcr, where alfo this Council of the Kin" 
 ufed to meet before (as appears by the Cafe I have lail cited) and had after- 
 wards only to do with Criminal Caufes, and that as well out of as in Parliament : 
 And tliat King Hewy the feventh not caring to exercife his Judicial Power in pri- 
 vate Caufes, as his PredeceHbrs had done, or to make ufe of their Advice either 
 in the drawing or pafling of Bills, which now began to be drawn by Committees 
 in either Houfe, wherein thofe Bills were preferred, this Council came by degrees 
 to grow quite out of ufe, as it is at this day. I hope you will pardon this long 
 DigrefTion, which I have been drawn into, to rectify a common Miftake of the 
 Gentlemen of your Opinion, who, when they find any thing in our antient Sta- 
 tutes or Records, wherein the King's Council is mentioned, prelently entertain 
 ftrange Fancies of the Antiquity and Authority of the Privy Council. 
 
 M. I am fo far from thinking this Difcourfe you have now made to be at all 
 tedious, that I give you many thanks for it, fince it gives me a light into many 
 things which I confefs I did not know before ; and I fliall better confider the Au- 
 thorities you have now given me, and if I find they will hold good, Ihall come 
 over to your Opinion in that point, tho' I am not as yet fatisfied as to theLegif- 
 lative Power of the two Houfes i and therefore pray proceed to anfwer the reft 
 of the Precedents I have brought on that Subjeft. 
 
 F. Ifhall readily comply with your Commands ; and therefore to come to thofe 
 Statutes of the i jth and 20th of Ed. III. which you fuppoie to have been repealed 
 by that King without the Confent of the Lords and Commons. 1 grant indeed, 
 that the Statutes you mention were intended to be repealed by the King, without 
 AfTent of Parliament : Yet this was not done by himftlf ai;d his Council alone, as 
 you fuppofe ; but by a Great Council of Earls and Barons, which the Kings oi Eng- 
 land in thofe Days were wont to call upon emergent Occafions, and for the doing of 
 that which they thought Parliaments could not, or would not fo readily perform ; 
 as in this pretended Repeal ot the Statute you mention. And tho', I grant, this was 
 a great Breach upon the fundamental Conftitutions of the Kingdom, yet that it was 
 done in fuch a Great Council as I have now mentioned, I refer you to this pre- 
 tended Statute it felf, and to your Recital of it. And that the King often called 
 fuch Great Councils, appears by an Agreement of Exchange made for the Caftle 
 o( Berwick, between King Henry IV. in the fifth Year of his Reign, and the Earl 
 of Northumberland -y where the King promifcch to deliver to the Earl, Lands and 
 Tenements to the value of the Callle, by thefe Words (which I fliall render out 
 of French from the Original which remains in the Tower) : By the Advice and AJfent 
 of the EJlates of the Realm, and of his Parliament (fo that the Parliament happen before 
 the Feafl of St. Lucie) othervcife by the Affent of his Great Council, and other Efiates of 
 his faid Realm, ichich the King will caitfe to be ajfembled before the faid Feaft, in cafe the 
 Parliafmnt do not happen, &c. 
 
 And yet notwithllandingthis high Strain of Prerogative, neither King£^/a'. III. 
 himfelf, nor the Parliament, were fatisfied with this Repeal of thofo Statutes you 
 have mentioned ; but in the next Parliament, held in his 1 7th Year, paflbd a for- Rot. Part. 
 mal and legal Repeal of them, as by the Parliament Rolls of that Year, remaining '7 £"</•?• 
 in the 'Tower, doth plainly appear ,• and which I could give you at large, did I not '^'""-'•^i' 
 fear to be too tedious. But I think it fit to let you know this, becaule raoft ordi- 
 nary Readers feeing no more appear in Print in our Statute Books, are apt to 
 imagine, that the Kings of England in thofe Days did often take upon them, with- 
 out Authority of Parliament, to make and repeal Laws. But as for your next 
 Inftancc of the Statute of 20 Ed. III. it is much weaker ; fince, tho' I confefs that 
 in the Preface to thefe Acts there is only mention of the Great Men, or Grantz, 
 (as it is in our old French) and other Wife Men of our Council ; yet I fliall ptove 
 at another time, that under this Word G.antz, were meant the Lords in Parlia- 
 ment, as by tlie Wife Men of our Coui-cil are undeiUood tlie Cmiimns. And it 
 
 H ii 2 ap?
 
 23 5 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 appears by the Writs of Summons and Parliament, of the 20th of Edward ELL 
 that the Commons were prefcnt at this Parliament ; therefore it feems raoft rea- 
 foiiable to interpret the Senfe of many ancient Statutes, wherein the King alone is 
 faid to make and ordain Laws, by thofe later or more modern ones, wherein the 
 King by the Confent of the Lords and Commons, or by Authority of Parliament, 
 is faid to have ordained them : Since the true Stile and Meaning of ancient Laws, 
 which were penned with the grcatell Brevity, ought to be ftill interpreted by the 
 modern ones, and not the modern ones by the ancient. So that I am of the 
 Learned Mr. Lambard's Opinion, who in his Archaionofti, or Difcourfe upon the 
 
 p ,(■„ High Courts of Juftice in England, exprefly tells us, " 7hat "whether the Laws are 
 
 Edit. 165'j. " f'"'^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^ h ^/■'^ K.ing, and his Wife Men, or by the King and his Council, or his 
 " Common Counctl ; or by the King, his Earls, Barons, and other Wife Men, or 
 " after fuch other like Phrafcs, whereof you meet with many in the Volumes of 
 " Parliaments: It cqmes all to this one Point, namely. That the King, hisNobi- 
 " lity and Commons, did ordain and enaft the fame. And which is more, if you 
 *' {hall find any Ads of Parliament feeming to pafs under the Name and Autho- 
 " rity of the King only, as there be fome tlut have that fliew indeed ; yet you 
 *' muft not by and by judge, that it was eftabliflied without the AfTent of the other 
 " Eftates. 
 
 As for the reft of your Lifinuations, rather than Arguments againft the Antiquity 
 of thofe Expreflions, Be it enabled by Authority of Parliament, or. Be it .enabled by the 
 King, Lords and Commons ; which bear fo hard upon you, to prove that thefe laft 
 have a fliare in the Legidative, that they were introduced in the Reigns of Hen. VL 
 and Vn. two Ufurpers, and but in the Nonage of the former ; I think I fhall be 
 able to fliew you, that you are very much out in your account ; for there are much 
 ancienter Authorities, wherein the fame Words, or others equivalent, have been 
 ufed in our Statutes : And firft, pray call to mind the Statute of Meafures already 
 recited ; where it is faid, 'That by the Confent of the whole Realm of England, the MeU" 
 fure of «ur Sovereign Lord the King was thm tnade, &c. which certainly muft mean 
 
 Tag. 27. the Affent of all the Eftates aflembled in Parliament. And my Lord Coke tells us 
 in his 3d liftitutes, of an ancient Record that he had feen of the 7th of this King, 
 wherein it was faid to be Enabled by the King, the Lords Spriiual,Temforal, and Commons. 
 But fince I have given you Precedents enough of Statutes, which are faid to be made 
 or ordained by the King, with the Affent of Lords Spiritual and "temporal, and Com- 
 ?Hons ; I will fliew you one where the King is not at all mentioned ; and that is 
 in ii.z/?<i/'s Statutes, 4 Hen. 4. cap. 24. concerning Aulnage of Clothes, which runs 
 thus ; Be it ordained and accorded by the faid Parliament, without any mention at all 
 of the King. And to let you fee that thefe fatal Words you except againft, were 
 in ufe before the Reign of Hen. 6. pray fee p Hen. y. cap. 4. concerning the Mif- 
 frifion of Clerks in writing, which runs thus ; The King hath nm: declared, and or" 
 dained by Authority of this prefent Parliament, that the Ji^fiices, &c. which muft cer- 
 tainly refer to the Lords and Commons, unlefs you can make the King alone to 
 be the whole Parliament : Whereas if that Phrafe had began from Ufurpation, it 
 would have been firft found in the Statutes of Henry the 4th. But to let you fee 
 that Edward the 4th, though no Ufurper, yet did not think that thefe Words did 
 abate any thing of his Royal Prerogative , pray fee the Statute Book in the 4th 
 of that King, Cap.i. wherein it is recited. That the King, by the Advice, Affenty 
 Requeft and Authority of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in Parlimnent 
 affembled, hath ordained and efiablijhed : And that by AJfent of Parliament, and by Autho- 
 rity of Parlia?nent, is all one and the fame, fince the Aflent of Parliament makes 
 its Authority : Pray fee the exprefs Judgment in this Point of the Lord Chief Juf- 
 
 Pag. 104. tice Creiu and Juftice Doderidge, given in the great Cafe of the Earldom of Oxford, 
 reported in Judge jfones's Reports. 
 
 To conclude ; Though I do not deny His Majefty's Negative Vote to all Ads 
 of Parliament, yet this Prerogative can be concluded only from his giving his laft 
 Alfent to a Law j for when a Bill begins from himfelf , the Two Houfes have 
 likewife a Negative upon him ; which is evident in an Aft of Pardon, v/hich pro- 
 ceeds originally from the King, and being fcnt down to the Parliament, though 
 neither the Lords nor Commons (:an add or alter one tittle to, yet may they not- 
 withftanding his prior Aflent, retiife tlic whole Bill if they pleafe, though already 
 pafs'd under the Great Seal. And though I likewife grant, that it is the LeRoy It 
 
 Veult,
 
 Dialogue the Fifth. ' 237 
 
 yeult, that by yielding the highcft and laft AfTenr, gives the enading Force to the 
 Law ; and thus, I grant, the King may m a Logical Senfc be faid thtrcby to 
 niakc the Laws according to that known M;-xim, Qt/cd dat formo.yn^ dat ejfe yet .- 
 Yet this does not hinder but in a legal Senfe, acco;dir.g to the exprtfsD 'ration 
 of our old Lawyers, and Adts ot Parliament, the Laws owe their Obligatioii to 
 the joint Confent of King and Parliament ; and his giving his Inft Afl'ent or Form 
 to the Law, no more proves his fole Legiiiative Power, tnan it vroiJd dc that of 
 the Lords or Commons, if either of thcra by the Conltitution of the Governmenc 
 were to give tlicir Allcnts laft thereunto. So that I think upon the whole matter, 
 no Man can reafonably deny but that legally the Two Houles of Parliament have 
 alfo their fliarc not only in framing, but enading of all Bills that fiiali pafs ; for 
 otherwife they would iignify no more than the Committee of Articles in Scct/md, 
 or the King and Council oi England in relation to Ireland ; the former of which 
 draws up all Bills that are to pals in the Parliament of that Kingdom, and the lat- 
 ter mufl approve or rejcd: all Bills that fhall pafs in the Parliament of Zf/^;?^.- 
 Whereas the Authority of our Parh'ament conliils in their confenting to, and enabl- 
 ing together with the King all Statutes whatfoever. And this Diflinftion I think 
 may very well reconcile BraSlon with Fortefcue ; the former of which fays. Quod Le- 
 ges ligant fuum Latore?H (meaning the King) and the latter (in the place 1 have al- 
 ready cited) affirms, that the People are governed by thofe Laws, ^uai ipfe fert, 
 which they thcmfelves make : And tins I think is to afcnbe to the King as much 
 Power as is requifite to a Civil Sovereign, and yet to leave a fufficient fhare to the 
 People to fccure thcmfelves from Tyranny. 
 
 M. I muft beg your pardon if I cannot be fatisfied with your Divifion of the 
 Legiflative Power, between the King and the Two Houfes of Parliament, fince 
 it is againft the Senfe of our old Lawyers GlanviUe and B>a^m, who, as you your- 
 felf acknowledge, make the King the Sole Legiflator. And though I confcfs For- 
 tefcue gives the People a fhare in it, j'et he is but a modern Author in ccmparifon 
 of the other two, and writ to fupport the ufurped Title of Henry the Si.\th. So 
 that I cannot comprehend how the Two Houfes can have any fliare (properly 
 fpeaking) in the Legillativc Power, without falling into chat old Error of making 
 the King one of the Three Eftates, and fo co-ordinate with tlie other Two : 
 Wlicreas if the King be a Monarch, that lignifies in Greek the Government of one 
 Perfon, wliereas by giving the Two Houfes a part in the Legiilative, you divide it 
 into three feveral fhares. But indeed there is Co clofe a Conjunftion between all the 
 Parts of Sovereign Power, that the one cannot be feparated from the otlier, but it 
 will deftroy the Form of the Government, and only fct up an irregular Common- 
 wealth in its place, which will fcarce be able to hold long together, without falling 
 into perpetual Qiiarrcls and Difputcs about the Encroachments upon each other's 
 Po\ver and Privileges. 
 
 And it appears as well by the whole Tenor of our Laws, as alfo by divers ex-* 
 prefs Statutes, that the King is the Sole Supreme, and confequently the Sole Legi- 
 ilative Power : The firll of thcfe I fliall prove from the common Indiftments of 
 Treafon, Murder, Felony, &c. Which run always. Encounter la Corone, CT la Dig- 
 nitie de Roy ; and the Procefs againfi; iiich Oifences are called the Pleas of the down, 
 becaufe they are againft the Crown and Dignity of the King. So that it is not the 
 Dignity and Authority of the Lords and Commons which is violated, but the Dig- 
 nity and Authority of the King. 
 
 In the next place, this Opinion is contrar\' to the exprefs Declaration of divers 
 of thofe very Parliaments which you pretend Jiave excrcifed a Ihare in the Legifla- 
 tivt : For you cannot deny, that many of our ancient, as well as modern Statutes, 
 were made and drawn up in the Form of a Petition from the Lords and Commons, 
 or both of them, to the King : And it is very ftrange, that one Fellow in the Su-jt^.L-^.^i. 
 preme Power fliould fo liumbly petition the other. But, 2. though Time hath al- 
 tered the Form of Petitioning into Bills, yet both Lords and Commons have been 
 often ufed to call the King , Our Dread Smereign, Our Sovereign Lord, Our Leige Lord, 
 and the like ; and to flile themfeh-es, JVe your Mijefty's nwfl Humble and Faithful Sub- 
 jecis, ox 7noJl Dutiful and Obedient Subjects ; and in that humble Scilc, to bcfecch him 
 to enaft fuch and fuch things; which fare rhey coiikl have done alone, had they 
 been co-ordinate with him in Law-making. Lallly, If they were Copartners with 
 him in the Supreme Pov/erj how came tiiey to declare (as tliey did in the Preamble 
 
 to
 
 238 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 to the Statute of the 25th of Henry VIII. which you yourfelf have quoted) thaithe 
 Realm of England is an Empire, governed by one Supreme Head and King, unto 
 whom the Body Politick of the Nation, compaded of fcveral Sorts and Degrees of 
 People, divided in Terms of Temporality and Spirituality, owe and bear, next 
 unto God, a Natural and Humble Obedience ? Now how came they here farther 
 to declare this Supreme Head of the Clergy and Laity, to be furnifhed with Ple- 
 nary, IVIiok and entire Power by the Goodnefs and Sufferance of Almighty God ? Cer- 
 tainly they can have no fhare in it if it be plenary, wholly and entirely in him : 
 Or how came they in the ift Statute of Queen Eliz,. c. 7. (being a Recognition 
 of the Queen's Supremacy) to acknowledge, that all Power, Temporal and Spi- 
 ritual, was dedufted from her, as the Supreme Head , and that they were her mofl 
 . Faithful and Obedient SubjeBs ; and that though they did in Parliament reprefent 
 the Three Eftates of this Realm, yet that She was the only Supreme Go'vernor thereof: 
 Which was purfuant to a Statute to the fame purpofe, in the 2d of Edw-Y\. c. 2. 
 wherein it is declared, I'hat all Authority of yurifdiSlicn, Spiritual and Temporal^ is 
 divided and deduEled from the Kings Majifly , m Supreme Head of thefe Churches and 
 Realms. Not to mention the Oath of Supremacy itfelf, 'That the King or Queens 
 Highnefs is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm : Which thefe Statutes would ne- 
 ver have acknowledged, had it not been confonant to our ancient Common Law; 
 by which it is exprefly declared in that old Law Book, (written as it is fuppofed 
 by Bifliop Bretton) in the very firft Leaf thereof, in the Name of King Edw. I. 
 himfelt ; M'^e will, that our ^urifdiEiion be above all other JurifdiSlions ; which had 
 been fpoken in lain, if all other Powers had not been derived from, and fo fub- 
 ordinate to, the King's. Befides, I could prove this farther from Hiftory and Mat- 
 ter of Faft. 
 
 F. 1 thank you. Sir, and I defire I may anfwer what you hav^e now faid, be- 
 fore you pafs to another Head ; for I doubt the time will not give us leave to dif- 
 courfe much further on this Subjeft to Night. In the firft place therefore, I muft 
 tell you, that the main Foundation of your laft Arguments is founded upon a 
 Suppofition which I altogether difown, viz,. Co-ordination or Divifion of the So- 
 vereign Power between the King, and tlie Two Houfes : For I have always fup- 
 pofed, that the King continues ftill Supreme, and that (as the Modm temndi Par- 
 liamentum declares ) He is Principium, Caput & Finis Parliamenti i that is, he can 
 call and dillblve Parliaments when he pleafes J and likewife, that the Executive 
 Part of the Government refts folely in him, as alfo the Power of making War and 
 Peace : And even in the Legiilative itfelf, that the King hath more eminently 
 (though together with the Parliament) a Supreme Enafting Power, without which 
 it cannot be a Law. All this being confider'd, you wDl iiiid that here is noDivi- 
 fion of the Legiflative Power 5 fince neither the King, nor the Two Hoiifes, have 
 it folely and compleatly in themfelves ; but it is jointly executed by them all 
 Three, as one entire Politick Body or Perfon. So that neither can they make 
 any Law without him, nor he enatt any without their Confent j and he, by giving 
 his Confent laft, gives it the Force and Sanation of a Law, and he is therein the 
 Supreme, i.e. the laft or ultimate Power, (in the true Scnfe of that Word) nay, 
 the only Supreme Power, unlefs you could fuppofe two Supremes, that is, tv/o 
 Higheft Powers at once in the fame Kingdom : But that for all this, the Two 
 Houfes are not fubjeft to the King in Matters relating to Legiflature , may fai^ 
 ther appear, in that the King cannot command them to give him what Money, or to 
 pafs what Laws he pleafes : Since if he ftiould go about to do fo, they might (as 
 I fuppofe you yourfelf will grant) lawfully difobey him; which they could not do 
 without apparent Diftoyalty, and high Difobedience, were they in this, as they 
 are in other things, relating to the Peace and Defence of the Kingdom, fubjcft to 
 his Commands, when legally ilfued. 
 
 But to return you a more particular Anfwer to what you have faid, to prove 
 the King to have the fole Legiflative Power : As to what you pretended I have 
 quoted out of Glandule, if you pleafe better to confider of it, you will not find 
 that he gives the King any more than an enafting Power, together .with his Great 
 Council : For though he tells \xs, Quod Principi placet, Legis habet Vigorem; yet mark 
 what folloAfs, ecu fcilicet quas fuper dubiis m conjilio defnkndis Procerum quidem confilioy 
 & Prtncipis antecedente Authoritate conjlat effe promulgates. Where, by the laft ccnfiliOy 
 is meant fomewhat more than meer Advice, as I have already proved. But as for 
 
 Bracion,
 
 Dialogue the Fifth. I5P 
 
 BiaSion, though he agrees with Glarrville in making the King's Authority neccf- 
 fary to the Eflcnce of a Law : Yer he is more exprcfs than the other in making 
 the Advice and Confenc of the Great Council, or CommonweaUh, alfo neccHary 
 to its being, as you may remember by thcfc Words ; Cum Legi^ I'igovem habeat, 
 quicqiiid de Confilio & de co>!fe:7fii ALignamniy 6" Rcipidlica commutii Sfonjione, Autbori-' 
 tate Primipis fracedente, jufie fuerit definimm. 
 
 But further, to let you fee how much you are out in your Argument, whereby 
 you would prove from the Form of our Indidtments of Treafon, i;c. That the 
 King hath the Sole Legillativc Power of the Kingdom ; I fliall flicw you, that 
 all our ancient Laws, as well Common as Statute, do declare the contrary : Since 
 divers Adts of Parliament have exprefly affirmed, that fuch and fuch Offences 
 were Treafon , not only againft the King, but againft the King and the whole 
 Realm too : Pray take thefe Liftances ; fee the Statute i Edw. 3. c. i. Wherein 
 Hugh de Spencer, both the Father and Son, are by tlie King and Parliament de- 
 clared Traitors and Enemies of the King, and of his Realm : See likewife 28 
 Heti- 8. c. 7. Wherein the Crown is fettled by Ad of Parliament on the Heirs of 
 his Body, begotten en Qi'.een Jane, or by any other after Alarriage ; and that the Offenders 
 that Jhall interrupt fuch Heirs in their peaceable Sticcejf en, they, ziith their Abettors, Main- 
 tainers, &c. fiaU be declared and adjudged High 'traitors to the Realm. And therefore 
 divers ancient Indictments in Staujord's Pleas of the Crown, are laid contra pacem 
 Regis & Regni. And that the Parliament hath refer\'ed to itfelf a Power by the 
 Statute of the 25 th oi Edxx:. 3. to determine what Crime fliall be adjudged Trea- 
 fon, bcfides confpiring to kill the King, and thofe other Offences fpeciHed in the 
 fame Statute, you may confult the Statute at large. But that tiiefe OHences can 
 be no other than an Endeavour to alter the Government, or Fundumenral Laws 
 of the Kingdom, I think is evident, fince all Offences relating to the Lives, or 
 Honour of the King, Qjieen, and their eldeft Son, are there particularly fpecified ; 
 and it was by Vertue of this Statute, that the late unfortunate Earl of Strafford 
 was firft impeached by tlie Commons, and afterwards attainted by Aft of Parlia- 
 ment in the Year 1641. but whether juftly or not, it is not. my Bulinels now to de- 
 termine : It is fufficient that it was then granted by the King himfjlf j that if the 
 Earl had been really guilty of Deflroying the Government, and Introducing an Ar- 
 bitrary Power, he might have been defer vedly condemned. 
 
 But that the Power of Making and Difpenfing with Laws, is particularly ap- 
 ply'd not only to the King, but to the Lords Spiritual, Temporal, and Com- 
 mons ; pray remember the Preamble of the Statute I have already cited of the 
 ayth of Hoi. 8. c.21. wherein it is fo exprefly declared, as alfo by the 24th of 
 this King, chap. 12. the Preface of which Statute runs thus : " And whereas the 
 " King's mofl: Noble Progenitors, and the Nobility and Commons of the faid 
 " Realm, at divers and fundry Parliaments, as well in the Time of Kmg Ed- 
 ** Tiiayd lii. Ed-^'ard ^d. Richard id. Henry ^th. &c. made fundry Ordmances, 
 
 Laws, Statutes and Provifions, for the entire and fure Confervarion of the Pre- 
 " rogatives. Liberties and Preheminences of the faid Imperial Crown of this 
 
 Realm, &c. " Where pray note, that the making of all thefe Statutes, in 
 afcribed to the Lords and Commons, as well as to the King : Which is alfo far- 
 ther acknowledged by the faid King Henry, when in a fet Speech to the Parlia- 
 ment, reported by O.ompton (in the' Cafe of Errors) he faid thefe Words; " We 
 " being informed by our Judges, that We at no time fland fo highly in our Eftate 
 
 Royal, as in the time of Parliament, wherein, We as Head, and you as Mem- 
 " hers, are conjoined and knit together into one Body Politick. " And fure then, 
 if the King's Simile be true, whatfoever Funftions are performed by the whole 
 Body, mult be done by the Members as well as by the Head. I fl-iall fum up all 
 I have faid into this Syllogifm, That Power which cannot m^ke or enaft any new 
 Law without the Advice and Confent of two other Bodies, is not the Sole Legifla- 
 tive Power : But the King is that Power which cannot, Oc. Ergo, The King is not 
 the Sole Legiflative Power. 
 
 M. I fliall not longer difpute this Qi;ellion with you, fince I own the Two Hou- 
 fes have claimed, for fome Ages paft, a fliare in the Legiflative, though in a large 
 and improper Senfc, as you yourfelf do partly grant : And though for tlie more jult 
 and equal Courfe, our Kings liave for :. lo;ig time admitted the Three Eflates, wz,. 
 the Lords Spiritual, Temporal, and Commons, into a leeming fljare of tne Le- 
 giflative
 
 240 BiBLIOTHECA Po L I T I C A. 
 
 giflative Power : Yet this was not by Confiraint, nor by any Fundamental Gon- 
 ftitution of the Government, as you fuppofe ; but only from their own meet 
 Grace and Favour, to make Laws by the Confent of the whole Realm, becatfe 
 that no one part thereof fliould have any caufe to complain of Partiality : And 
 though I grant the King is bound to obferve thefe Laws when made, by vertue 
 of his Coronation-Oath, fo as that lie cannot alter them without their Confent; 
 yet is he flill above the Law, by virtue of his abfolute Monarchical Power, and 
 is not fubordinate to it, or fo bound by it as to be rcfponlible to the People for 
 any Breacli committed by him upon it j for that were derogatory to the Sove- 
 reign Power, and inconfiftent with the Nature of Monarchy, and were to fet up 
 the Law (which is but a Creature of the Prince's making) above his So^'iereign 
 Authority : And this would make our Monarchy a kind ot Government which 
 would neither be Monarchical, nor yet a Republick, but Ibmc mimgrcl thing made 
 up of both. So that I take the Notion of a Mix'd Monarchy, to be a Contra- 
 diftion in adjeElo : A Limited Monarchy, I confefs, there may be, either by the 
 Monarch's own voluntary Grant or Confent, as in this Kingdom ; or elfe on Con- 
 ditions impofed upon a Prince by others, either by a Foreign Power, as in Tri- 
 butary and Feudatory Kingdoms; or elfe by the Natives of the fame Country, 
 as in fome Ele&ive Kingdoms and Principalities : But then fuch Limitations of 
 Monarchical Power reprefent a Prince as it were fetter'd, and who cannot a6: as 
 he would, and ought, for the Advantage and Welfare of his People, if he li.d his 
 Liberty, and the full Exercife of his So\ereign Power : And tliercfore in molt Go- 
 vernments limited after this manner, the Sovereignty ftill remains in the benaie or 
 People that eleded the King : Which makes me think it a Solecifm in Politicks to 
 afErm, that a Monarch (properly fo called, and flill continuing fo) could bg thus 
 limited by Laws, or Fundamental Conftitutions, as you call them at the firft In- 
 flitution of the Government : For if he were thus limited, that Power that CQuld 
 thus limit him, muft be either Superior or Inferior to him. Superior 11 could nor 
 be, becaufe the People that could put thofe Conditions or Limitations upon 
 him, could not be his Superiors in the State of Nature, before they made him 
 King ; neither could they be his Inferiors, becaufe an Inferior Power can never 
 limit a Superior : And fince all our Laws, (as well as the Oath of Allegiance and 
 Supremacy , we take to the King ) do own him to be the Sole Supreme Gover- 
 nor of this Realm, I cannot underftand how this Limitation air extra, can con- 
 fifl; with the King's Supremacy ; for if he be tlius limited and reftiained, ho\Y is 
 he Supreme ? and if retrained by fome Law, is not the Power of that Law, a,nd 
 of them that made that Law, above his Supreme Power ^ And if by theDireftioa 
 of fuch Law only he muft govern, where is his Supreme Power ? So that then the 
 Law muft rule and govern the Monarch as a Superior, and not the Monarch the 
 Law ; and he hath at beft but a Gubernative and Executive Power. 
 
 Laftly ; If this Power of the Prince were limited at the Original Conftitution, 
 there muft be a Power appointed in fome Council or Senate (call it a Parliamenty 
 or AJfeinbly of the States, or by what Name you pleafe) whofe buiinefs it muft 
 be to fee them exadlly kept and performed : Now thefe Men muft either have a 
 Power barely of advifing the Monarch , and perfuading him to obferve thefe 
 Fundamental Limitations ; or elfe they muft alfo have a Power of forcing or com- 
 pelling him, if he will not hearken to their Advice and Remonftrances : If they 
 have no more than the former Power, that you'll fay fignifies little, fince the 
 King may refufe to hearken to them if he picafcs, and may do what he will not- 
 withftanding ; but if tiiey have alfo a Coercive Power over him , and may refift 
 or puniOi him for his TranfgreiTions, he will then ceafe to be a Monarch ; fince 
 he cannot be fo, who is accountable to any Power, either equal or fuperior t^ 
 himfelf : And this our late Parliaments have been well aware of, when they re- 
 nounced all Coercive Power over the Perfon of the King, and any Rigiit of ma^ 
 king War, cither Oftenfivc or Dcfenfive, againft him : So that befides the Hiftory 
 of Matter of Faft, which I can further give you, to prove our Kings to have 
 been at firft abfolute Monarchs ; I think the \'ery Hypothejis of a Mix'd, or Limi- 
 ted Monarchy, labours under fuch infuperable Difficulties and Abfurdities, that I 
 cannot conceive how thofj Limitations by which we find the King's Prerogative 
 now reftrained, could ever proceed from any higher Caufe than the free Graius and 
 Conceflions of the King's Predeceflors, confirmed by his own Coronation-Oath : 
 
 Which
 
 Dialogue the Fifth, 241 
 
 Which though I acknowledge he is bound to obferve, and that if he breaks it, he 
 commits a great Sin againft God ; yet it is only he that muft pmiifli him for {i:^ do- 
 ing, lince the Oath is not niade to tlic People, but to God alone. 
 
 F. Notwithftanding what you have now faid, I hope I am able to fhew you, 
 that all your Arguments againft a Mix'd, or Limited Monarchy, are more fubtile 
 than true. For as to }our firft Argument from the Word Monarch, I grant indeed, 
 that flriftly fpeaking, the Word Monarch and Monarchy lignify a finglc Ruler, and 
 the Government of one alone : Yet in common Acceptation, or according to the 
 Laws and Conftitutions of fevcral other Kingdoms, fcelides England, as in the 
 Empire, in Denmark, 2nd Suvden, the Emperor, and thofc Kings, have been called - 
 Monanhs, and thofe Kingdoms Monarchies : And though by the Original Confti- 
 tution of thofe Governments, thofe Princes have not been inveficd witii a pure 
 Imperial Authority, fuch as that of the Roman Emperors of old ; yet fincc they 
 had the Executive and Gubemative Part of the Government committed to them, 
 and that they were look'd upon as the Heads of tliofe Kingdoms, and that the 
 Government did therein partake more of Monarchy than of any other Form, 
 thofe Princes have been always called Monarchs, notwithflanding there was a very 
 great Mixture of Ariftocracy in the Empire, and in Denmark, and both of Arijlo- 
 cracy and Democracy in S~cceden. The like may be faid of England, France, and thofe 
 Kingdoms in Spain, that were inftituted by tiic Goths ar-d Vandals, the Francs ar,d 
 Saxons, after the ancient Gothic Model of Government- And though I grant this 
 fort of mix'd Monarchy is not to be reduced to any of the three diftinft Kinds 
 of Government laid down by Ariflotle, yet are they not for all that to be con- 
 demned J but rather the more approved of, lince by this Mixture they were capa- 
 ble of divers Benefits, and free from fevcral Mifchiefs, which are incident to any 
 of thofe Forms of Monarchy, Ariftocracy, or Democracy, when excrcifed purely 
 and without any fuch Mixture : And that this, as to England itfclf, is no Inven- 
 tion of the Commonwealth-Men, (as you call tlicm) you may read King Charles 
 the Firft's Anfwer to the 19 Propoiitions fent him by the Parliament, for the Words 
 are remarkable : T'hu Kingdom, fays he, is imx'd of Monarchical, Anjlocratical, and p.w. p^. 
 Democratical Government ; and that fo -wifely, that -vse have all the Conveniencies, and none 
 ef the Inconvenitncies of anyflf thofe Forms taken fugle. 
 
 Nor doth this at all derogate from the Nature of the Monarchy, nor make any 
 Divifion between the neceflary Funftions of Sovereign Power : For I iuve already 
 granted, that the Executive or Gubernative Part is vvholly in him, as aifo the 
 Power of making War and Peace. And as for the Legiflative, as long as the King 
 hath a Negative Vote in all Laws that pafs, and that they cannot be maae with- 
 out his Royal Sanftion, the Legiflative Power is nots divided, as I have already 
 proved. 
 
 But as for your other Argument againft a Prince's being limited by the Origi- 
 nal Confticution of Government, though as I yield it is more fubtile, fo it is alio 
 more fophiftical and fallacious than tlie former. For your Dilemma , by which 
 you would prove the Abfurdity of that Notion, will not do ,• bccaufe a Prince, 
 at the Inftitution of the Government, may be limited by thofe who arc neither 
 fupcrior, nor inferior to himfelf ; but only equal in the State of Nature, as I fup- 
 pofe the People to be with the King before he was made fo by them : And that 
 Equals may thus limit each other, you yourfelf will not ( I fuppofe ) deny in the 
 Cafe of Princes, wiio are Equals in the State of Nature : As Qiiccn Mary ( for 
 Example) made fuch Conditions with King Philip of Spain, before flie married 
 him, that if he offered to meddle with the Government of this Kii^gdom with- 
 out her Confent, it would be lawful for her to part herfclf from him, and to fend 
 him Home into his own Kingdom : And might flic not with a fafe Confcience have 
 done fo upon the Breach of the Conditions on his fide ? Apply this to the People in 
 the State of Nature, and thePerfon they are about to make King before the Poli- 
 tick Marriage of a Coronation or Admiflion to the Crown, and fee if they do 
 not agree ; or whether the People can be blam'd, if they repudiate their Politick 
 Husband for invading that part of the Government which they liad refer\ed to 
 
 I i them-
 
 Z4^ B I B L I O T H E C A P O i 1 T I C A. 
 
 themfelves? Nor doth this argue any more Superiority in the People dter <the 
 King in the State of Nature, than it doth for a Creditor, in the like State, to 
 compel by Force his Debtor to pay him a Sum of Money which he owed him, 
 in cafe there were no Civil Jurifdi(5tion for him to appeal to. And let us farther 
 fuppofe a Council or Parliament appointed, who may remonftrate to the King 
 his Tranfgreffions or Violations of the Law : Yet this may be without any Co- 
 ercive Power over his Perfon, or of making War upon him ; fince the King may, 
 if he pleafe, remedy all thefe Diforders, by redrefling their Grievances, and pu- 
 nifhing the Authors of them : So if he will wilfully perfift in fuch Violations 
 as flrike at the Fundamental Conftitution of the Government , and do alfo go 
 about to execute them upon the People by Force, this being in efleft a making 
 War upon them ; I fuppofe they have then a juft Right to defend themfelves 
 againft his Tyranny. So that if thefe Rights or Privileges we now enjoy, vVette 
 not the meer Conceflions of the King's Grace and Favour, as you affirm, but.re- 
 ferved as part of their Birth-right at the Original Conftitution of the Govern^ 
 ment, (as I fliall prove all our Fundamental Laws were) the People have then as 
 much Right to defend them (their Allegiance to him being upon that Condition, 
 either exprefs'd or imply'd) as any other Nation hath to defend their Lives, Li- 
 berties and Properties, againft the Violence of the Supreme Powers, or any eom- 
 milfioned by them, as I hope I have already proved to you : So that notwitb- 
 ftanding all that you have faid to the contrary, I think the Notion of aMix'd^r 
 Limited Monarchy in the very Inftitution , may be agreeable to Reafon, and 
 practicable too either in this or any other Kingdom : And when you can prove 
 the contrary by Hiftory, or Matter of Faft, as you proraife, I will give up th)8 
 Caufe. -'' 
 
 M. You have broached a parcel of fpeclal Commonwealth Notions, in which 
 you are every way out : As firft, in making the King's Authority derived eithet 
 from, or by, the People's Confent : Whereas all our ancient Lawyers call httti 
 God's Vicar, or Lieutenant on Earth, and not the People's : And in the next 
 place, in fuppofing he may be refifted by Force of Arms, whenever the People 
 Ihall think themfelves opprefs'd, or their Fundamental Rights and Liberties (ak 
 you call them) invaded ; it is contrary to the exprefs Declaration of the Parlid-i 
 ment, by two feveral Statutes in the 2d Year of the late King Charles .• And tho* 
 you difclaim all Coercive Power of the Two Houfes over the King, yet it is only 
 to place this Right of Refiftance in a more fallible and ungovernable Body, t«t. 
 the whole People in their natural Capacities ; which as it is more coniiltent with 
 your Principles, fo it is more dangerous to all Supreme Powers, as well Common- 
 wealths as Monarchies, as I have partly fhewed you alicrcy j and, I hope, may 
 farther convince you before I have done. But fince I have not now time to ftiew 
 you the Falfity and Abfurdity of thefe Notions, and to urge the Statute at larg^ 
 againft Refiftance in any Cafe -wbatfoever ; I pray go on in the Method you have pro- 
 pofed, and let me fee how you can make out, that even our Parliaments do not de- 
 rive that Privilege they now enjoy of giving their Confent to Laws, as alfo the» 
 very Being, to the gracious Conceflions of our former Monarchs. 
 
 F. That I fliall do with all my Heart : But firft let me tell you, that though 
 I own the King to be God's Lieutenant in thefe his Dominions ; yet I muft like- 
 wife aver, that it was only by the Confent and voluntary Submiflion of the Peo- 
 ple of this Nation, that the firft Monarch (begin where you win) could obtain 
 that Title. And as for thofe Statutes you mention againft all Refiftance in any Cafi 
 •whatfoever, I doubt not but to fliew you, that it was never the Intent of that Par- 
 liament to debar us from all neceflary Refiftance and Self-defence, - in Cafes of il- 
 legal Violence, and intollerable Opprefllon ; unlefs you can fuppofethey were re^ 
 folvcd to alter the Government, and to put it into the King's Power to deftroy all 
 our Laws and Liberties ; and inftead of a lawful King, to fet up for a lawlefs Ty- 
 rant whenever he pleafed. 
 
 But to come to the Matter in hand, I fliall fliew you, that it isnot at all im- 
 IJ.T.M, h. 3. poffible or improbable, that without any Hinderance of that Power which is necef- 
 
 fary
 
 Dialogue the Fifth. 24:^ 
 
 fary to the King as Supreme, that he might for all that have been h'mited as to tlie 
 Le'giflative at the iirll Inftitution ot" tlie Government^ which I fliall thus make 
 our. 
 
 I do therefore in the firft place fiippofe, that the Englijh Saxons being a free Peo- 
 ple, after their Conqueft of this Ifland, as well Nobles as Commons, did agree by 
 their free Confents, and publick Compafts, to fet over themfelves a Prince or So-ve- 
 reign, and to refign up themfelves to him, to be governed by fuch and fuch Funda- 
 mental Laws. Here is a Supremacy of Power fet up, tho' limited as to the manner 
 of its Excrcife. 
 
 3. Then becaufe in all Governments after Cafes will arife, requiring an Addi- 
 tion of Laws, fuppofe them covenanting with their Sovereign, that if tiiere be any 
 Caufe to conftitute any new Laws, he fhall not by his fole Power perform that 
 Work ; but that they will referve in themfelves a concurrent or co-operative Power : 
 So that they will be bound by no Laws, but what they join with him in the ma- 
 king of 
 
 3. I fuppofe, that tho' the Nobles may perfonally convene ; yet fincethe Com- 
 mons being fo numerous, cannot meet together in Perfon; therefore, for the do- 
 ing of this Work, it be agreed, that every City or confiderable Town fliould 
 have Power to depute one, or more, to aft for the whole Body in the Legiflature. 
 That the Nobles by themfelves in Perfon, and the Commons by their Deputies 
 afl'embling there, may be reprefentatively the whole Body of the Kingdom, with 
 Power to execute that Authority refcrved for eftablifhing new Laws. 
 
 4. Since the occafion, and need of making fuch Laws, and expounding the 
 old ones, could not be conftant and perpetual ; therefore we may farther fuppofe, 
 for the avoiding of the Inconvenience of three {landing co-ordinate Powers, they 
 did not eftablifli thcfe EJlates to be conflantly cxiftent, but occafionally, as the 
 Caufes for whicli they were ordained fliould require. 
 
 y. Becaufe a Monarchy was intended, and therefore a Supremacy of Power 
 (as far as was neceflary) muft be refervcd in one, it was concluded, that thefe 
 Eftates fliould be ftiU Ajjembltes of his SubjeRs, and fwearing Allegiance to him ; 
 and that all new Laws, which by Agreement of thele Powers fhoukl be enaded, 
 jQiould run in his Name, and be called his Laws, and they all bound to obey him 
 in them, when thus ellablifli'd. ■ ' ' 
 
 6. And laflly, it being fuppofed, that he who tluis' was to govern by Law, 
 and for the Furtherance of whofc Government fuch new Laws were to be madej 
 fliould beft underftand when there was need of them ; and that the convening 
 and difl'olving of the Afl'cmbly of the Eflates, was a Power of great Tn/fi ; it 
 was put into the Prince's Hands, by Writ to Convocate, as alfo to Prorogue or D/f- 
 folvc fuch Meetings. But in procefs of Time, fomc Princes, not caring much to 
 have their Government look'd into, or to have any Power in being but their own, 
 taking Advantage of this Power of ailembling thefc Eftates, did, more fcldom 
 than need required, make ufe of it : Whereupon Provision was made, and a Time 
 fet by new Statutes, within which an Afl'cmbly of Parliament was to be held. 
 Now when you Iiave made thefc true Suppofitions in your Mind, you have the 
 very Model and Hiftory of this Monarchy j and we fliall cafily find what to an- 
 fwer to the Arguments before produced' on either fide. For firft, it is his Par- 
 liament ; becaufe an AJfenibly of his Subjeds convocatcd by his Writ to be his 
 Council, and to afTift him in making Laws for him to govern by j yet not his, 
 as other Courts are, as deriving tlieir whole Authority Vrom the King. So like- 
 wife his Power of afl'embling and diflblving them, proves him thus far above 
 them ; becaufe, though as to tlie Time of their .Meeting, it depends on him ; 
 yet their Power and Authority, quoad Sfecificationem, i. e. the Being, Kind, and 
 Exercife of it, is from the Original Conditution. For as to that, they expert 
 no Commiflion and Authority from him, but only to their Meeting, to proceed 
 
 lis to
 
 244 
 
 BibliothecaPolitica. 
 
 to aft ; but when met, they aft according to the Original Rights of their Con- 
 flitution ; and thofe Afts proceed from their conjunft Authority with, not from 
 their Subordination to the King in the Legiflative j as alfo in laying of Taxes, 
 (^c. on the People. 
 
 The Oath of AUegiance indeed binds them, as his Siibjefts, to obey him, go- 
 verning according to cftablilh'd Laws : But yet it fuppofes them to be built upon 
 the Foundations of his legal Government, and muft not be interpreted to un- 
 dermine and deftroy it. He is hereby acknowledged to be Supreme, fo far as 
 to rule them by Laws already made, or to be made, but not without them. 
 So that this is no Derogation to the Legiflative Power of Parliament : And I 
 believe of thefe things no unprejudic'd Man can make any queftion. And 
 herein confifls the accurate Judgment of the Contrivers of this Form, that they 
 have given fo much into tlie Hands of the Sovereign, as to make him a Monarch ; 
 yet have referved fo much in the Hands of the People, as to enable them to pre- 
 ferve their Laws and Liberties, 
 
 M. I confefs you have given a long and plaufible Account of the Original 
 and Form of our Government, though if it come to be examined, I doubt it 
 will prove a meer Romance, and not at all agreeable to true Hiliory, or Matter of 
 Faft : Since if we look to the eldefi T'imes, either after the Saxon or Norman 
 Conquerts, we fhall find the Power of our Kings to have been flill more abfo- 
 lute than they are now. And I think I could eafily trace the Steps by which 
 the People have attained to all the Power and Privileges they now enjoy ; which, 
 as I do not grudge the Nobility and People of this Nation, yet they ought to 
 exercife it with a due RefpeEl and Subordination to that Poixer from which they 
 were all at firft derived ; left if they fliould afcribe them to themfelves, the King 
 fhould be tempted to deftroy thofe great Privileges, and taking away the very 
 Being of Parliaments, to make Laws without them. 
 
 But to fhew you farther, that this Notion of an independant Power in the 
 rwo Houfes by the Original Conjlitution of the Government, is altogether inconfif- 
 tent with the King's Prerogative, appears from clear Matter of Faft, even as 
 you yourfelf have put it. For when Kings thought fit not to have their Power 
 controuled, you acknowledge they called Parliaments lefs frequently than ufual ; 
 and that thereupon there were divers Laws made, appointing certain times for 
 their Meeting ; from whence it appears, that before this the times of their 
 Meeting were wholly left to his Difcretion. Nay farther, that \h.c King's Pre- 
 rogative of aflembling them, or omitting it when he plcafes, cannot be limited 
 'by any Aft himfelf can make, appears from hence, that norvvithftanding all 
 thofe Laws that have been made for Annual and Triennial Parliaments, out 
 Kings have never thought themfelves obliged to call Parliaments pftner than 
 they faw their own Occafions, or the Neceffities of the People (which they 
 themfelves were fole Judges of) required. Nor did any Parliaments ever find 
 Fault with this, 'till that rebeUiom one in 1541, which Jiad the Confidence to pre- 
 fent to the King a Bill to be pafs'd, whereby it was not only enafted, that there 
 Ihould be a Parliament every third Year ; but that upon the King's omitting to 
 ilfue forth Writs of Summons, the Sheriffs, nay Conftables might fummon the 
 Freeholders, and proceed to Eleftion ,• and that the Lords might alfo meet with- 
 out any Writs from the King \ which was quite contrary to the Original Con- 
 ftitution, by which (as you yourfelf grant) there could be no Parliaments with- 
 out his Summons ; he being Principium, Caput & Finis Parltamenti. And if fo, it 
 feems wholly improbable, nay impofflble to me, that your Two Houfes fliould have, 
 by the Original Conjlitution, any Power of meeting or doing any thing without his 
 Majefty's Confent and Allowance : And we know that at this Day, the Speaker, in 
 the Name of the Houfe of Cotnmons, defires of the King, Liberty of Speech. And 
 King Henry VIII. and Queen Eltz,abeth did fometimes rebuke the Houfe of Com- 
 ?nons, and fcnt to them to dejiji, when they were about to pafs any Bill they did 
 not approve of, or to meddle with thofe things which did not belong to them : 
 Which plainly declares, that (contrary to your Aflertion) neither of the Two Houfes 
 have any Power to proceed upon any BufiiKfs> or to pafs any Bill which the 
 
 King 
 
 ^jik-
 
 Dialogue the Fifth. 24n 
 
 King difapproves of. And though I grant that rhey do not ask the King's 
 Leave tor the bringing in, or pafllng ot all Bills wiutrocvcr in cicJicr Houlc ; 
 or that the King can command theiu to give him what Monty, or pafs what 
 Bills he pleafcs ; yet this Privilege muft needs proceed from his Grant or Con- 
 ceffion : Whereby, though he hath difcharged them from an adtivc Obedience 
 to fuch Commands, yet hath he not thereby divefled himfelf of any of the ef- 
 {ential Rights of Sovcreignty,or at all difcharged them from a Paflive Obedience, 
 or Submiffion to his Power, fuppofing tiic worft that can happen, that he 
 ftiould take away what Ihare he pleafed of the Subjects Eflates without their 
 Confent ; or make liis own Edicts and Proclamations to be obfcr\cd for Laws : 
 Since tlie King's Authority is prior to all others, and that (as the Statutes of 
 Edward VI. and Queen El;z.abeth, which 1 have already quoted, exprelly de- 
 clare,) All Po-uxy, Atithoiity and ^urifditlwity Spiritual and Temporal, is derived 
 •wholly from t/x King : So that unlcfs "your LegiHative Power of Parliament be 
 fomewhat, that is, neitlier an Authority nor a JurifdicJion, it is by this very Body 
 acknowledged to be wholly derived from him : Nor have you yet anfwcred this 
 Argument, nor I believe can you do it. 
 
 F. As for your Hiflory which you promifc to give me, of the abfoliitc Power 
 of our firit Saxon and Norman Kings, I delirc you to defer the fpeaking of it 
 'cill another time, it being now late : Yet I do not doubt but to prove, that 
 what 1 aflert concerning the limited Poiier oi' our Kings, even by the Original 
 Gjnftitution of the Government, is no Romance, but true Hiflory. Nor are 
 the Reafons tliat )ou have ftow urged to the contrary prevalent enough with 
 me to alter my Opinion : For I think I am able to prove fomewhat more than 
 I but now alferted, viz.. that the IVittena Gemote, or Great Council, met conflantly 
 once a Year, or oftr.er, when Oecafion was, under the Saxon Kings, without 
 any Summons from them ; as when we come to the particular Hjftory of this 
 Matter, I fliall fliew you more at large. And alfo, that for the firft hundred 
 Years, after the Coming in of the Normans, the Great Council, or Parliament, 
 ufed to meet of courfe at the King's Court, at two or three of the great Feafls 
 of tJie Year, without any other Notice by Writ or Summons. The firll men- 
 tion we find of fuch Writs, being in King 'John's Magna Charta : But that when 
 thcfc Aflemblies became lefs frequent, by reafon of the King's difcoiitinuing of 
 them ; and becaufe of the Eafe the Nobility and People found, in being dif- 
 charged from fo conftant and chargeable an Attendance, they came to be fo 
 difcontinued at laft, that, as you yourfelf confcfs, there were fain to be exprefs 
 Laws made for their more frequent Meetings : And though the Power of fum- 
 jDttoning them, was ilill left wholly in the King ; and that he did very often 
 difpenfe witii tiie Calling them, according to the intent of thofe Statutes ; yet 
 dotii not this prove any legal Prerogative in him fo to do ; but that it was a 
 high Breach of Truff, and alfo of his Coronation Oath, when he thus omitted 
 to call them : Since our Kings were formerly fworn to keep, and obierve thofe 
 Laws, qucis vulgm elegerit, which the People either have, or fliould chuie, con- Rot. Claus. i. 
 ftruc it which way )ou will ; though 1 own in French it is in the Preterit, auera ^- -• "'• i°' 
 eleu, fljouJd have chofen. And as it is an old Maxim a Faclo ad Jus won valet coa-^'"' ^""•^• 
 fequcntia, fo it is no true way of Proof, to argue from an illegal Exercife, or 
 Abufe of Power, to a legal Right of Prerogati\c. And though the Parliament 
 ■might not always adually qucftion, or find Fault with their Kings for thus neg- 
 lecting to call them ; becaufe, perhaps tlu- Publick fullaincd no prefent Damage 
 firom it ; and tJiat they thereby efcaped the giving the King thole Taxes and 
 Aids which he ufually demanded of them at fuch times : Yet when the long 
 Forbearance or Omilfions of Parliaments became a general Grie\ ance, by rea- 
 fon of thofe Encroachments that the King and great Men often m.;dc upon the 
 People's Liberties in thofe Intervals ; and that the King look'd upon it as a piece 
 of his Prerogative to abufe this Truft as far as he pleafed : Then (and not 'till 
 -then) there was need of a, Law, that there fliould be a Pailiaiiiwiit every Year; 
 and that in cafe of any Failure of Summons on the King s part, the People 
 might proceed to Eleftion wiriiout it, which was not fo properly a new Law, 
 as the Reiloration of tlie old Conftitution i lincc anciently the People met the 
 
 ' King
 
 24^ 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA P-O L I T I C A. 
 
 King at thefe great Cotincih, at fiich fet Times of the Year, as I fhall prove, 
 
 when we come to the Hiftory of Matter of Faft, which I am not at all afraid to be 
 
 judged by. And then alfo, I fhall Ihew you, that tho' the King is now Przmt- 
 
 fium. Caput & Finis Parliamenti, (that is, the Parliament properly fo called) yet 
 
 that the great Council, or Aflembly of the Eftates, had, from the firft Inftitution 
 
 of the Government, a Power of aiTembling therafelves, in cafes of Neceflity, fuch 
 
 ^rf.Wainntr-^s are doubtful or difputed Titles to the Crown, or the Abfence of the Succef- 
 
 ham&'Mat. for j and then they have often met by their own inherent Authority; and have 
 
 Weftminft. either fettled the Succeflion of the Crown, as they thought good ; or elfe have 
 
 in the begin- fgcognizcd an Hereditary Right in the Abfence of the Heir; as when King 
 
 ^Kh, 'sRe'i'n Edward the firft was in his return from the Holy Land : Or elfe to depofe the 
 
 y. ' King's Jufticiary,when he abufed his Power, as in the Cafe of Willtam Longchanrf, 
 
 vtX^lnl Bifliop of Ely, who was left Vice-Roy by King Kiihard the firft, when he went 
 
 RaHoveden- into the Holy Land. 
 
 And though I own that fome high-fpirited, and yet well-beloved Princes, 
 might take upon them a Power of rebuking the Houfe of Commons when they med- 
 dled with Bufinefs they did not like : Yet this Submiffion proceeded from the 
 great Reverence they had for their Perfons, and Confidence they placed in 
 their Government. Since we find only thofe Princes that were wife and 
 fuccefsful in their Government, and fo became the Darlings of their People, 
 fuch as Queen Elizabeth and King Edward the Third, (for as for King Henry 
 the Eighth, I remember no Inftance of it) who durft venture to aft thus. As 
 for the defire of Freedom of Speech, it is but a Compliment ; for how can the 
 Grievances of the Kingdom be redrefled without fpeaking freely of them ? And 
 if one great End of Parliament was to redrefs thefe Grievances, it were altoge- 
 ther in vain for them to attempt any thing in this kind, if the King could Brow- 
 beat them from it, whenever he pleafed. But BraEion doth not only tell us. Rex 
 habet fuperiorem. Legem, & Curiam fuam Baronum, &c. in the place I have already 
 cited : But the old Book, called T'he Mirrhur of Jufiices, alfo teaches us the fame 
 Leflbn in his fecond Seftion, where, fpeaking of the King's Power, he tells us, 
 T'hat though the King can have no Peer in the Land, yet neverthelefs, if by his own Wrong 
 he offends againfi any of his People, none of thofe that judge for him can be both fudge 
 and Party. It is therefore agreeable to Right, that the King fhould have Com- 
 panions to hear and determine in Parliament, all Writs and Complaints con- 
 cerning the Wrongs of the King, Queen, and their Children ,• and of them efpe- 
 cially whofe Wrongs could not otherwife have common Right. Thefe Comp»- 
 nions are therefore called Counts, after the Latin Comites, &c. Nor can I thick 
 that any King would have erefted a Court to have redrefled the Wrongs done 
 by himfelf, or his Family, whether he would or not. But as for your main 
 Argument, from the Words of the Statutes of King Edward VL and Queen 
 Eliz-abeth, T'hat all Authority and jfurifdiSiion, as well Spiritual as Temporal, is df 
 rived from the King ; I do own it true ; that is, if meant of all derivative Autho- 
 rity, fuch as that of all inferior Courts, as well Civil as Ecclefiaftical. For I 
 fuppofe you yourfelf will not afErm, that the Ecclefiaftical Authority of Bifhops, 
 as to their Right of meeting in publick Synods or Councils, is derived from 
 the Crown. But the Truth is, the Senfe of this Statute is no more, than th^t 
 all fuch Jurifdiftion is immediately derived from the King, thougfi originally 
 from the People, (which Fortefcue calls Potefiatem a Populo effluxiam), and by them 
 intrufted with him, as the Supreme Magilirate, to diftribute it to all inferior 
 Courts, which yet he cannot at this Day create anew without an Aft of Parlia- 
 ment : So that this will not extend to the whole Aflembly of the Eftates them- 
 felves ; fince I doubt not but to prove, by undeniable Teftimony, that that Cwt- 
 (litution is as anticnt as tlie Englijh Nation itfelf. 
 
 M. I fee you have a mind to wreft the true Senfe of this Statute by a forced 
 Interpretation ; but I hope at our next Meeting to prove to you, that our firft 
 Saxon and Norinan Kings were abfoliite Monarchs ; and that not only all the Li- 
 berties and Privileges we enjoy, but alfo our Civil Properties were wholly derived 
 from them : And if fo, it will alfo neceflarily follow, that all DifJerence and 
 
 Diftiuc-
 
 Dialogue the Fifth, J a i M \^ 
 
 DiRinftion in Honour or Power, by which the Bifliops and Temporal Lords 
 can claim to fit in Parliament, is wholly derived from thofe'Kirws. For as to 
 the Commons, I need not go fo high for their Original ■■, fince \t is tire Opi- 
 nion of'our beft Antiquaries ; and I think the learned Dr. Braij hath fufficiendy 
 proved it againft Mr. ?etyt, that they are no cmtienter than the latttr End of 
 Henry l\\t Third's, or periiaps the i8th of Edu-ard the Firft's Reign. Kor do 
 the Authors you have quoted for the independant Authority of Parliaments, (vi^. 
 BraSlon and the Mirmir) mention any other than the Curia Baromm, or that of 
 Earls and Barons, as the Author of the Mhrour hath worded it ; by which can 
 be meant no other than the Houfe of Lords : For as to that of the Cottmonsy 
 had they been then in being, or had they had any thing to do in the Govern- 
 ment, it is not likely thefe antient Authors, as well as our Afts of Parliament 
 of thofe Times, would have omitted parricuhrly to mention them. So that 
 the higlier I go, and the more I look on the Hiftory of our antient Er?glijh Kings, 
 the more abfolute I find their Power, and the lefs dependant upon the People. 
 Therefore I have very great reafon to believe, that our firft Kings were abfo- 
 folute Monarchs, not only by the Original Conftitution of Parliaments, but al- 
 fo that our very Liberties and Properties proceeded at firft from their meer 
 Grace and Favour. ■»?..; ■.. 
 
 F. I know you have aflerted the fame things more than once : All the Diffi- 
 culty lies in the Proof. And therefore I would not have you be too pofitive, 
 or rely too much upon the Concifenefs or Silence of the antient monkifli Wri- 
 ters of thofe firft Times. For fince, as I own, they have neyer given us any 
 exaft Account of our antient Civil Government, nor yet of the JHiftory of their 
 own Times ; we are forced, for the moft parr, to pick out the Truth from 
 other Circumftances, or fuch PafTages as we can meet withal in antient Laws 
 and Cuftoms ; rtay, fometimes from thofe of their Neighbours, who lived under 
 rlie fame kind of Government and Laws with our Saxon Anceftors, as proceed- 
 ing from one common Stock or Original ,• as I fliall fhew you before we have 
 done. But fince we are already in PofTeflion of our antient Laws and Liberties 
 and of a Right to Parliaments once every Year, or oftner if need be, by two 
 antient Statutes yet in force, at fartheft oirce every tiuee Years, by a late Aft 
 of Parliament, it ought to be your Task to prove to me the abfolute Power 
 of our firft Englijh Monarchs ,• and by what Steps and Degrees they came to 
 part with their Power, and td be thus limited as we now find them j and 
 when you can Ihew me this, I do aflure you I will come over to your 
 Opinion. 
 
 M. I fhall obferve the Method you prefcribe. And therefore, to begin with* 
 the firft Entrance of the Englijh Saxons into this Ifland ; I fuppofe you are not 
 ignorant of fo 'common a Piece of Hiftory, that all the Title they had to this 
 llland was by the Sv:ord or Conquefl of tiieir firft Princes or Generals, who bein" 
 fcnt by Lot, together with the Armies that followed them out of their own 
 Country, bccaufe it was too narrow or barren to fuftain fuch great Multitudes, 
 they came over hither to fcuk new Dw^ellings. Now whether thefe Princes 
 were made Kings before they came over, or that they made themfelvcs fo im- 
 mediately after their Conqueft, will be all one ; fince if we confider them as Mi- 
 litary Captains or Leaders of Armies, their Power was abfolute, as that of all 
 Generals e\er was, and muft be by the ncceflary Laws of Military Difcipline. 
 If we look upon them as Kings or Princes (as it is very likely they were alfo 
 before they came over) fince riicy were certainly of the Blood Royal i all of them 
 deriving their Pedegrce from Woden their God, as well as firft King; and being 
 appointed Kings by their Fathers, or other near Relations, over thofe Parties 
 or Colonies they were to lead out and cortimand, tiierc is no Groi.nd to be- 
 lieve they owed their Titles to the Votes or Suffrages of their Followers. 
 But after they had fettled a Heptarchy, or Seven Kingdoms, in this part of 
 Britain called England, we find them governing, and leading their People like ab- 
 folute Kings and Monarchs Over their little Principalities : And (ince each King- 
 dom was conquered from the Britam under their Conduft, according to the 
 
 Laws
 
 248 BiBLIOTHECA Po X TT I C A. 
 
 Laws of Nations, and Right of Conquefl, all the Lands of each Kingdom be- 
 longed to the Conquerors ; who, though they cantoned them out into Shares to 
 their Captains and Soldiers, according to each Man's Valour or Defert, yet 
 did this wholly proceed from their Bounty and Favour, who might have kept 
 the Whole to themfelves, if they had pleafed. And hence it is, that not only 
 fince the Nonnan Conqueft, but alfo long before, all the Lands of England were 
 holden of the King, as the Supreme Lord : And if fo, I fuppofe you will not 
 deny, but that according to your own Principle, all our other Privileges 
 and Liberties mufl have been derived from him ; fince you have already af- 
 ferted, that whoever is Lord of the Sotl of a Countrj', he is fo alfo over the 
 Perfons of the People. 
 
 F. Before you proceed any farther, I pray give me leave to anfwer what 
 
 you have now faid, I doubt with greater Shew and Appearance of Truth, 
 
 than the Matter will juftly bear when well canvafled. But fince I grant our 
 
 earlieft Writers are very Ihort, in giving us the true Form, or Original Confti- 
 
 tutions of our antient Saxon Government, it is neceiTary we look into the Roman 
 
 Authors, who treat of the Laws and Cuftoms of the antient Gothic Nations ; a 
 
 Sthp of whom the Germans, as well as our antient Englijh Saxons, certainly werej 
 
 and in thofe Authors you will find, that they, as well as other Nations of the 
 
 VideGrofii Qpthk Ongmai, were never governed by abfolute Monarchs ^ but by Kings or 
 
 ^'nl^i^t '" Princes, limited by the Laws and Common-Councils of their own Nations ; 
 
 Gothkam. ^s wcte all thofe that defcended from this Gothic Original. 
 
 C<rf. 4. In the firfl place tlierefore, fee what Tacitm fays, in his Book De Moribui Ger- 
 
 manorum, who fufficiently proves, that it was a fundamental Conftitution of all the 
 German Nations, to order all publick Afiairs in General Councils or Aflemblies of 
 the whole People. Wherefore the fame Author there tells us : De minonl/m rehm 
 Princifes confultant, de majoribm Omnes ; ita tamen, ut ea qutque, quorum penes Plebem 
 arbitrium efi, apud Principes pratraEientur. As alfo that in this Council they try'd 
 great Offenders for Capital Crimes. Licet apud Conjtltum accufare qucque & difcri- 
 men capitis intendere. Nor was the Power and Right of their Kings Abiolute or 
 Arbitrary, but Limited and Eledive, as appears by thefe Paflages in the fame 
 Id, cap. 12. Author : Reges ex Nobilitate, Duces ex virtutefumunt. Nee Rugibus infiuita, aut libera 
 ^"Z- 7- poteftas, &c. And fpeaking of the manner of their holding thefe publick Councils, 
 Cap. 1 1. after Silence commanded by the Priefts : Mox Rex (faith he) vel Princeps, prout 
 atcii cuique, prout mbilitai, prout deem beUorum, prout facundia ejl, audiumur, authori- 
 tate fuadendi magis quam jubendi poteflate. Si difplicuit fentemia, fremitu afpemantur ; 
 tag. 5j;^ jj^ placuit, frameas concutiunt. Honor atifjimum ajjenfm genm eft armis laudari. So that 
 •you may here fee their Kings had no Negative Votes in their Councils, w^idtever 
 they might have afterwards among the Englijb Saxons j and that th-^y did not fb 
 much as prefide in them, but the Priells, you may fee in the fame place : Stlen- 
 tium per Sacerdotes, quibm tum coercendi jm eft, imperatum. And therefore it is alto- 
 gether unlikely, that they fhould have had that Abfolute Power, you fancy, over 
 the Lives and Fortunes of the People ; fince you plainly fee, that they could nei- 
 ther make Peace nor War, accufe or condemn any Man, nor raife Taxes, with- 
 out the Approbation or Confent of thofe Councils, 
 
 Now fince all the EngUJh Saxon Nations were from Germany, I leave it to the 
 Judgment of yourfelf, or any indifferent Perfon, to confider, whether a People fo 
 free as this, who came over hither not as Subjects, but only as Volunteers under 
 fo many Captains or Generals, who went out meerly to feck new Habitations, 
 Jhould be fo fond of a Government they never knew at home, as to give thefe 
 Captains (whom they made their Kings) an Abfolute Defpotick Power over their 
 Lives and Eflates, which they never could endure in their own Country. But 
 that they were not then Kings, I thus prove : Firftof all, no antient Writer that 
 I know of ever mentioned any fuch thing, but rather the contrary ; for who will 
 believe, that before it could be known what the Succefs would be, they fliould 
 make mcer Soldiers of Fortune, or Leaders of fome Bands of Adventurers, Kings, 
 before the Country they were to govern was conquered, or tjiat they knew whe- 
 ther
 
 Dialogue the Fifth, I49 
 
 thcr ever they {hoiild arrive there or not ? And as for the two firfl of tliefe Prin- 
 ces that came over, vtz.. Hengtfl and Horfa, our Hiftorics make thcin Brothers 
 with joint Command over thofe .T.z.voH.r, who were fent hither as Auxiliaries to the 
 Britahiiy againft the piSis ; nor is Hetigifl ever called King, or the Time of his 
 Reign reckoiied, till near eight Years after his coming over hither, viz.. after the ''''''• -P"'/- 
 Death of Vortimer, znd the driving of P'brtiger into IVaks : And therefore I can '■/j""' ■^■"'• 
 give no account how thefe Princes fhould become Kings, but by the Confent or ^'f^'"' ""' 
 Eleftion of their Soldiers or Followers. For, as for themfelves to create thcm- 
 felves Kings, without the Confent of their Army or People, is altogether impro- 
 bable and abfurd, and not at all to be relied on upon your bare Word ; for other 
 Authority you yet give me none. But for the main part of your Aflertion, that 
 the firft Sii'xoii Kings were Abfolute Monarclis, becaufe all the Land was con- 
 quered for them, and to their Ufe, and that all Land was held of them, is a'to- 
 gethcr as precarious, our Hiftories being herein wholly filent. But tho' we do 
 not certainly know wliich way they divided their Conqueft to their Followers, 
 fince Authors mention nothing of it ; yet this I think I may pofitively aflerr, that 
 whatever was done in this kind by the firft Si:xo>i Kings, was not as abfolute Pro- 
 prietors of the whole Country, but aspublick Truftces, for thofc over wliom they 
 were fent : For fince (as I have already obferved) thefe People were utterly 
 Strangers to a Defpotick Governmcot at home, it is altogether unlikely, that 
 their Followers fhould confer upon them an Abfolute and Unlimited Power abroad, 
 which they were never ufed to before : And therefore they could not be Kings by 
 Right of Conqueft over the Eilates or Perfons ot thofe who were Fellow-Conque- 
 rors with them, and fet them up for what they v^-ere ; nor yet over the Britain!, 
 fince they were either totally driven out into Wales or Conmall, or clfe thofe few 
 that were left, being reduced to a State of Servitude, were by degrees incorpo- 
 rated with the Saxons. 
 
 And tho', for want of Antient Hiftories, as well as Letters, among fo rude and bar- 
 barous a People as thefe were ^t firft, we have no Records upon what exprefs Con- 
 ditions thefe Captains were by them e'efted to be their Kings; yet thus much we 
 may find out by tliofe few Remains we have left us in JBede and other antient Hif- 
 torians, that they had all of them tiie fame kind of Government and Laws, with 
 very little difference from each other : Since we find , in all the feveral King- 
 doms of the Heptarchy, there were the fame kind of Wtttena Gemots^ or Great 
 Councils, by whom the Kings were elcdtd, a.'id. without whofe Advice and 
 Confent they could do nothing of moment, either in Peace or War, as any c •; 
 that will but read thofe Laws that are Icic us, collefted by Mr. Lambard and Sir 
 H. Spdman, in his Saxon Councils, may eafily oblerve. 
 
 M. I own indeed, that our Saxon Anceftors, when they had conquered this B.A.t. p. ? 
 Kingdom, brouglit in their Saxon Laws along with them ; but it doth rot from 
 thence follow, that they brought their Popular Government in with Ui'^vc. ;oo : 
 And thofe Aflembli'^s 7'acitm mentions, might be Councils of the German People 
 in general, not of the Saxons, which Name is not to be found in all that A thor. 
 But what if it be granted, that thofe People, which were afterwards called Saxons, 
 were governed by fuch Councils, was not tliis Government a Democracy .'• And 
 the People fo far from having a Share in thefe Councils, that they only hud \'oiccs 
 in them. And if any had any more Power here than otners, they were the Priefts, 
 who were a fort of Chair-men in them, commanding Silence, and who had a coer- 
 cive Power, as Tacitus fays. In thefe Governments, no Man can doubt of the 
 Suffrages of the People ; but under fuch as you mention, you would, I think, 
 fcarce be contented to live, where the Priefts bear fo much fway ; where there 
 were no Cities or great Towns, but only fcattered Houfes, and Habitations by 
 Rivers, Fields, and Woods, made of Dirt or Ck'y, Arms of Trees and Stubble ; 
 where there was no Literature, efpccially among the common People, nor fcarce 
 Civility i where there was no Clpathing, but with Garments made of Bcafts 
 Skins ; no Food, but Milk,^ Pulfe^and Flefh, without Art or Cookery; where 
 there was no Propriety in Lands, no Money, no Work for Lawyers, as ygu will 
 find, if you read Tacitfn, and the 6th Book of Cafar's Commentaries. 
 
 Kk And
 
 2^0 BiBLIOTHECA Po LI TIC A. 
 
 And as for what you fay concerning the Beginning of the Saxon Kingdoms in 
 B.P.P- §-i9. this Ilknd ; to this I reply, that Hengiji and Horja, and thofc other Leaders, who 
 ao- brought the Saxons into England, were all ot them of the Royal Line of the Saxom^ 
 
 Mtt.Wejim. as appears by all our Hiilorians ; and (o it not Kings, yet well able to fubfift. 
 ad an. 449- And it was not the manner of thofe Countries, to thruft out their Supernume- 
 raries by force, but to draw them out regularly by Lot, at fuch a Rate and Pro- 
 portion, and to give them Generals and Officers of great Birth and Degree. 
 
 Nor is it probable, if they had made Articles with their Followers, that thefe 
 Princes fhould have had fuch Abfolute Authority, as they had, over the Lives and 
 Fortunes of their Subjeds, in the more early Times, almoit all the Privileges of 
 the Englijh Nation being granted long fince that time i nay, moft of them fince 
 the Conqueft ; yea, fince the Barons Wars. But as for what you fay concerning 
 the Gothick or Vandal Kingdoms, fince they relate nothing to our Government, I 
 need not fay any thing to them ; nor doth it follow, that if their Kings were li- 
 mited, or but upon condition, that ours muft be fo too. 
 
 Vid. Verffe- F. I fee you w6uld fain evade the Authority of Tacitm, concerniiig the People's 
 
 gM. Reftitu- having any fliare of the Government amongft the Saxons, becaufe, forfoorh, that 
 
 tion of 'decay- Nation is not particularly nam'd in his Hiftory : But tho' the Saxons are not par- 
 
 edhitelh-^^ ticularly nam'd by TacitMi, yet the Angli are there mentioned among thofe German 
 
 gettce, p. -5. ^^j.JQj^5^ ^j^Q worfhip'd their common Goddefs Hertha, which that Author in-* 
 
 terprets to be T'erra, the Earth ; and you very well know, that from thefe Angli, 
 
 Tacit, de qj Angles, xhtEKgliJh Nation as well as Name is derived. But tho' T'aatus, who 
 
 Mor. Germ, y^^^^ ubout the Beginning of the Emperor 'Trajan's Reign, names not the Saxons ; 
 
 Vid. Ftcl. in yet Ptolomy, who writ within 40 Years after, exprefly mentions them, placing their 
 
 Tab. 4. Ell- Country not far North of the River Alhis, and near the Place where all agree the 
 
 '^"P" Angli were feated ; fo that they were either all one and the fame Nation, or very 
 
 little different. But Ethelvod Quaftor, one of our antienteft Englijh SaxonHiiionzns, 
 
 in his firft Book, makes this Nation oi the Saxons of a far wider Extent, and that 
 
 it reached from the River Rhine all along the Ssa-Coaft up to Doma, now called 
 
 Demnark. 
 
 But fince I fee you cannot well tell how to evade this Teflimony of Tacitm, 
 but by affirming, that the Government in Germany \va.s a Democracy ; and, that the 
 People had the only Sway in it, is a great Miftake, fince he exprefly mentions 
 their Kings and Princes, and there only fpeaks of the manner of tranfadting all 
 publick Affairs, in which, it is true, the People (as it is very well known by oat 
 antient Hiftories) had formerly a greater Share than now ; yet doth he not there- 
 by exclude their Princes and Nobility from having alio their Shares in it. And 
 as for wliat follows in Tacitm, of the Royal Power, auEloritate fuadendi, ?nagis qtiarn 
 '• jubendi foteflate ; I fuppofe you cannot deny, but that Privilege yet remains to uSj 
 
 lince the King cannot command the Parliament to make what Laws, or %i\x him 
 what Money he pleafeth : And therefore that doth not make ic z Democracy, much 
 lefs the Priefls prefiding in their Aflemblies, which is no more to be wondcr'4, 
 at, than that the Bi&ops have ftill Votes, and their Share of Legiflature jf^ 
 the Houfe of Peers ; or that a Bilhop, when Chancellor or Keeper, fhould 
 be Speaker in the Houfe of Peers. Or fuppofing that their Priefts had more 
 Power among them, than the Chriftian Clergy had after they were convertedj 
 doth it therefore follow, that it was not the fame Government, or that it mufl 
 therefore be fo intolerable, that I would not have been wiiliiig to have lived 
 under it ? Since, I muft tell you, I am not againft Civil Offices, thouglit 
 exercifed by Clergy-tnen, as far as the JBufinefs of their Fonftion, and the Ca-^ 
 nons of the Church will permit. As for the reft which you objed concerning 
 the barbarous living of the antient Germans, it either makes noching to the 
 matter in hand, or elfe againft you ; fince it proves plainly, that Abfolute 
 Monarchy was not the firft Government «%ong all Nations, as you fup- 
 pofe. Nor doth it therefore follow, that becaufe thefe People were rude and 
 barbarous, therefore they had not the Wit to prefer Abfolute Monarchy be- 
 fore
 
 Dialogue the Fifth, t^i 
 
 fore all other Governments, fince'the Romans (who fure were a civiliz'd People) 
 did likewife as much abhor ir. 
 
 But as for what you fay againft Hengifl, and thofe other Leaders, who 
 brought the Saxons into Britain, being elected Kings by their Followers, is 
 nothing but meer Guefs and Conjefture. For that they were not Kings at 
 home, you your fclf grant ; and whether they were able well to fubfift at 
 home, or not, is nothing to the purpofe. It is plain they thought they could 
 mend their Condition, or elfe would never have left their Country. And tho' 
 it be granted, that Hengifl, with his Followers, came not over as Enemies, 
 but Auxiliaries to the Britains ; yet it is not therefore more likely, that they 
 were chofen by the King of their own Nation, than that their own Follow- 
 ers ftiould afterwards eleft them, efpecially wlien the one is agreeable to our 
 own Hiflorians, and the other not : For Matthem Florilegus tells us, that Hor- 
 fm being flain, the Saxons Fratrem fuum Hengifimn in regnum Cantia fublijr.a- > 
 
 verunt ; that is, they elefted or advanced him to be King, if I underftand 
 any thing by that VV'ord : And this agrees with the Polkhronicon of Rannlph 
 H'gden, who places the Beginning of Hengifi's Reign immediately after the _i 
 
 Death of his Brother Horfus, viz,. Anno Dom. 465. eight Years after the com- : 
 
 ing of the Saxons into Britain. And that the reft of the Saxons, who came 
 hither after, had no better Title than Eleftion, I could farther prove, if 
 the Time would give me leave : For they that will read the antient Ac- 
 counts of the Saxon Nation, and what Government they had among them, 
 long after the Time of Cajar and "Tacitus, will find that it was impoflible that 
 they fliould be thus created Kings before they came over ; fince at that 
 time they had no fuch things as conftant Kings amongft them : For in 
 thofe Times it was rather an Anftocracy than a Monarchy, as Johannes Po- 
 marius in his Saxon Chronicle fheweth us, for which I refer you to Verftegan, 
 where this Paflage is made ufc of at large. Verflegan, p« 68. So that if this 
 were the Government of the Saxons as low as the Time of Charles the Great, 
 I durft leave it to any indifferent Perfon to judge, whether the firft Saxon 
 Kings in this Ifland were made fo by their own Princes before they came 
 over, or were chofen by their Followers ; fince no Hiflorians mention the 
 former, tho' all of them agree of the latter : They commonly ufing this 
 Phrafe, Regent fecerunt, or elegertmt. And that all the firft Kings of the Hep- Vld. Earl of 
 tarchy were Elcftive, nothing is more plain ; fince the Great Council of the f'^'^^^'^ ^ 
 Nobility and People did not only eleft them, but often depofe them too, when ^^l General 
 they grew intolerable, through Tyranny or Mifgovernment ; as may appear Quarter Sef- 
 by the Example of Sigibert, King of the JVefl-Saxons, and divers others I could fions at Lei- 
 inftance in, who were expelled this Kingdom (a.s Brompton and other antient '^ '/'''■• ''*9°- 
 Chronicles tell us) by the unanimous Confent and Deliberation of the Nobility ^"^^gj there- 
 and People. ' Many like Inftances I could give you in the other Kingdoms ot the (.p^n^ 
 Heptarchy, but that it would be too tedious. Vide Bromp- 
 
 ton. Cf.ron, 
 
 Nor doth your Reafon fignify any thing, that it is not probable that the firft qI'^]]°'j^ 
 Princes were made Kings upon condition, becaufe of the abfolure Aucho- j^/^;/,"^^^ 
 rity they had over the Lives and Fortunes of their Subjeds, fince it is alto- f. 157. 
 gcther falfc in Matter of Faft ; none of the Saxon Kings being able alone to 
 make Laws, or impofe Taxes upon their People, without their Confents in 
 their Great Councils, much lefs to make War without it : For then the War, 
 though begun by the King alone, muft have fignified little in an Age, when there 
 were no Standing Armies, nor Money in the Prince's Power to pay them, there 
 being then but little Coin of any fort, and their Revenues being moftly paid 
 in Viftuals. 
 
 M. Pray, Sir, give me leave to interrupt you a little. I own indeed, 
 that the particular Laws and Conftitutions of each of the Kingdoms of the 
 Heptarchy arc- not particularly known ; and perhaps fome of their Kings might 
 be Lledtivc, and confequently liable to be depofed by their People, whether 
 by Right or Wrong, I will not now difpute : But if wc confider the State 
 
 Kk a oi
 
 2CZ BiBLIOTHECA Po LI TIC A. 
 
 of things, after thefe fevcn Kingdoms became reduced into one, you vviij 
 find them much altered j and as Egbert, our foft J^xow Monarch, reduced all 
 thofe Kingdoms into one, fo it is to be fuppofed, that having no Right to 
 them but by Conqueft, and the SubmifHon of their Kings, when overcome in 
 Battle, both he *and his Succefibrs muft needs have become far more abfo- 
 lute than they were before ; and if they were Ele^'^e before- that time, did 
 now certainly become Hereditary Monarchs, the Crown defcending from Fa- 
 ther to Son for divers Defcents : And fo confcquently thefe Princes granted divers 
 Privileges and Liberties to the People of thofe Kingdoms they conquered. And 
 that they were no other than the free Grants or Conceffions of our former 
 Kings, upon Petition or Requeft of the People, and accepted by the Clergy, 
 Nobility, and People of the Kingdom, in their Great Councils. For tlas I 
 need go no fartiier than the Coronation Oath taken by the Kings of EiigLmdy 
 when the Archbifhop of Canterbury asks the King : Sir, luiH you gram and keep, 
 and by yvur Oath confirm to the Peofk oj England, the Laws and Cufloms granted 
 to them by tlx antient Kings of England your Predecejfors ; and namely, the Laws ar.d 
 Cujloms and Liberties granted to the Clergy arid People by the Glorious King Edward 
 your Predecejfor I 
 
 From whence we may obferve, that all the Bifliops, Earls, Barons, and Peo- 
 ple there prefent, do own and confefs, that their moil antient Laws, Cuf* 
 toms, and Liberties, were granted to them by Edward the Confejfor, and other 
 antient Kings. 
 
 F. I doubt you will prove as much out in the Account you give me o£ 
 our Kings Power, after the fcven Kingdoms were reduced into one, as you 
 were before. For though I grant, that the Title of the I-Vejl-Saxon Kings 
 over all the refl proceeded from Conqueft, and the Submiflion of the Kings and 
 People they conquered ; yet were they not all adually reduced into one 
 Kingdom or Monarchy till a good while after ; the Kings of Mercia, and of 
 the Eajl Angles, continuing in being till the coming in of the Danes, as you 
 will find by our Saxon Annals. And though 'tis true, the IVefl-Saxon Kings 
 made thofe Princes tributary to them j yet that they did nor become more ab- 
 folute thereby, appears from the Teftimony of our antient Hillories ; fince we 
 find them tranfafting all Affairs in their H^'ittena Gemots, or Great Councils, as 
 well after their Conqueft, as they did before. And tliercfore we find, in an old 
 
 j/;,;_, *_,57. Regifter of St. Leonard's Abby in Tork (cited in the Monaftkon Anglicanuntt 
 put out by Mr. Dugdale) this memorable Paflage : Memorandum quod anno Do- 
 mini 800, Egbertus, Rex totius Britannia, in Parliamento apud PVintoniam mutavit 
 mmen Regni (de confenfu Populi fui) & jujjit illud de catero vocari Angliam. And 
 
 c;>. 6. Will, of Malmsbury, that antient and exad Hiftorian, fays exprefly of this King 
 
 Egbert, Lib. 11. Has omnes Regnorum varietates Egbertus animi magnitudine compef- 
 cuit, C7 eh uni quadrans Imperio ad uniforme Dominium, fervans umcuique proprias 
 Leges, -vocavit Angliam. It is therefore moft evident, that upon the Submiflion 
 of thofe Kingdoms he conquered, he promifed and agreed to govern them ac- 
 cording to their antient Laws ; and hence we find the Menian Laws called 
 Merchen Lage, to have continued in force long after that Kingdom was united to 
 that of the IVefi-Saxons. 
 
 Nor will your Inference from the Coronation-Oath prove of any greater 
 moment : For tho' it be therein recited, that divers of the Laws, Liberties, &c. 
 we now enjoy, were granted by King Edward the Confeffor, and other Kings ; 
 yet muft it not be fo underftood, as if the People of England had no Laws 
 or Civil Rights before iiis Time ; for that were to contradift plain Matter 
 of Fad, and the Hiltories themfelves I have already cited. But why they were 
 called his Laws, and his Cufloms, William of Malmsbury hatli very well ob- 
 ferved, when fpeaking of the good Laws made by antient Kings, and efpe- 
 cially by King Ethelred, which were confirm'd by King Cnute, he hath this 
 remarkable Paflage : In quarum cujlodiam etiam tunc temporis bonanmi, fub ;;ch 
 mine Regis Edwardi juratur, non quod ilk ftatueiit, fed quod obfervaverit. The 
 
 like
 
 w 
 
 Dialogue the Fifth. 25*5 
 
 like I may fay for the Laws of divers odicr Saxon Kings ; wliich though they go un- 
 der their Names, yet were made by the Aflfent of the Great Council of the King- 
 dom, as by the Titles of the Laws rhemfelvcs in Mr. LambariCs and Sir H. S^ehnans 
 Colleftion of them, you may be fatisfied if you pleafe. 
 
 But for a taile, pray fee the Laws of King Alfred ; which, though faid to be 
 made by him (as indeed it is true, he compiled them out of divers other Laws, 
 formerly in force in the other Kingdoms of the Heptarchy:) Yet that they were 
 alfo alTcntcd to by the JVittena Gemots, pray fee the Conclufion of thcfc Laws in 
 Sir H. Spebmn. The Words arc remarkable ; Ego Mlfredm, U^ejh-Saxomm Rex, 
 cfiertdi hue omuibr.i Sapietttibm 7i:e!S, & dixenm placet ea cuflodiri. So that the cal- 
 ling them the Laws of King Alfred, or King Edzcard, cloth no more prove that 
 they alone made them, than our now citing fuch orfuch a Statute of King /^% 8. 
 or King Charles L do therefore fuppofe, that thofe Kings made Laws by their own 
 Sole Authority ; fuch Phrafes among ancient Hiftorians, as well as ourfelves at this 
 Day, being ufed only for Brevity fake, and fignify no more than their Confirmation 
 of them. 
 
 M I fliall not deny, but that our ancient Euglijl Kings did for the moft part 
 make no Laws with.out the Confent of their Great Council : Yet I think I can give 
 you an unanfwerablc Argument to prove, that the very Being andConflitution of 
 Parliaments, or Great Councils, did in the beginning wholly proceed from the 
 Grace and Favour of fome of our ancient Kings,- though to which of them to 
 afcribe it, is not eafy to determine. But if we may believe your own Author the 
 Miryour, he tells us almoft at the very beginning ; T'hat King Alfred, for the good State 
 vf the Rcahn , catifed to affembk the Counts or Peers ; and then ordained for a perpetual 
 Cti/iorn, that ttviie in the Year, or oftncr, for Btcfinefs in time of Peace, they Jhonld afferrt- 
 bk at London to treat vf the Government of the People of Gcd, and Inw Folks Jlmtld keep 
 Thcmfthes from Offence f, and live in Quiet, and (hould receive Right by ce-rtain Ufiges and 
 judgments- And according to this Ejiahlifhment ixere made divers Ordinances by feveral 
 Kings, until tlx prefent Kmg (viz.) Edw. ift. 
 
 But to come to the Proof of what I affirm, it is certain, that in thofe firft Times 
 the Saxon Kings conferred all the Bifhopricks, and principal Abbeys in England, 
 per Annulum & Baculum, as Ingulf and Malmsbury exprefly tell us. And as for the 
 Earls or Aldermen of Counties, as alfo the Great "Thanes, Judges or Noblemen 
 of the Kingdom , they were only Offices held for Life in thofe Times , which 
 the King might difcharge them of at hisPleafurc : And hence we find the Titles 
 of Aldermanm Regis, and Thanm Regis, fo trequently to occur in our ancient Hif- 
 tories and Charters : Thofe compreiiended under the general Name of IVites, 
 being the only conftituent Parts of the Great Council of the Kingdom in 
 thofe Times ; lor as concerning thofe we now call the Convnnns of England, we 
 do not fo much as find the leaft mention of them, or any Reprefentatives for 
 them, till the latter end of the Reign of King//f«J7 thejd. or the middle of Ed- 
 uard the i ft. as I think Dr. Brady hath learnedly and fully proved in his laft Edi- 
 tion of his Anfwcr to Mr. Pctyt's Trcatife of the Rights of the Commons of Eng- 
 land AJferted. Now if it plainly appears, that every Part or Member of the Par- 
 liament did anciently receive their very Being firom the mecr Grace and Con- 
 ceffion of our ancient Monarchs ; can you, or any rcafonable Man , allert with 
 any colour of Truth, that our Great Councils, or Parliaments, could be a Parr 
 of the Fundamental Conftirution, and as ancient as the Government itfelf ? And 
 if Parliaments did tlius receive all that Authority they now cxercife from the 
 King's Bounty, can any Man doubt whether all the Rights and Privileges we now 
 enjoy, are to be afcribcd to any other Original > For if the very Keepers (as you 
 will have it) of thefe Liberties, did all proceed from the King, then certainly the 
 things to be kept muft do fo too ; and when you can anfwcr this Argument I have 
 now brought, I tliink I may fafcly proraife you to be your Proftlitc, and to come 
 over to your Opinion.
 
 25*4 BiBLiOTHfecA Politic A. 
 
 At I confefs, this is the moft plaufible Argument you have hitherto urged ; 
 and if I can't anfwer it, I do likewife promife you to become your Convert. But 
 though , granting that Parliaments might have received their Being from the Fa- 
 vours of our Kings , I might deny your Confequence, that therefore it wall fol- 
 low that all the Rights and Liberties of the Subjefts of England muft do fo too ; 
 fince they might very well have referved to themfelves both Hereditary Proper- 
 ties, as alfo a Right to their Lives, Liberties and Eftates, which the King Ihould 
 not take from them without juft Caufe, and legal Trials which when they found 
 invaded by fucceeding Princes, they might then (and not till then) find conflant 
 Great Councils and Parliaments to be necefl'ar)^ for that end, and as the firmeft 
 Bulwark againft the Tyranny of fucceeding Princes : But the Author of the Mr- 
 rour, in the Seftion before the place from whence you took your laft Quotation , 
 exprefly tells us otherwile ; that upon the firft Eledion of a King to reign over 
 the reli of the Saxon Princes, they firfl of all made him to fwearj T'hat he -would main- 
 tain the Holy Chriflian Faith with all his Power, and would govern hii People according to 
 Right, without regard to any Per/on, and Jhould be liable to fuffer Right (i. e. yudgment) 
 M well cu others of his People. And though I do not give any Credit to all the 
 Story he there relates of 40 Sovereign Princes in this Ifland at once ; yet the 
 Sublfance of it may be true, that this Eledion was made of King Egbert, by the 
 40 Earls or Counts of thofe Provinces, which were afterward by King Alfred 
 called Shires. 
 
 But that this Author afcribes the Beginning of Great Councils to the firft In- 
 ftitution of the Government, pray fee what he there farther fays : And though the 
 King can have no Peer in the Land, neverthelefs, if by his own ff/rong he offends againft 
 any of his People, none of thofe that judge for him can be both 'Judge and Party : It is 
 therefore agreeable to Right, that the King jhould have Companions to hear and detertnine- 
 in Parliament all IVrits and Complaints concerning the Wrongs of the King, Queen, and 
 their Children, of which IVrongs they could not otherwife have comjmn Right. Thefe Com- 
 panions are therefore called Counts, after the Latin, Comites. Whereby you may fee, 
 that this Author and BraSion, who were Contemporaries, were of the fame Opi- 
 nion in this important Point : And I cannot imagine how ^ly Prince, who had 
 Power fufEcient in his hands to do what he pleafed, ( as you fuppofe our Engltjh 
 Saxon Monarchs to have had at the firft) would ever, if chey could have help'd 
 it, have inftituted a Court, one of whofe chief Bufinefles it was to examine 
 and redrefs the Wrongs and Oppreffions of themfelves, their Wives and Chil- 
 dren. 
 
 But befides all this , what you fay might be fomewhat likely ; that our Par- 
 liaments, or Great Councils, did owe their Original only to the Kings good Will 
 and Pleafure, did we not find the like Conftitution to have been in all the Neigh- 
 bouring Kingdoms in Europe, which have been raifed according to the Gothic 
 Model of Government, upon the Ruins of the Roman Empire. Now let us look 
 into Scotland, and there we fhall find this Inftitution as ancient as any Hiftory or 
 Record they have. If we pafs into France, we fhall find their Alfembly of 
 Eftates, or Great Council, to have been as ancient as their firft Kings, and to have 
 Vi. H'^tioman had as much Power as any where elfe in Europe : Since they not only frequently 
 tramoGallhr. giefted^ but alfo dcpofed their Kings of the firft Race, and difpofed of the Suc- 
 ceflion of the Crown as they thought fit. If we look into Spain, we fliall find in 
 the two greateft and moft confiderable Kingdom, viz,. Cajiille and Arragon, the like 
 Aflemblies : The Power of which was fo great in the latter, that they could even 
 depofe the King himfelf, if he tyranniz'd over or opprefs'd them. If we go more 
 Northward, we fliall find in the ancient Kingdoms of Denmark and Sweden, and 
 Norway, that their Aflembly of Eftates, or Diets, elefted their Kmgs, and could 
 likewife depofe them, till thofe Kingdoms became Hereditary, which was but of 
 modern Times. I fhall omit Poland, becaufe perhaps you may difpute whether 
 it is a Kingdom, or a Commonwealth. But if we pafs into Hungary, which was 
 inftituted by the Huns , a Nation of Gothic Original, we fliall find not only the 
 like Aflembly of Eftatcsj as in the other Kingdoms j but alfo that they had a Ma- 
 
 giftrate
 
 Dialogue the Fifth, ^ 299 
 
 giftrate called the Palatine -, who was, as it were, the Confervator of the Pcopk-'s 
 Liberties, and who could refill even the King himfelf if he invaded them ; and 
 which is alfo very remarkable in all thcle Kingdoms, the Reprcfentatives of the Ci- 
 ties, or principal Towns, (which conilitutcd the third Eftate, or Commons in thofc 
 Kingdoms) had alwaj s a Place in tliofe Great Councils. 
 
 So that, to conclude, it is almoft impolTible to conceive how thefe Kingdoms 
 I have now mentioned, could all agree to fall into the fame fort of Government 
 about the fame time, unlefs it had proceeded from the particular Temper and 
 Genius of the German and Guthick Nations, from which they were derived : Or 
 who can believe, that all thefe Nations, and their Kings, finding the like Conveni- 
 cncics from thefe Great Councils, and Inconveniencies by the want of them, (hould 
 all confpire to fct them up in each of thefe particular Kingdoms. 
 
 M. I will not deny but that the Inftitution of Great Councils, or Aflcmblics 
 of the Eftates, might be as ancient as the Government itfelf, in feveral of thofe 
 Kingdoms you mention , which were at firfl eleftive : But what is that to Eng-' 
 land, where our Monarchy liath been by SuccelTion from the firft Inflitution of 
 it, and not Eleftive, as you fuppofe ? Nor do I much value the Authority of the 
 Mirrour as to the great Antiquity he afcribes to this Aflcmbly of Counts, or 
 Comites, ( as Bracton calls them ) and in which, by the way, no Commons are 
 mentioned.) And though I grant, the Judicial Power of the Houfe of Peers, 
 is very ancient ; yet that it wholly proceeded at firft from the Indulgence of F. F. G. J. 
 our Kings, appears from hence, that there was always a Necellity of the King's f- 34' 
 Prefence in Parliaments, which is very well proved by Sir Robert Cotton in a 
 learned Treatife written on that Subjed : %^herein he proves, that in all Con- 
 fultations of State, and Decifions of private Plaints, it is clear from all Times the 
 King was not only prcfent to advifc, but alfo to determine. And whenfoever 
 the King is prefent, all Power of Judging, which is derived from his, ceafeth ; 
 the Votes of the Lords may fcrve for matter of Advice, the final Judgment is 
 only the King's ; But indeed of late Years, Qi^iccn l^ry and Qiieen Eliz,al/eth, 
 by rcafon of their Sex, being not fo fit for publick Aiiemblics, have brought it 
 out of ufc ; by which meaK it is come to pafs, that many things, which were in 
 former Times aded by Kings themfelves , have of late been left to the Judg- 
 ment of the Peers ; who, in quality of Judges extraordinary, ^re permitted, for 
 the Eafe of the King , and in his Abfence , to determine fuch Matters as were 
 anciently brought before the King himfelf, fitting in Perfon, attended by his 
 Great Council of Prelates and Peers : And the Ordinances that are made there, 
 received their Eflablifhment either from the King's Prefence in Parliament, 
 where his Chair of State is conflantly placed, or at leaft from his ConHrmation 
 of them, who in all Courts, and in all Caufes, is Supreme Judge. All Judgments 
 are by, or under him, and cannot be without, much lefs againft his Approba- 
 tion : T'he King vnly, mid none tut He, if He -were able, Jhould judge all Caufes, faith 
 BfAflon. So that nothing feemls plainer to me , than that the Jurifdiftion which 
 the Houfe of Peers have hitherto exercifed for the Hearing and Determining all 
 Caufes, as well Civil as Crirriinal, by way of Appeal, not only between Subjcds, 
 but alfo in all Accufations againft the Lords themfelves, proceeds wholly from ' 
 the Conceflion of our Kings ; which may appear by an ancient Precedent, men- 
 tioned by Abbot Brampton in his Hiftory. It is the Cafe between King Ed-^ard 
 the ConfeJJor, and God-win Eatl of Kent, whom the King accufed for the Death ot'y;. Script, x 
 his Brother Prince Alfred, before the Houfe of Peers j and there you will find, /?«». 1041. 
 that after the EaH iiad put himfelf upon the Judgment of the King's Court, the Co/. 937- 
 King thereupon faid ; " You Noble Lords, Earls and Barons ( i. e. Thanes ) of 
 " the Land, Mtllo are my Liege-Men rlow gathered here together, and have 
 *' heard my Appeal and Godwin's Anfwer ; 1 will, that in this Appeal between 
 *' us , ye decree right Judgment, and do true Juflice. " And upon their Judg- 
 ment, that the Earl fliould make the King fufficient Satisfaftion in Gold and Sil- 
 ver, for the Death of hisBrocher ; the King being thereof informed, and not wil- 
 ling to conrradidt it, (the Hii^orian there faith ) He ratifitd all they had judged. I 
 could give you many otiier Precedents of latter Date, were it not too tedious : 
 
 But
 
 Z<6 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTICA. 
 
 But this is fufEcient to fliew , that what the Peers acted in this matter , was by 
 the King's Sole Will and Permiffion. I fnall only conclude with one Precedent 
 more, in a Cafe fomewhat of a like Nature. It is that of Henry Spencer Bifhop of 
 Norwich , 7 Rich. II. who was accufed for joining with the FreKch : The Bifliop 
 complained what was done againft him, did not pafs by the Aflent and Know- 
 ledge of the Peers : Whereupon it was faid in Parliament ; " That the Cogni- 
 " zance and Punifhitient of his Offence, did of common Right, and ancient Cuf- 
 " torn of the Realm of England, folely and wholly belong to our Lord the King, 
 " and no other. " From all which I infer, that the Judicial Power exercifed 
 • by the Houfe of Peers, is meerly derivative from, and fubfervient to the Su- 
 preme Power refiding in the King. From whence it alfo follows, that ii the 
 Peers have no Power nor Honour but what proceeds from the Prince, and that the 
 Commons were of a much later Date, then both the Being and Privileges of both 
 Houfes had but one and the fclf-fame Original, -viz,, nothing elfe but the meer 
 Grace or Favour of our Kings. I have only added this, the better to enforce ray 
 former Argument ^ and therefore I defire you would now anfwer them both toge- 
 ther. 
 
 F. I am very glad your laft Argument doth not prove fo formidable as you 
 fuppofc ; for to remove that out of the way, I muft tell you that you now very 
 much millake the Queftion ; which is not only concerning the Judicial Power 
 of the Peers alone, but the Legillative Power of the Houfe of Peers and Com- 
 mons taken together, which is the Subjeft of our prefent Difpute : And there- 
 fore if I fhould grant you, that the Judicial Power of the Peers is derived wholly 
 from the King ; yet would it not at all impair the Legiflacive Power of cither 
 of the Houfes, which no Hiftoriaiy)r Law-Book that I know of (that is of any 
 Credit or Antiquity) afcribes to tne King's Favour, as you fuppofc : Nor is it 
 true, that the Houfe of Peers can give no Judgment, either Civil or Criminal, with- 
 out the King's Confent or Approbation, which is never fo m-uch as ask'd, let the 
 Caufe be what it will ; nor is his Prefence at fuch Judgments at all neceflary ,• but 
 indeed you confound the King's Council in Parliament, ( where I have Ihewed yon 
 already, he fat and difpatched divers Caufes in a Room or Chamber, diltind tcom 
 that of the Peers) or Houfe of Lords. 
 
 But to come to your main Argument, that our Parliament muft owe its Ori- 
 ginal to the King, becaufe each of tffe Ef^ates of wliich it confifts, doth fo. 
 This I hdpe will prove as weak, when thoroughly confidered : For firft of all I 
 could flicw you, that thefe Councils could not owe their Original co the King, 
 fince tiie &.VOW Kings rather owed their Original "to them, by whom they were 
 moft commonly eleded, as I could fliew you out of our ancient Hiftorians, if it 
 were now a proper time for it. But as for our Bi/hops and Abbots, Ci7i. which 
 anciently made fo great a figure in our Saxon Great Councils, (which I can 
 fhew you, were then bodi Ci\il and Ecdeliaftical Aflemblies) I have already 
 proved out of Tacitm, that among the ancient Ge^-mans (a part of whom our 
 ancient Enghjh Saxons were) their Priefts (who were their Clergy) had a confide- 
 i , ^ J,, rablc Authority in their Common Councils. And can any Body beheve, that a 
 ' * « '' Sort of People fo powerful and fubtile, as the Priefts then were, would lofe their 
 Power after they came over into England? And we find in Bede, that Ed-iuin King 
 of Noythumbe-rland confulted with a Council of his Great Men and Pncfts, con- 
 cerning his embracing the Chriftian Religion ,• and when it was generally recei- 
 ved, can any Body think that the Chriftian Bilhops and Clergy would not expeft 
 to fucceed in the fame Station which the Heathen Priefts before held in their 
 V StHiC.i'r Councils > And that they enjoyed this Power very early, appears from hence, that 
 ;.'di9,'(J2o,' the fame £r/WiJm could not endow the Church and Monaftery of Cante)l>ury , fine 
 .^/enfu Magnattm& Priixipum tarn OcTiquafn ?opu\i. 
 
 But indeed you are as much miftaken in the Manner of the ancient Eleftions 
 of Bifhops and Abbots in England: For though I own that at the time of the 
 Conqueft, and fomewhat before, there might be no fuch Elections of them as the 
 ancient Canons required j ye: that this was not fo at the firft, you may fee 
 
 in 
 
 ."^
 
 Dialogue the Fifth, 2^7 
 
 in Bides Ecclcfiaftical Hiflory, and other Hiftorians i where it is ofren men- 
 tioned, that Bifliops were chofcii, according to the Canons, by the Archbifhops 
 and Bifhops of the Province, and Abbots by their Convent : Nor was the Kind's 
 inverting of them per Annulum, & Baaihim, then look'd upon as any Derogation 
 to their Canonical Hlettion, that being no more than either a Ceremony of invert- 
 ing them with their Temporah'ties, or a Token of the King's Confirmation of the 
 Eleftion. And that this was fo, appears by King Edga/s Charter to tlie Abby of 
 Glafioubiiry ; wherein he retains to himfclf, and his Heirs, Jm tribuendi f,at,t Elcdo 
 Bacuhiin Pajloralem. 
 
 But that whicli (o much fcandalized both Ingulf and Atalmsbtiry, was a Curtom 
 then inufe, as alfolong before the Conquell, of Confirming the Bifliop Elcft in a 
 full Synod or Parliament. And to this Curtom Ingulf tdicrs, when he tells us, 
 A mtthis amiis retroaclis nulla erat EleEiio Prelaiorum mere Libera^ & Camnka : Sed /„-„/<,;, «« 
 omnes Digmtates ram. Epifccfornm qua7n Abbatum Regis Curia pro ftia Complacentia con-fol. 505)'. // ' 
 ferebat. Where, by Curia Regis, you muft not underltand the King's Court in the 
 Senfe it is commonly taken, but for the Great Council ox Mikel Synod, as it was 
 then called, and which difpatched Ecclefiaftical, as well as Civil Aftairs, in the 
 fame Senfe as Curia Regis is ufed by Browpto?, in the Cafe of King Edxuard and 
 Eatl Godwin, which you but now cited : And in which Senfe it is always 
 ufed by Ingulf, when he fpeaks of the Great Councils under the two Williatns. 
 I will not be very tedious on this Subjeft, and fliall therefore give ycu 'ovx one 
 Authority on this Head; and it is that of Wuljian, who was madeBillio|>j,pf 
 Worcefter in the time of Edward the Corfeffor ; and that, as MaH. Paris tells \\%, 
 IJnamni confenfu tarn Cleri, quam tctim Plebis { Rege ut quern velent fibi eUgirent Prtiftir-t, 20. 10. 
 lent antmente) in Epifiopum ejufdem loci eligitur. And then he goes on thus 5 Nu;,: 
 licet fratrum non deejjet Eleciio ; yet that there concurred to ir, Pkbis Petitio, Vvhm- 
 tcu EpifcoporWM, Gratia ProceruT/i, Regis Author it m : A li which amounts to no more 
 than that he was propofed by the People, chofen by the Bifliops and Peers, and 
 confirmed by the King : Yet that all this did not hinder him from being inverted 
 fer Bciaihim, (^Annulum, as the Curtom then was, may appear by the Speech this 
 Bifliop IVuljian made at the Tomb of Edward the Confeffor, whither he \. ent to re- 
 fign Jus Partoral Staff after his being deprived of his Biftioprick by Archbifliop 
 Lanfrank, and the Synod. And the Conclulion of this Speech is remarkable, 
 "Tibi (fcil. Edwardo) Baculum refgno qui dedifti, Ctiram eorum dimitto quos mihi eom- 
 mendafti. A like Example I could give you of the Eleftion of this Archbifliop 
 Lanfrank himfelf in the King's Curia, or Great Council, not long after the En- 
 trance of King William. But for this I refer you to Eadmerus, and the Reign of 
 that King, printed at the end of Mr. T'aylors Hiftory of Gavel-kmd. 
 
 But admitting that the King alone had in thofe Days conferred all Bifliop- 
 ricks, does it therefore iollow, that his Nomination of Bifliops, in the purfuance 
 of that Truft which the Kingdom repofcd in him, did likcwife make them 
 to derive all the Right they had to fit in the Great Council from the King's 
 fole Authority ? You might indeed with as much Reafon urge, that becaufe 
 the Emperor T'heodojim (as likewife divers of his Predecertbrs) did nominate 
 Bifliops to Sees, tlierefore they did likewife recei\ e from them all the Autlioricy 
 they had of appearing and ading in General Councils, which 1 am fiire you 
 are too good a Churcli of England Man to affirm. 
 
 M. I muft confefs I never did fo clofely examine the antient Form of confer- 
 ring of Bilhopricks before the Conqueft, as I find you have done : And I will 
 better examine your Authorities ; and if I find tliis Curtom to have been con- 
 rtant and uniform, I fliall come over to your Opinion. Though I doubt it 
 will not prove to have been fo general as you would make it ; lince by the 
 Authority you have now brought out of Mat. Paris it appears, that it was 
 the King who gave lea\'c to ihis Eleftion of Bifliop IVuljian in the Great Coun- 
 cil, which I am not yet convinc'd did then take upon them to meddle in Ec- 
 clefiartical Matters without the King's Confent : But lince you have fpoken 
 enough concerning the Right and Antiquity of the Bifliops fitting in our Great 
 
 L 1 Councils, 
 
 \
 
 2C8 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 Councils, it is time you now fpcak of the Riglit ot the Peers, or Temporal 
 Lords, which certainly could have no place there but from the Favour and Con- 
 ccfTion of our Kings : So that whether we confider thofe Lords in the Saxott 
 Time as Rulers of Counties, called in old Enghjh Em-h or Aldernicn, in Latin 
 Duces or Comites ; or elfe as Judges or Counfellors, called in old Saxcn Wites _or 
 JJ/ifemen, in Latin Sapiemes : Or lallly, as "Thanes, in Latin Minijlri, who were 
 cither Military Tenants, or Civil Miniftcrs ; or elfe Officers of the King in. 
 his Court, or other Employments; none of them wcie Hereditary in thoic 
 Times, but all of them either depended upon the King's Will, or elfe owed 
 their Honours and Eftatcs to his Favour. 
 
 F. I hope, notwithflanding the Confidence you put in this part of the Argu- 
 ment, that it hath no more weight in it than the former. For though I grant 
 there was no fuch thing as Hereditary Earldoms before the coming in of the 
 Normans : So that though both the Earls and Aldermen might have Places in 
 y/.Dugdale*j the Great Councils, Ratione Officii (as the Earl Marcfchal of England has at this 
 preface to his Day) and not by Tenure, as they did after that time ; yet I very mucli doubt 
 Baronage of ^^gj-her they fate there only Ratione Officii, and not as Thanes ; or by Reafon 
 Eng an . ^£ ^j^^j^. gj-g^t- Lordfliips, or Eftates in Lands ; but if they fate there as EarJs or 
 Aldermen, yet might they not be the only Perfons that fate in thofe Councils 
 by that Title. For there were, befides thefe. Aldermen of Cities and Boroughs, 
 \vho were elefted by thofe Places ; and who it is very hkely appeared for 
 them as their Reprefentatives in thofe Councils,, until by Succeflion of Time 
 thofe Towns began to fend two Burgefles in their ftead ; - fome Footfteps of 
 which ftill remain in London, where tlie Aldermen of every Ward are firft propo- 
 fed to be elefted Parliament Men before any other : And it is certain that thefe 
 Aldermen, in the moft antient Cities, as London, Turk, Lincoln, &c. are not elcd- 
 ed by any Grant or Charter from the Crown, but by an immemorial Right of 
 Prefcription. 
 
 But admitting that thefe Earls or Aldermen appeared in thefe Councils, by 
 reafon of their Offices or Dignities which the King conferred upon them, yet 
 doth it not prove, that the very Office itfelf proceeded wholly from him ; llnce 
 we find the Authority of thofe chief Men, whom Tacitm calls Princes, (and 
 which anfwer thefe Earls) to have been iifed among the antient Germans long 
 before, when he tells us in the fame Chapter where we cited the reft; yura per 
 Pagos, Viccfque \_Principes'] reddunt, centeni fmgulis ex fkbe Comites Concilium fimtil & 
 auBoritas adfunt. Which exaftly anfwers our County, and Hundred Courts, 
 under the Saxon Kings ; wherein the Alderman of the County, or Jiis Deputy 
 the Sheriff^ prelided, and the Freemen of the County or Hundred were the 
 Judges of all Matters of Faft. So that, though the King might apponit thefe 
 Princes or Governors of Provinces, or Counties, yet doth it no more follow, 
 that they owed their Being and Place in the Great Council wholly to his Will, 
 than (as I faid before) fuppofing that the King had antiently- tlie Nomination of 
 all the Biftiops and Abbots in England, that therefore they muft aifo owe their 
 Place in our great Councils, or Synods, wholly to them ; fince the King pcrlorm- 
 ed both of them as a publick Trull committed to him by the Commonweal 
 in the one cafe, as much as in the other. 
 
 But indeed, I think the greateft part of the Members of this Aflembly (befides 
 Aldermen and Burgefles for Cities and Towns) confiftcd of thofe Thanes, whofe 
 Names are often found in the Subfcription of the antient Charters of our 
 Saxon Kings after the Prinapes, Duces and Comites ; and that though many of 
 them might be the King's Feudal Thanes, or Tenants in Grand Serjeanty, or 
 Seld. Tit. Knights Service in chiel-^ as Mr. Stlden tells us in iiis Titles of Honour, yet that 
 ■^'"'•/'''* 5=7. Author no where excludes the cpeSmepa^gens or LepfJjeSns, /. e. middle or 
 ■; '8, J 1 5. jg^j Thanes, from having Voices in thofe Aflemblies, who were afterwards ftiled 
 Vavajfours, or Lords of Townfhips, afterwards called Manors, with Courts an- 
 nexed to them under the Names of Sac and Soc ; which were the fame with our 
 Comt-Leet and Coun-Bamt : Efpecially, if you pleafe farther to confider what 
 
 a vafl
 
 Dialogue the Fifth. 29*p 
 
 a vaft number of AMarii, or Free Tenants there were then, wlio held their Lands 
 difchargcd of all Services, but the common Burthens and Taxes of the Nation, 
 none but the Lands of the King's Thanes, being held by Military Services before 
 the Entrance of the Normans. 
 
 So that whoever will but confider the Nature of our Saxon Councils will find, 
 that the greateft part of the Pcrfons that appeared there did not owe their 
 Places only to their being the King's Miniflers or OlHcers, as you fuppofc, 
 but to their holding fuch Lands and PolVeirions as capacitated them, and 
 gave them a Right to have Places in thofe Great Councils. And that this was 
 fo, we need not go no fartlier than the Laws of King Athelfian, where you will 
 find Gentility itfelf annexed to an Eftate in Land : For if you will but be 
 pleafcd to confult King Athelfian s Laws, you will there find, that if a Villain, Vi. Lamb, 
 or -Chcoyl, could fo thrive as to get an Eflare oi five Hides in Lands, he was/"- 54- 
 reckon'd a Thane, i. e. a Gentlejnan or Noblemany as they were promifcuoufly 
 reckoned at that time. 
 
 So that though I fuppofe there might not be in thofe Times that cxaft 
 Diftinftion between Peers and Common?, as there hath been eftablifhed fince 
 the coming in of the Normans ; yet was it the fame thing in elfeft, fince 
 the Bifhops, Earls or Aldermen of Shires (though not enjoyed as Hereditary 
 Honours) might make them the greater Nobility or Peers, as the Thanes 
 were the Icfs Nobility, Gentlemen, or principal Freeholders j who all appear- 
 ing in Pcrfon, might, together with the Aldermen or Bnrgefles of Towns, repre- 
 fcnt thofe which we now call the Commons. And fuppofing that then there 
 were no Knights of Shires, jet thefe being then the only Proprietors of 
 any conliderablc Eftatcs of Land in tlie Nation, might very well reprefent 
 all their Vaflals or Under-Tenants, as Tenants for Years, and at Will, 
 are at this Day by the Knights of Shires, though they have no Votes at their 
 Elcftion. 
 
 To conclude : Though I grant that the Kings of England are the Fountain 
 of that Honour, which we call Peerage \ yet it is only in purfuance of that 
 anticnt Conllitution which their Anceftors brought out of old Saxony and 
 Normandy along with them, as the firmeff Defence of Kingly Power againft 
 the Infolency and Incroachments of the common or meaner fort of People, 
 as well as Tyranny in tlicir Princes. And therefore in all Monarchies where 
 there is no Hereditary Nobility, the Prince hath no furer way to main- 
 tain his Power than by Standing Armies, to whofe Humours and Faftions 
 he is more fubjcfl:, and is alfo more liable to be murdered, or depofed by 
 them (when difcontented with him) than ever any limited Prince yet 
 was, or can be by his NobDity or People. As I could fliew you from a 
 Multitude of Examples, not only from the Roman, but Moorijh, Arabick and 
 Turkijh Hiflorics : And therefore, to conftitute a lafting, flable, limited 
 Monarchy (as ours is) it muft be according to the Model I have here pro- 
 pofcd. 
 
 M. I fliall not contradift the latter part of your Difcourfe ; but I muft 
 freely tell you, that if (as you yourfelf grant) there were no Knights of 
 Shires in the Saxon Times, I cannot fee how thofe we call the Com- 
 mons ot England had then any Reprefcntativcs in the Great Council ; fince 
 thofe Thanes, or Lords of Manors, whom you fuppofe to have rcprcfented 
 their Tenants or Vaflals, were never chofen by them, and confeqncntly could 
 not properly be their Reprefcntativcs : But I think it will be eafy enough to 
 prove, that none of your inferior or middle Thanes, but only the chief or fu- 
 pcrior, had Places in thofe Afl'cmblics. So that thefe Feudal Thanes, or fuch 
 as held of the King in chief by Military Service, were of the fame kind 
 with them that were after the Norman Times Honorary or Parliamen- 
 tary Barons , and their Lands alone were the Honorary Thanelands, and 
 fuch as were afterwards Parliamentary Baronies. Nor can I find any Foot- 
 fteps in our antient Engltjh Hiftories of Cities and Boroughs fending any 
 
 Reprcfcn:
 
 Z64 BiBLIOTHECA Po LI TIC A. 
 
 Reprefentatives to thofe Great Councils. So that admit I fhould own at 
 prefent, that the Bifhops, and fome great Abbots, had, from the firft fettling 
 of Chriftianity in this Ifland , an indifputable Place in the Great Councils ; 
 and like wife that the Earls, Aldermen, or great Nobility, had alfo Votes 
 in thofe Aflemblies ,• and that the chief 'tbmes, or lefs Nobles, had alfo their 
 Places there, by reafon of the Tenure of their Eftates : Yet certainly the Hmtfg 
 cf Commons was of a much later Date, and owed its Being either to the 
 Grace and Favour of our Kings of the Norman Race, or elfe to uhofe that 
 had ufurp'd their Power. And this I think Dr. Brady hath very well proved 
 againft Mr- Petyt : And I think I could convince you alfo of the Truth of it 
 by his, as well as other Arguments, were it not now too late to enter upon 
 fo' long a Subjeft, 
 
 F. Therefore, pray let us defer any further Difcourfe of this Queftion ^.t3l 
 the next time we meet ; wherein I hope I may fhew you, that if ydu ''&^ 
 that Opinion to the Doftor's Arguments, he hath led you into a very grdfs 
 Miftake. And I ftall only at prefent take my leave of you, ai;d bid you gqod 
 
 Night. ' ' 
 
 M. I wife you the like. 
 
 IMDIiO'
 
 'z6c. 
 
 2^iI)liot]^eca ^olttica* 
 
 DIALOGUE VI. 
 
 Whether the Commons of England^ reprefented by Knights^ 
 Citi'z.enSy and Burgejjes in Farliament^ Were one of the 
 Three Eftates in Tarlijimmt^ before the 45)th of Henry IIL 
 or i8thofE^M7. 1. 
 
 I R, You ate welcome \ and fince you were pteafed to fend me 
 word, that you would come and fit with me this Evening, 
 I have been looking over all the Saxon Councils, collected 
 by Mr. Lambard, and Sir H. Spelman, and yet I cannot find 
 in them any Mention of Knights of Shires, or Burgefles 
 for Cities or Boroughs; the only Perfons there mentioned, 
 as Members of thofe Great Councils, being Archbijhops, Bijhops, Abbots^ 
 and Great Lords, and Judges; often called by the general Latin Names 
 of Magnates, Vrincipes, Proceres, Optimates, or Primates Regni, which were all 
 comprehended under the Saxon Word, Witds, i. e. Sapient es; by whom (^^ Tit.wizci' 
 Sir H. Spelman (hews us in his Gloflaty ) were meant only Senators, or Wile-men; b. g. ' 
 that is, either Kob/emen, or Great Lawyers •, IVite, in Somners Saxon Diftionary, 
 being firft rendred Optimaf, a Nobleman-, and then Sapiens, a Wife-man. So p.,g. 66, 6-;. 
 that thefe W^/'/rj, ox Sapient es ( fb often mentioned in our Ancient Saxon Ijms,) 
 when they are put alone, figni^ all the Ecdefiaftick, as well as Lay-Members of Et Sparfim; 
 the great Council, fuch as Earls, Aldermen, and Thanes, and Judges, as Dr. B. 
 more particularly proves, in his Gloffary at the end of his firft Volume. But by 
 Fnncipes, and Optimatcs, can only be meant Nob/es, or Chief Men, as the Word 
 Trinceps, Mngnas, and Opfimas do always fignify in the Latin Tongue; That is 
 to fay, fuchofthe King's great Officers, Noblemen, and Judges of the Kingdom, as 
 he pleafed to chufe out, and call to his Great Councils, either for their great Wif 
 dom or Eftates, to make ufe of their Advice and Afliftance for the making of Laws. 
 Therefore pray (hew me where there are any Commons once mentioned in 
 anyofthefe Councils, or any that reprefented them. Here are indeed particu- s. .4. p. 
 larly mentioned, Archbijhops, B'tjhops, Abbots, Aldermen, Wites, Great-Men, and P- 9> i^- 
 Chief-Men, or Nob/cmcn. Thele were all the Orders of Men that were then the 
 conftituent Parts of thofe Great Councils, Wittcna Gemotes. And if the Com- 
 mons, as now taken and underftood, were then Members of them, they muli 
 be comprehended amongft the Wites or Sapientcs, the Wife Men. But that it 
 cannot probably befo, Ilhall prove, (i.) That moft of the Saxon Laws, in their 
 Prefaces are faid to be made and ordained by their Kings, with the Advice and 
 AfTiltance of their Wires, or Wife Men fimply, without mentioning any particular 
 Orders of Men whatfoever. And when any Rank or Degrees of Men are par- 
 ticularly mentioiK;d, tliey are only the fime beforg rehearfed, both Ecdefialticks 
 
 M m aod
 
 266 B 1 B L 1 O T K E C A P O L 1 T i C A. 
 
 and Laick?. (2.) 1 note, that it cannot be denied, but that in every one of thele 
 Wittem Gemotes, Mice! Synods, Mice/ Gemotes, or Great Coimals, where the 
 Laws are laid to be made only by the King, with the Advice of his Wites or 
 Sapientes, without particularizing any Degrees of Perfons ^ the Bif/jops and Abbots 
 for the Spiritual Nobility, and the Ear/s, or AUiermen and Ihanes, for the Tem- 
 poral, were prefent at the making of them ; as alfo the Judges, if there were any 
 of the higher Clafs, other than Bijhops, Aldermen, and Gereves, or Prepofoi. 
 (3.) I note, tliat it follows from thence, that thcfe all jointly were ihe Sapientes, 
 where there are only Wites or Sapientes in general named, without reciting any 
 particular Orders or Degrees of Men. Now if you can lliew me from as good 
 Authorities as I have here produced, that any of the Commons late in thele 
 Great Councils, at lealt to reprefent the Body of the Commons among the 
 Saxons, I will grant, that during the Saxon Government, the Freemen, 01 
 Commons of England, as now called, and diftinguillied from the Great Lords, 
 were an effential conftituent part of the Common Councils of thofe Times. 
 
 F. To return you as fhort an Anfwer as I can, to thele Authorities you now 
 cite, I muft in the firft Place premile, That though I grant all Nobility among 
 the Ancient Germans, Saxons, and Franks, (who were but fo many Stirps or 
 Branches of the Gothic Nation ) were at firft wholly Military ; yet it is a very 
 great Miftake, and favours of the Prejudices of the Age and Country we live in, 
 to imagine that anciently there were the lame Diftinftions between Peers or No- 
 blemen, and Gentlemen, (whom we now call Commoners) as there are now. 
 For if we go but over into France or Gertnany, we Ihall find no Difference there 
 between the greater and the lels Nobility •, and a Gentleman is as Noble as a 
 Duke, or a Marquis. And if we pafs farther, into Denmark and Norway, from 
 whence moft ot the Danijh Laws are fuppofed to come, it is certain, that but 
 a few Years ago, there were no fuch Titles among them as Earls, or Barons-, 
 every Lord of a Town, or Diftri£l, being that which they call an Adelman, ot 
 Nobleman. And fo I fuppole it anciently was among the Englijh Saxons. The 
 
 Cap. 21. Word Athel, or Adel, comprehending (to fpeak in our prefent DialeSt) all 
 Degrees, as well Noblemen, as Gentlemen-, and for this I can give you the 
 Authority of an Ancient Author, viz. Vaulus Warnefridus de gejiis Longobar- 
 dorum, who fpeaking of thele Adelmen, or Adclings, tells us^ Sic apud eos quidam 
 Nobiles profapid vocabantur. So likewife Sir H. Spe/man in his Gloflary, Tit. 
 Adelingi, Tit. p. 9, 10. writes thus, Anglorum legibus did pro nobilibus in genere, 
 quod nee dum apud Germanos antiq^uatum eft, qui omnes nobiles iEdelmen vocant, 
 
 Pag. 708. o Saxonico TE.dcl pronobili: And Mr. Selden in his Titles of Honour, makes the 
 Word JEthelum to fignify all one, either Gentlemen or Noblemen. Befides, 
 
 "^ Lib. 4. Adam of Bremen, and * Nitardus likewife, both Ancient Hiftorians, divide 
 the Saxon Nation into Three different Degrees, or Orders, viz. into Aihe- 
 lings, i. e. Nobles; Frilings, i. e. Freemen; and Lazzos, i. e. Villains, hours, 
 or Bondmen. 
 
 Belides which Noblemen, or Gentlemen, there was likewile another Sort of 
 Men, who though of an Inferior Rank, yet as Freemen, and having a conli- 
 derable Share of the Riches and Strength of the Nation in their Hands, had 
 likewife a Place in the Great Councils, as well as the former. And thele were 
 the Aldermen, or other Magiltrates of Cities and Boroughs ; and in this they 
 relembled the German Diets, whole conftituent Members were, according to 
 Gonterus, an Ancient German Poet, 
 
 Prxlati, Proceres, miffifjue potentibus Vrbes. 
 
 But fince tbis is a Difpute about the Signification of Words, in what Senfe they 
 ■' were uled in that Age we are now treating of, it will not be inconvenient to 
 examine from the molt Learned GlofTarifts, the Ancient Signification of thole 
 Words which are in Difpute between us. And therefore, fince we are agreed 
 about the Meaning of all other Words except thele, viz. Aldermen, T})anes,, 
 Wites, Magnates, Optimates, and Principes, Proceres, or Primates, let us examine, 
 each of their Ancient Significations. To begin then with the Word Gali>o)i-man^ 
 Alderman, which Word was of a v:ry general Signification : For Sir Hen. Spel- 
 man in his Gloffjry, Tit. Alderman, tells us, that there was Aldermannus Regis, 
 (Jomitatus, Civitatis, Burgi, 2tc. de quorum pctejiate non facile eft dejijiire. 
 
 2 Ml. Lam-
 
 Dialogue the Sixth. 26^ 
 
 Mr. Lamhiri renders the Word C'albopman, in Latin Senator, (i. e. one that had rn his G/ofTj- 
 place in the Great Council)-^ and fo doth yix.Somner in \i\% Saxon Diftionary ; '">'' ^'^•^''^^'■- 
 
 firom whence you may learn, that this Word is of a large Signification, and "''"'■ 
 
 might comprehend fuch as in latter Times were called Commons, to diftin- 
 
 guifli them from the Lords or higher Nobility. 
 
 Verj\egan renders this Word thus s ^albep, Jo written in our ancient Lan- p. 220. 
 guage, is properly an Elder, or Senior ; yet an 6albepman, tohich zoc call novo an 
 Alderman, veai fuch in effeB among our Anceftors, as laa* the Tribunus Plebis 
 with the Romans, that is, one that had chief furifdi&ion among the Commons, 
 Of being a Maintainer oj their Liberties. And if lb, fuch Perfons muft cer- 
 tainly have had a Place in the Great Council as Commoners-, and therefore 
 muft from the Realbn of the thing, fignify fomething more in thole Times 
 than an Earl, or great Officer of the King only. 
 
 So likewile, that the Word Thane comprehended more than the King's Great 
 Feudal, or Military Tenants, may appear by thefe Interpretations of it, which 
 our Antiquaries have given us. The Induftrious Mr. Somner , in his GlolTary 
 at the end of the X. Scriptores, as alfo Mr. Sclden m his Titles of Honour, 
 do both agree in the ditterence I now make between the Greater and the ^- 2^7- 
 Lefs Tl)anes ; the former being called cynm^er ^eSner Thani Regij, the other ^P*^'- Council. 
 called me&niera "^ejnar Mediocres, vel Inferiores Thani, Middle, or Lefs Thanes, '" ^^- Cmu- 
 who were Maneriorum Domini. Kobiles minores, Vavafores i!f npnnunquam li- ' ' *" 
 beri.tenentes. With whom Sir H. Spe /man in his Gloifary agrees, Thanorum duo 
 erant genera ; Majores qucs Ihainos Regis appellabant, nos Barones Regis, iff 
 Thiiini Simpiiciter, feu Thami Minores qui lidcm erant qui Barones Alinores, 
 hoc eft Maneriorum Domini Kobiles minores, t!f nonnunquam Liberi Tenentcs 
 nuncupantur. So likewife Mr. Lambard in his Gloflary, thus, Thani autctn f- -'>• 
 appellatione viri interdum Kobiles, interdum libera conditiones homines, interdum 
 Magiftratus atque f(pe numero Miniflri notantur. And alfb in his Perambu- 
 lation of Kent, faith ^ejen, was ufually taken for the very fame that we call 
 now from the Lntin word Gentilis, a Gentleman, that is, "^v^^'m^, A man well 
 born, or 0/ good Stock and family. So that I think nothing can be more evi- 
 dent, than that according to the Opinion of our belt Criclcks in the Saxon 
 Tongue, the word Thane doth not always fignify a great Lord, or Baron 
 of Parliament, as he i: now called, in diftinftion to an Inferior Nobleman 
 or Gentleman. And that there were alfb Burgh Th.ines, Thanes of Cities 
 and Boroughs, will evidently appear frorn a Writ or Charter of K. Edward 
 the Confefibr, which is ftlll to be found in Sir John Cottons Library, in thefe , ^ . 
 words fbwapb Km^ ^pec Willem -3 Leo&can "] /Irp I'opte peten ■) alle J„f;^^'' ^"'' 
 rrrne BupjiJepner on Lunben rpenolice, which Charter with divers other of k 97. fxCar- 
 like nature, confirming the Privileges of that M^naitry, were collefled by a '«''•»''''"<"«'*« 
 Monk ofWeftminfter culled Sulcardus, who lived not long after the Conqueft. weflmin. 
 
 In the next Place, as for the word Magnates , though I grant it there oft- 
 en fignifies Great Men or Lords -, yet not only fuch as were Lords or No- 
 blemen by Birth, but as I fhall fhew you by feveral Inltances, as well before, 
 as after the Kormans Entrance, that it alfb comprehended the Gentry, or 
 Inferior Nobility, and fuch as were eminent and conliderable either in the 
 Countries or Cities, for Inrerelt, Office, or Elfate. 
 
 As for the word Optimates, I know it fignifies the better, or heft fort of 
 Men ; yet not always great Noblemen , or Lords -, For in MonajVic. Anglic. 
 Tom. -i.. we read of one Goda, who under Edvo. the ConfefTor fublcribed him- 
 lelf Optimatem, ^ Miniffrum Regalem, (\. e. Thane.) And left you Ihould ap- 
 prehend that Optima* fhould always fignifiy the King's Thane , or Tenant in 
 Capita, de Yrefne m his Gloflary defines Optimates to be Vajjalli Barones qui 
 <ib uUo Domino ratione Hominii unde pendent i, but I fliall fay more of this 
 word Optimates, when I come to fpeak of the Times not long after William 
 the Firft. 
 
 In the next place, for the word Proceres, it doth not only fignify Men 
 noble by Birth, but IJtdore (a Spanijh Author in the Gothic Times) in his On- 
 gines. Lib. 9. Cap. 4. fays thus , Proceres funt Principes Civium ; and that this 
 word often fignified in the ancient Englijh Saxon, the Chief Magiftrates of Cities 
 or Burghs, appears by Alfric/zs ancient GlofTary, where thefe words Proceres pri- 
 /nates, vel primores, he thus renders ylbppc buph rapa. And du Trefne in his P. s^- 
 
 M 2 Gloifary
 
 2 68 B I B L I O T H E C A P O L 1 T I C A. 
 
 i*, 420. Gloffary alfb, Troceres appelUbdntur qui in Civitatibus priecipucs Mugrfjratus 
 
 gerebant. 
 
 As tor the word Pri/tcipcs, any Man that underftands any thing of the La- 
 tin Tongue, knows that it doth not always fignify Princes, or Men Noble by 
 Birth-, but any Chief, or Principal Man remarkable by Place, Office or Dig- 
 nity ; and therefore we often read in Livy, and other Latin Authors, of Pnn- 
 cipes Civitatis-^ and in this Senfe I fuppole every Member of Parliament may 
 be reckoned inter Yrincipes, among the Coiifiderable or Chief Men of the King- 
 dom : So that when our ancient Eng/iJJ) Hiltorians, (as well before as imme- 
 diately after the Korman Conqueft ) do often, after the Archbijhops, Bijhops, Sec. 
 add, i^ cjetcri totuis Regni Frcccres, iff Optimatcs, or Principes, as Members 
 of the great Councils of thofe Times : Yet that thefe Writers did not then 
 mean what you would underftand by thefe words, only Princes, Earls, or Great 
 P. 605. Lords, Mr. Sc/dt-n in his Titles of Honour teaches us, when fpeaking of this 
 
 word Pnncipcs (as the molt comprehenlive of any) lays, that tho' Princeps in 
 the Singular, were proper to every Earl or Aliernhin ^ yeti^in the Plural, Prin- 
 cipes is more often applied comprehenfively to others alio of le(s, tho' of 
 fpecial Eminency, fuch as were Viri Prmhirii, or Thanes. And for this he re- 
 ters us to the Charter of King Eihchulj, (as it is recited by W. 0^ Mahnsbury^ 
 Lib. 2. Cap. 2. and Ingulph) wherein that King granted Tithes, and divers other 
 p. 682. edit. Privileges to the Church- Abbey of Malmsbury, which is faid to be done Con- 
 Frar.c. j^/j^ Epifecporum, t> Pnncipium fuoriim j as alio of Hen. Hunt. Who relating 
 
 ^ibid^^' ^"^^ Election of Hu-oli the Son of King Cnute, exprelTes it thus x, Puit 7nagnum 
 
 placitum apui Oxonford ubi Leofricus Conful, iff omnes Principes eligerunt He- 
 raldiim. 
 
 Lajlly, As for the word Wites or Sapientes, there can be nothing in that 
 
 Word which can limit it only to Men Noble by Birth, fince it fignifies no more 
 
 than the King's Great Council of Wile Men or Senators, and might alfo well 
 
 refer to the Chief Magiltrates, or Reprefentatives of great Cities and Bo- 
 
 ' roughs. For Du Frefne in his Gloffary tells us. That among the Lombards, 
 
 Tcm.^. p. jco Sapientes in Italia appellabant, iff Civitatinn Gives Primurii, quorum Confilio Ref- 
 
 publ.cx gerebant ur. Hieron. Rubeus, Lib. Hiji. Raven. Anno 1297. .'-cd knge 
 
 anted illud nomen obtinuit in alijs Longobardorum Civitatibus tit coUi- 
 
 gcre liceret ex Ottcne, i> Acerbo Morena m Hiji. Rerum Londevetium, Sec. 
 
 Vid. Grotms j^^j. ^^ ^|j-g j\uthority inconliderable , fince the Lombards were derived from 
 
 HlJf^''o1thl" the Goths, ftom whom alfo the Englijh Saxons had their Original, and had die 
 
 cam. ' like fundamental Conftitution, and were governed by much the f^ime Laws. 
 
 But that the Title of IViies or Sapientes, was often attributed to the Commons 0I 
 England, I Ihall explain to you w^hen I come to treat of the Antiquity of 
 the Houje of Commons, after the Kormans Entrance ; whgre I fliall (hew you, 
 that divers Petitions were directed a tres Sages les Communes, And fure who- 
 foever is chofen by a County, City, or Borough, as their Reprefentative, and is 
 by them thought wife enough to be trulted with their Purfes , and to make 
 Laws for them, may very well (I think) be called in Old Englijh a Wite, or 
 in our modern Dialect , a L}ifcreet or Wife Man. But let this word Wites 
 fignify what it will, yet it could never mean here great Lawyers or Judges 
 as your LV. will have it j fince I very much doubt whether Law was then 
 a Trade or Profeifion , or not. And that the Judges in thofe Days had not 
 any more Voice in making Laws, than they have now , or any more to do 
 in it than in the bare drawing of them up, I am very well fatisfied ; fince if 
 they had any fuch Power in thofe Days, 1 do not believe our Kings would 
 ever have let them have loft it, fince it was fo advantagious to their Preroga- 
 tives that they Ihould keep it. I could give you divers other Authorities, 
 though of later date, to prove that the Commons were often included under the 
 word Sapientes in our ancient Statutes and Records -, but I refer thofe for 
 the Times after the Conquelt. I beg your pardon for being fo prolix al- 
 ready, which the Abufe your LV. hath put upon thefe words would not permit 
 me to avoid. But now we have cleared moft of the Terms in difpute be- 
 tween us, I hope we may proceed with greater Certainty. 
 
 A\. Though your Difcourle hath been lb long, yet fince it is fo efientially 
 neceflary to the right unJerftanding the matter in hand, I am well fatished j 
 and I fhall more fully confider the Account you give of thefe Words another 
 
 time.
 
 Dialogue the Sixth. 269 
 
 time. But at pre(ent give me leave to tell you. That fuppofe I fhould admit, 
 
 that ihofe Words on which you have now given Interpretation of divers Authors' 
 
 mav (bmetimes be taken in the Senle you have now put upon them; and that 
 
 conlequenrly the C:m>nons might be reprelented under fome of thofe general 
 
 Names ; Yet am I not fatisfied, how the Aldermen and Miigiflnnes of Cities and 
 
 Boroughs, could be included under this Word Wites, fince in the Auttuary to 
 
 the Thircy Fifth Law of iAvoard the ConfelTor, 'tis faid, Erant tf alix poteftates B. o. p. 57. 
 
 GT" dignitdtcs, per Frovincias, i!f Patrias umverfjs, iff per fingulos Comitatus 
 
 totius Regni conjiit!et£, qui Heretoches npud Anglos vocabantur. Scilicet Baroncs 
 
 Kobiles, i!f infignes Sapientes, &c. And Gregory of Tours, Rodovicus, and many 
 
 of the Foreign Ancient Hiltorians, mentron Sapient es only as Lawyers, Counfellors, 
 
 Judges j and among the modern Foreign Lawyers, Hottom:in and Calvin fay ex- 
 
 preil/ they we'e fuch. But perhaps not of the Inferior Rank, no more than the 
 
 Saxons Sapientes were, of which their Wiccna Remoter only confiited. And we 
 
 have at this Day the fudges, and King^s Council, and other great Lawyers, that 
 
 fit in the Lords Houie, and are alTiltant to the Parliament, when there is Oc- 
 
 cafion. Nor have you yet brought any Proof, that the Cities or Towns then lent 
 
 their Reprefentatives to the great Councils in the S.ixon Times, by this, or any 
 
 other Title. Rut as for the Knights of Shires, though I grant the Treatise 
 
 called Modus tenendi Parliament um, mention'^ fuch Perlbns to have been prelent 
 
 in Parliament in the Time of King Ethelred; yet by that Word Parliament, lb 
 
 often ufed by the Author of chat Treacife, and divers other Circumltances, it 
 
 may be eafilv perceived that the Author lived but about the Time of Edward III. 
 
 or Richard II. as Mr. Selden in his Titles of Honour, and Mr. Pryn in his Ani- 
 
 madverfions to Sir E. Cokeys Fourth Inftitutes, have very fully proved ; fo that 
 
 admitting that your Thanes, or Lords of Towns, did then appear in thofe Councils 
 
 for themfelves and their Tenants, yet could they not be properly faid to be their 
 
 Reprefentatives, becaufe ( as I told you before ) they were never chofen by rhem ; 
 
 whereas now the ordinary Freeholders, of Forty Shillings a Year, and the Freemen 
 
 and Inhabitants in Cities and Towns, have the greatelt Share in the Election of 
 
 Knights, Citizens and Burgeflcs. 
 
 And as for thokThanes you mention, they are thofe under whom they claimed, 
 owed their Elfates wholly to the Grants of former Kings, and held their Pof- 
 felHons from tliem by fome Tenure or other. And by Virtue of this Tenure it 
 was, that all the Lands of England were liable, even thofe that belonged to the 
 Church, to thofe Three Services, anciendy called Trinoda ]<!ecejfttds, viz. Expedi- 
 tio, Cnjlelli, iff Pontii cxtruUio, that is. Military Service againit a Foreign Enemy, 
 a.nd the Repair of Caftles and Bridges-, and fubjeft to the common Services of 
 the Kingdom. And that the Earls and Chief Thanes did hold their Lands by 
 Knights or Mditary Service, appears by rhe Reliefs of the Earls and Thanes, ex- 
 prell in the Laws of King Cnute, in Sir H. Spelmans Councils. So that if all the 
 Perfons who held thole Lands, owed them wholly to the King's Bounty, it feems 
 plain to me that they muft likewife owe their Places in the great Council to the 
 fame Original. 
 
 F. I think what you have now farther urged will be of no great Moment 
 againft mv Opinion :, for as to the Authority you bring from the Addition to that 
 Law 0^ Edward the ConfelTor, it is pljin by the Word Barones, that it was added 
 long fince that Time, that Word not being commonly in (Jfe, till fome Time 
 after the Norman Conqucft. Bur letting that pafs, it is plain by the reft of the 
 Law, if you would have been pleafed to have read it out, that thefe Heretoches 
 (here called Barons) were no other than ordinary Gentlemen, ov Thanes (which 
 then anfwered the Word Barons. And theie ( as this Law it felf exprelly tells 
 hs) were chofen by all the Freemen in the Folcmote, or County-Court. And 
 therefore tl-.ough I grant they might be Men of Eltates, yet there was no Necef- 
 fity of their being L'^rds, or Noble by Birth; nor is it likely that the People 
 would have chofen tlitir Earls, or any other of the like Order, when they had 
 lufficien. Choice of T/w»6'x or Gentlemen in their own Countrey, to command 
 the Military Forces of it. And though it is true thefe Gentlemen are called 
 Nobles, and remarkable Wife Men, yet this (according to your own fhewing) 
 doth not exclude others, and thofe of a far dirterent ProielTion, vis. Gu/ifclhrs, 
 Lawyers, and fudges, all which, you fuppofe had then Places in the Great C0U17- 
 cil, as tiiey have now in the Lords lloufe. And if this Word might comprehend 
 1 both
 
 270 
 
 B 
 
 IBLIOTHEC 
 
 A 
 
 Pol 
 
 1 T I C A. 
 
 r/, Hollinfti. 
 
 195. where 
 he fufficientty 
 proves this Af- 
 fertion from 
 
 both Swordmen and Lawyers, 1 cannot (ee why it may not alfo take in the 
 better and richer fort of Citizens and Magiftrates, who in that Age, were elefted 
 by their refpeftive Corporations; And I have already proved that thefe were 
 called Sapientes in other Countries ; and I fee no reafon why they may not have 
 been called fo here too. But that the King's Judges and Counfellors could have 
 no Votes in the Saxon Great Councils, I have already given a fuificient Reafon to 
 the contrary. 
 
 I (hall now firther fhew you, That the Cities and Boroughs in the Saxon 
 Times being fo much more numerous and confiderable than they are now, muit 
 needs have had (according to the Cuftom of thofe Times ( a confiderable Share 
 in thofe Great Councils, fince in them confifted a great Part of the Strength and 
 Riches of the Kingdom-, and were many more than they are at this Day; for 
 Bede tells us in the beginning of his Hiltory, That there were in England long 
 before his Time, Twenty Eight famous Cities, befides innumerable Cijlles, and vcalled 
 Towns of Note j many of which, though now extremely decayed, or quite ruined, 
 were then very confiderable, the greatelt and richeft Part of the Nation inhabiting 
 in thofe Times for the molt part in Cities ,or great Towns, for their greater Benefit 
 or Security-, and the greater Part of the Lands of England in the Saxon Times, 
 divers Ancient and long after, lay uncultivated, and over-run with Forelts and Bogs: So that the 
 Authors. Inhabitants of thole Cities and Boroughs being then fo confiderable for Eftares in 
 Lands, as well as other Riches, could not be excluded from having Places both in 
 the Britijh, or Saxon Great Councils. What Man of Senfe can believe, that the 
 Aricient and Potent Cities of London, TorA, Canterbury, Lincoln, Sec. Ihould 
 ever be excluded from having any Hand in the Great Confultation about giving 
 Money, and making Laws, and for the Publick Defence of the Kingdom in 
 the Saxon Times, any more than they are now ? And therefore we fidd, that 
 in all the Kingdoms of the German, or Gothick Original, the Chief Cities and 
 Towns have ftill fent Deputies to the Diets, or Aflemblies of Eltates, as I faid 
 but now. 
 
 In the next Place, though I do not aflert, that there were Knights of Shires be- 
 fore the Conqueft -, yet I am not convinced that there were none. For though I 
 conlels the Treatife you mention, appears to have been written fince the coming 
 in of the Normans, yet the Subltance of it nmft have been much older than the 
 Times of Edward III, and Richard II -, or elfe certainly King Hcnfy IV. or his 
 Chancellor for him, would never have been at the Trouble of tranlhiitting a 
 Copy of this faid Modus into Ireland under the Great Seal, which is thought to in- 
 croach fo much on the Prerogative, had he not been very well informed of the 
 Antiquity, as well as Authoriiy thereof. And therefore it might very well be writ- 
 ten about the Tim.e of ifjw;>' III. from Ibme Ancient Hiltorians and Records, not 
 now Extant, though the Copies we have of it, may be of no longer Standing, 
 than the Time Mr. Selden mentions. 
 
 But admiuing that there were no Knights of Shires before the Conqueft, and 
 though the Thanes (who I fuppole made the greateft Figure in the Wittena 
 GeKictes) were not Earls, or chief T/w»fj-, that is, of the Greater Nobility, yet 
 thev were great Freeholders, and though Commoners, yet Gentlemen, and of the 
 Lefier Nobility, in the fame Senfe as Gentlemen, or Knights of Shires are now. 
 And though not elefted by the Countries, vet might be as well efteemed their 
 Reprelentaiives, as they are now of Freeholders under [40 s. per Annum, Leale- 
 holders and Copy-holders for Years, who have no Votes at the Eleftion of Par- 
 liament Men ; whereas thefe Thanes were then the chief ( if not the only ) Pol^ 
 feflbrs of all the Freehold Eftates in the Kingdom. 
 
 Nor is it any material Objeft ion to fay, that thefe Thanes might at firft owe 
 thofe Eftates to the Grant of the Firft Saxon Kings, and might alfo after a Sort 
 hold their Eftates of them as Heads of the Commonwealth, by fuch Services as 
 were fettled by Publick Laws; yet does it not therefore follow, that they owed 
 their very Right of coming to the Great Council wholly to the King's Favour, For 
 in the firft Place it is to be confidered, that though the Firft Saxon Kings con- 
 <{uertd this Ifland from the Britons, yet thofe that affiited them being only 
 Voluntiers, the Chief Officers or Commanders of them might not only delerve, 
 hut alio capitulate for their Shares in the Land fo conquered. And thefe being 
 given out by the King, according to each Man's Quality, Condition, or Defert, 
 
 might
 
 T):aho-iie tie Sixth. 2,7 1 
 
 might conftitute thofe who were called the King's T7.).//?fj-i as thofe who held like- 
 wile under them, were the Middle Tl.hines or V^ivaflTors^ fuppofiiig (rill you 
 an prove the contrary ) that theie had Places in the Great Council, as well as the 
 other •, and you might as well argue that they could have no Places there, but 
 by the Favour of their Lords. Wliereas I have already proved, that an Eftate of 
 Five Hides in Land, of whomfuever holden, made iThane or Nobleman of the 
 Inferior Rank : And we hnd by the fame Laws of King Athcljhm, h'.s Wcreg'ih\, or 
 Price of his Head, was valued but equal with that of a Mafs Th.incs or Pritft, 
 {viz.) at Two Thouland Thrymfar. So that a fu^cient Eftate in Land, did not 
 only make a Man a Gentleman, but alfo give him a Place in the Great CounciL 
 And there were beiides all thele feveral Alodjrij, who held their Lands, dif- 
 charged from all Services, and could fell or difpofe of them wiihout the Confent 
 of the King, or any other inferior Lord, and are thofe often mentioned in Dumef- 
 ifdy-Book, qui potutt ire cum lerru qito vohih. Nor is your Argument conclufive. 
 That becaule in thole Times, as well as now, all Lands were held either me- 
 diately or immediately of the King, and were chargeable with thole Three ge- 
 neral Services you mention for the Publick Safety and Good of the Kingdom •, 
 that therefore not only all Mens Civil Properties, but alio their Right of coming 
 to the Great Councils, mufl wholly depend upon the King's Will: Since I have 
 already pro\ed, that the hrlt Saxon Kings by their Conqueft of the Kingdom, could 
 not acquire the fole Property of all the Lands thereof to themfelves, though they 
 might be made ufe of as Publick Trultees, to diftribuce them according to thole 
 Mens Qualities and Delerts, who had helped them in the Conqueft. So that 
 when they were once pofTelTed of fuch Eftates, they had immediately thereupon a 
 Right to a Place in the Great Council, the Burthen of the Government lying 
 chiefly on fuch as had Eftates in Land. 
 
 And that many others befides the Kings ThdTies, or Great Lords, had Places 
 in the Great Council of thofe Times, appears as well by the Name of Mycel 
 Synods, oxWittena-Gemots, which are rendred by our Ancient GloflarittsA^/^/s^-^/ii, 
 or Populofii Convent io-, as alfo the Titles, and Conclufions to divers of the Titles 
 of thofe Great Councils in the Saxon Times, where are often mentioned after the 
 Comites, iff ?roceres Terrs, alior urn fide Hum mjinita muhitudo, which muft cer- 
 tainly take in many more than the King's Thanes, Judges, or other of his Great 
 Men, who were then but a few in Comparifon of all the reft of the Freeholders 
 of England. 
 
 M.. I will not longer difpute the Probability of what you fay 5 all the Difficulty 
 lies in the Proof of the Matter of Facl. For in the firft Place I deny that any 
 other of a lefs Degree than the King's Thanes, or Chief Tenants, had any Places 
 or Voices in the old Englijh Councils. Nor can you find (as you your lelf are 
 forced to confefs ) \n our Saxcn Laws, or Ancient Hiltorians of thole Times, any 
 Reprefentati\'es of the Common People mentioned ; fuch as are now, much lels 
 Citizens or BurgefTes for any City or Borough in England. And therefore what 
 you lay concerning the Iviches or Power of rhe Cities and Towns before the Con- 
 queft, though perhaps it might be true, yet doth it not theretore follow, that 
 they mutt then ftnd their Reprefentatives to the Great Councils. Nor is it any 
 Argument to prove that they did, becaule great Cities and Towns do or did lately 
 lend Deputies to the like Affemblies in other Countries, iince our Government 
 might not only Originally difKr in that from theirs, but that alfo the fending 
 of thofe Deputies might be granted by fome later Princes, long fince the Time of 
 the iirft Beginning of thofe Kingdoms, and I do believe will prove fo, if clofely 
 look'd into. 
 
 ¥. I think your Reply hath no more Weight in it, than what you have already 
 urged: For in the firft Place it lies upon your Side to prove, that none but the 
 Kings or Chief T7w/7t'i-, had any Places in the Great Councils of thofe Times •, and 
 when you can prove that, you may do fomething. 
 
 But what I have now brought to prove the great Antiquity of our Cities and 
 Boroughs \n England, is not fo little to the Purpofe as you would make it; finte 
 it confirms that Right of Prefcription, which all Ancient Cities and Boroughs in 
 England do claim of lending Members to Parliament ; and theref^e pray lee what 
 Mr. Lambard, a Perfon whom all the Learned own extremely knowing in xhc En- f.,^ i<6 2 
 glijh Saxon Government, tells us on this Subjeft, in his A/xheon in ihele Words, ^l. '^' 
 
 " That
 
 272 B I B L 1 O T H E C A P L I t I C A.' 
 
 " That whereas in the Beginning of the Laws, (viz. thofe made by the S.ixon 
 " Kings he there mentions) all the A£ts are faid to pafs from the King and his 
 *' Wife Men, both of the Clergy and Laity, in the Body of the Laws, each 
 " Statute being thus •, Arid it is the Advice of our Lord, and his Wife Men. So 
 " as it appears that it was then a received Form of Speech, to fignify both the 
 *' Spirituality, and Laity ( that is to lay, the Greater KobUity, and the Lels, or 
 *' Commons ) by this one Word Witena, i. e. Wife Man. 
 
 " Now as thefe written Authorities do undoubtedly confirm our Aflertion of 
 *' the Continuance of this manner of Parliament, fo is there alfo unwritten Lav» 
 " or Prefcription, that doth no lefs infallibly uphold the lame. For it is well 
 " known, that in every Quarter of the Realm, a great many Boroughs do yet 
 *' fend Burgefles to the Parliament, which are neverthelels fo Ancient, and lb 
 " long lince decayed, and gone to Nought, that it cannot be fhewed that they 
 " have been of any Reputation at any Time fince the Conquelt, and much lels 
 " that they have obtained this Privilege by the Grant of any King fucceeding 
 *' the fame. So that the Intereft which they have in Parliament groweth by ati 
 " Ancient ITfage before the Conqueft, whereof they cannot (hew any Beginning; 
 *' which Thing is alfo confirmed by a contrary Ufage in the felf lame Thing j 
 *' for it is likewile known, that they of Ancient Demefne, do prefcribe in not 
 *' lending to the Parliament; for which Reafon alfo, they are neither Contri- 
 " butors to the Wages of the Knights of Shires, neither are they bound by fundry 
 " Afts of Parliament, though the lame be generally Penned, and do make no 
 *' Exceptions of them. But there is no Ancient Demefne, faving that only which 
 *' is defcribed in the Book of Boomfday, under the Title of Terra Regis, which 
 " of Neceflity muft be fuch as either was in the Hands of the Conqueror him- 
 *' fell', who made the Book, or of Edioard the Confeflbr, that was before 
 *' him. And fo again, if they of Ancient Demefnes, have ever fince the Con- 
 " queft prefcribed not to ele£l Burgeffes to the Parliament, then ( no doubt ) there 
 " was a Parliament before the Conqueft, to the which they of other Places did 
 " fend their Burgefles. 
 
 From whence we may conclude, that the Learned Author did not only believe 
 that the Lords, but that alfo the Inferior Nobility, and Reprelentatives of Cities 
 and Towns, were included under the Word Wites, and alfo that thefe Places 
 claimed that Priviledge by Prefcription, and not by Grant of any King fince the 
 Conqueft, or before. 
 
 M. I Ihall not deny but Mr, Lamknd was a Learned Antiquary, yet there are 
 
 others, more in Number, and perhaps of greater Learning, who do fuppofe, that 
 
 no Cities or Boroughs fent Burgefles to Parliament, but fince the Conqueft -, tho' 
 
 I confefs the Time is not exaQly agreed on •, but whenever they began to appear 
 
 there, it is certain they could have no Right of coming, but fi:om the King's 
 
 Summons or Grants-, fince none but fuch Cities or Towns, that held of the 
 
 King in Cipite, had anciently any Place in thofe Aflembliesi nor of them neither 
 
 BAP. any o\h^x, but thofe whom the King plealed to call. And from thence proceeds 
 
 Pa' 7.2. that great Variety we find in the Lift of thofe Towns, which fend Members to Par- 
 
 ^' ' liament. But I fhall omit fpeaking any Thing farther of this at prefent. 
 
 But as for thofe middle, inferior Thanes or VavaJJours (as they were afterwards 
 called) whom you fuppole to have made lb great a Figure in the Saxon Great 
 Councils, 1 do not believe that they had any Votes there-, and I hope I (hall be 
 able to prove to you by and by, that none but the King's Tenants in Cipite 
 appeared in thofe Meetings, from the Time of William the Conqueror, to the 
 49tf' of Tf^wy IIL Now if it be true (as you fuppofe) YAr\%William made no 
 material Alterations in the conftituent Parts of the Great Council of the Kingdom, 
 after his Conqueft of it, it will likewife follow, that the fame Sort of Peribns, 
 viz. Tenants by Knights Service, were the only Members of it before the Con- 
 queft too- But if you have any exprefs Authorities, out of our Ancient Saxon 
 Laws or Hiftories, to prove that the Commons appeared at the Wittena Gemotes 
 ,in the Saxon Times, pray let us fee them. 
 
 F. I (hall perform your Command immediately •, but in the firft Place give me 
 leave to tell you, that what you have faid concerning Cities and Towns not 
 fending Burgefles to Parliament, till after the Conqueft, is a great Miftake, built 
 upon a falie and precarious Hypochefis, that they all held m Capne of the King -, 
 
 the 
 3
 
 T>ialogue tie Sixth. «273 
 
 the contrary of which, I (hall make out, when I come to treat of that Queftioil! 
 So likewile is it as precarious, that none but the King's Tenants in Capitc, had any 
 Votes in our Great Councils, in the Times immediately luceeeding your Conqueft, 
 till the 49''' of Hc/iry III. and that therefore it mult have been lb before the Con- 
 quelt. For as I own that King Willium made no material Alteration in the Go- 
 vernment of the Kingdom, after his Entrance, fo I likewife affirm, that as well 
 after, as betore that Time (if not Knights of Shires, yet) all the Thames or 
 Barons i. e. great Yrecholdcrs of England, had Places in that Alfemhly before the 
 49''' ot Henry III. ' 
 
 But to proceed to the Authorities you defire ; I fhall begin with the Firft, and 
 moft Ancient General Council we have left us in the Saxon Times, viz. that 
 which was held at Qinterbi(ry A. D. 605, by King Ethibcrt, not long after 
 the Setdemcnt ot Chriltianity in this liland ; which is Recorded by Sir H. Spel- 
 man in his Bntijh Councils, in thefe Words-, An. Inairn.nionis Dominica 68'j. Pjge 125. 
 JEihelbrrtiis Rex in fide Roboratus Qitbolici and cum Ben a Rcgm.i filio-jue 
 jpfo tiidbaido, ac reverendijjimo prxjiile Augujlino, deierifque opumatibKs Terne 
 Solenitiitem Katafn Domini Ce/ebrunt Gintuanx ; Convoano igitnr ibidem Commu- 
 m Conftlw tarn Cleri qlfam Fopu/i; Whence you may obferve that the People 
 then made a confiderable part of the great Council irom the very Beginning 
 of the Sdxon Times. 
 
 M. Prav, Sir, will you give me Leave to Anfwer your Qjieftions, one by B. a. f. 
 one as ycu go, for fear I Ihould not only forget them, but alio tire you with ^'-'i- 4' 
 too long a Speech. In the firlt Place therefore give me Leave to tell you, that 
 you aie very much miftaken to fuppofe, that by the Word Popu/us, is here meant 
 the common People, or V^ilgar^ Whereas, when Qerus and Pop///us are ufed 
 together, in our Ancient Writers of thofe Times, it fignihes no more than a 
 Common Council of the Clergy, and People or Laity, and not the Common 
 People-, tor then the Lords, or Great Men would have been quite left out of 
 this Council, as certainly they w-ere not^ and fo when CAvv/t, and Vopubs, afe 
 Ajfed together, and thus contradittinguifhed , then they are expreflive of Two diffe- 
 aent Eltates or Conditions of Men or Chriltians, the Clergy, and Laity or lecular 
 Men ; and thole were the Optitnutes Terra, the chief Men of the Land before ex- 
 preiled. Neither was this Council held under a fble Saxon Monarch, but under 
 tthelbcrt Kii;g of Kent only v and that but Eight Years after Augujfin's coming 
 hither, and above Two Hundred Years before the Seven Kingdoms were united into 
 one Monarchy, 
 
 f*: I am nor at all concerned at this Anfwer, fince I can prove, that by 
 the Word Popu/us mult be here underitood fomewhat more than Kings, Ko- 
 blancn, and Juiges, vi?.. the Reprelentatives of the Commons likewile \ or elfe 
 the Saxon Witena-Gemotes were not what their Titles f])ejk them to be, Common, 
 or General Councils of the whole Kingdom ; that is, of all theEftates or Ordeis of 
 it there, but only a Convention of the Bilhops and Great Lords. And therefore 
 if the Word Clerus did then comprehend all the Clergy, both Superior and In- 
 ferior, ;. c. as well the Bilhops as Abbots, Priors, Deins and Clerks, for the 
 Secular Clergy, and Cathedral Chapters, Hjc. I pray give me a Reafon why the 
 W'ofd Populus, when put alone, mult be wholly confined to your Earls, or Chief 
 Thanes, and may nor alio take in the Middle or Lefs 'Thanes, Freeholders, or 
 Lords of Townfliips, and the Reprefentatives of Cities and Borough Towns ^ 
 and why not with as much Realbn, a; that the Word Populus amonglt rhe 
 Romans', took in the whole Body of the People of Rome, both Patricians, and 
 Plebeians, when allembled in their Comhiis Cenruriatis, to make Laws, or create 
 Magiltrates. The relt of your Argument is not very material -, for though I grant 
 this Council was held before the Heptarchy was united into a Monarchy, yet 1 think 
 it is very eafy to prove, that as all the Saxon Kingdoms conlilted of leveral Na- 
 tions of the fame Language and Original, lb were they likewile under the fame 
 Form of Government ; And that C'ouncils conhlted of the lame conltituent Mem- 
 bers, as I lliall prove to you from the Kingdom of the h'eft Saxons, from which 
 was the Foundation of our prefttnt Enghfh Monarchy. And tor this I (hall give 
 you the Authority of IVill. of Malmesbury, and ti. Huntingdon, (who 'tis highly 
 probable) had feen the Ancient Hiltories and Records ot thole Times) and they 
 both agree in the Relation of the Depolition of Sigcbcrt, King of the Wefi Saxons, 
 fbr_,Tyranny and Cruelty, Anno 754; the Words are remarkable, which pray 
 
 N n Tea d ;
 
 274 BlBLlOTHECA PoLlTlCA. 
 
 read; XJnie in Anno fecundo ipfiusRegni congregatifunt Froceres, fSfYop\iW'Totius 
 Regni Vf provida deltheratione, tf unammi confenfu omnium expulfus efl a Regno 
 tf Ktnewulfus Jai IS ex Regio fangiiine elcSus eft in Regem; where you may ob- 
 ferve a plain Diiierence made between the Higher Nobi/ity, here called Rroceres^ 
 and the Reprelentatives of the People, here ftiled Popu/i; as alfo from another Au- 
 thority of 1 Great Council, held under the fame King JEthelbert, as it is men- 
 tioned by Roger Hoveden, Domeftick to King Henry II. in the Second Part of his 
 Annals^ where among the Laws of Kmg Edward theConfeflbr, and which he writes 
 to have been confirmed by King William I. you will find under the Title de Apibus, 
 fjf de aliis minutis Decimis, ( which are there faid to be given to the Clergy by- 
 former Kings, and particularly by this King Ethelbcrt) thele Words; Hac eni>a 
 SanBus Augujlinits pr^tdicavit, ^ doc nit iS> hu concejjafunt a Rege, Baronibas ^ 
 Vopnlo. So that if Ropuhfs here doth not fignify an Order of Men, dittihSt from 
 the Barons or Great Lords, it would have been a Tautology with a Witnefs. 
 
 M. I muft confefs, if this Authority you now urge, had been as Ancient as 
 the Time to which it is afcribed, it would be of fome Weight ^ but it appears by 
 this Word Barombus (not ufed in England till after the Conqueft) that it was ad- 
 ded long after that Time ( by fbme ignorant Monk ) to the Conteflfor's Laws, and 
 therefore will not prove that for which you bring it, viz. That the Vulgus under- 
 ftood for the People or Commons, in the Senfe they are now taken, had any 
 Place in the Saxon Great Councils. 
 B. A, A. But make the moft of it, this was but the Confirmation of a Law made 
 
 Pa^e 2j)7, 258 . j,y j^jng JEthelbfrt ^ but how, and by what Words the Legiflators were ex- 
 prefTed near Five Hundred Years after the Law was made •, or how they were 
 lendred in Latin after the coming of the Kormuns tranfiently, and with- 
 out Defign to give an Account of them, cannot be of much Validity to prove 
 who they were; and that the Laws of King Edward were made, or at lealt 
 tranllated into Gorman Latin-, after the Korman Conqueft, appears by the Words 
 Comiies, ( befides the Barons already mentioned ) Mi/ires, Servicntcs, &c. all 
 7\orman Words (uled in thole pretended Laws) and not known here, till their 
 Coming hither. He that will aflert any Thing from a fmgle uncouth Exprellioa 
 , In one Cafe, and upon one Occafion only, brings but a flender Proof for what he 
 laySj fo will any Man think, (becaule 'tis faid in one of King Edward's Laws, 
 ( and perhaps no where elfe, concerning this King's Coronation ) quod debet in 
 propria perfona coram Regno, ^ Sacerdotio (!f Oero, jurare ante quam ab AT' 
 chiepifccpis, if Epifcopis Regni coronet ur-^) That the Priefts were not Clergymen, 
 nor the Clergymen Priefts ; and that the Archbifhops and Bifhops were neither. 
 Many other uncouth ExprefTions do often occur in the old Monks, which are to 
 be interpreted according to the common Ufage and Practice of the Times in which 
 they are delivered. And therefore feeing before the Time of the Conqueft, and 
 for Two, or near Three Centuries of Years afterward, the Commons (as at this 
 Day undetftood ) were not called, nor did come to Great Councils or Parliaments, 
 as I (hall prove when I come to fpeak of thofe Times : So that by Barons muft 
 be here meant the Great Barons, and by Fcpulus, the Communitas Angli.e, or 
 which was then all one, the Communitas Baronum, the Lefs Barons, or Tenants 
 in Capite ; and the Senfe of the Words is farther confirmed by ieveral undeniable 
 Authorities; wherein, by the Communitas Ropuli, muft be underftood not the 
 Community of the People or Commons, but the whole Body of the lels Tenants 
 in Capite. 
 
 But to give you an Anfwer why the Word Popu/us could not comprehend all 
 Sorts of People among the Saxons, as it did among the Romans, but only the No- 
 bility, ( who were then, properly fpeaking, the only Freemen ) is this, that none 
 but the Nobility pofleffed any Lands in Fee-fimple ; all the reft of the meaner Sort 
 of People (then called Cheorl Yolk) holding theirs in Villanage under their Lords 
 or T})ancs, being no better than meer Villains, or Cottagers, and who were all 
 bound to the Good Behaviour, every Tenth Family being bound one for another, 
 in the Sheriff s Torne, or Court of Franc-Pledge, under their Head, or Tentfi 
 Man, called the Ty thing-Man, who was to anfwer for them. So that the Com- 
 mons oi England were not fuch a Free People, nor had any Share in the Govern- 
 ment, as fome fuppole, there being, I believe, no fuch Perfons as our Yeomen 
 or Farmers in thofe Days. 
 
 F. I
 
 /t) 
 
 Dialogue the Sixth. . * 
 
 T. I fhall, I hope, take oft this Obje.^ion againft my SigfiificatiDn cf the 
 word ?(fulus. Pethaps this Law might very well be tianlcribcd from Ibmc 
 old Copy of King JF.ihcibert's Laws not now extant, and in which there 
 might be the Word Thanes, inftead of Bjro/iibus, which is but a Traiiflation 
 of ir, in the Senle in which it was ufed not long after the Conquclt. 
 
 Nor i> it true which vou affirm, that the Word Baro/ies was ncxer in ufj 
 before the coming in of the Aormans, in ancient Charters ; as 1 (hall prove 
 'to you by this Charter of King Edgar, to the Abby of Wcfthimjler, con- 
 taining a Confirmation of their ancient Charters and Privileges, collected by 
 the atorciaid Sulcardiis, a Monk o{' Wcjlnniijlcr , as it is to be found in the 
 CottPTihtn Library ; the Charter it felt is long, but concludes thus. In Ccncilio c^,.^f-i'flf 
 habito infra £(////<:(//« Wettmona ft. Tr^ffuientc feciimVilio fuo Edwardo, & A/xhi- Bib. Cott-.nfub 
 epo Dunflano, i^ univerfts Epifcopt-i iSf Barombus jiiis ; where you may fee t^jf-i<i p.-.hWi- 
 ■that the Word was not unknown before the Time of IVilliam ]. And I could '"'• ^- 3- /• 7- 
 give you more Inftances of other Kings Charters, where the fame Word is 
 uled before the Conquelt, were it worth the while to trouble you with 
 them. 
 
 And fo likewife Fopu/us for People, or Icolk in the Saxon -, Yet take it fas 
 you fuppofe) to have been writ not long before the Time Hovcden: writ his 
 Hiftory, (which was above 8o Years before the a<)x\\ox Hen.-:^.) T a is Author, 
 or whoever elfe added this Paflage to this Law about Tythes, d'd then fup- 
 pofe, that according to the Cuftom then ufed, the People or Cmmon.- had 
 Reprefentatives in thofe AlTemblies -, which I (Tiall prove from yowv own 
 Senle of thefe Words ; tor if the Word Popjt/us fignities here another Sort of Men 
 different from the chief Thanes or Lords, then this Word Populus mutt iie- 
 cefFarily fignify f':)me that were Commons, and not Lords, by your own Concef 
 fion, and who alfo mult repretent others betides themlelves. But ir is high- 
 r ly improbable, that by this Word Populus Ihould be meant,- the Communitas 
 Anglu, Of the Communitas Baronum-, for then if the Word Baronum would 
 have included all rhe Tenants m Cap'ite, both gteat and fmall, lo wnat pur- 
 pofe (hould the Word Populus have been added at all ? Therefore I am 
 io far from believing this way of exprefling the feveral Eftates of the King- 
 dom, to have been a Monkifh Blunder, (as you fuppofe) that it was rather 
 a common and ordinary way of ExprelTion among the Writers of thofe Times, 
 as well in Recotds as Hiltories, who then very well knew the People or Com- 
 mons, to be an Fitate, or conltituent Part of the Common Council of the 
 Kingdom, quite different from the Lords •, and in which Senfe it is recited in 
 an ancient Charter of King John, that he being divorced, the new Queen was K-t.Cxrt. 5 
 crowned, Ac com muni ajj'enfu 6?' concordi Voluntate ibxhirpifcoporum, Epifco- johzn. „u s. 
 porum, Comitum, Baronufn, Cleri i!f Populi totius Regni; Wiiere by Oerus n is "• ?5- 
 plain muft be meant the inferior Clergy rcprelented by their Proxies in this 
 great Synod or Parliament j and by Populus was underltooJ the People or 
 Commons, likewife prefent by their Reprelentatives -, or elle the Words Clerus 
 and Populus had been idle Tautologies in this Record. And in the like Senfe 
 it is alfo ufed by Matt. Park, in the 9th 0^ hen. III. prefentibiis Clero, iff f.22->. 
 Topulo , cum Miignatibus Regwnk ; Where this Author makes a plain Di- 
 ftindion between the Magnates, and the Populus •, which had been altogether 
 in vain , if the Word Magnates would have comprehended all your greater 
 or lets Barons, or Tenants in capite. 
 
 But I fliall in the next Place proceed to that great Synod, or Council, 
 that was called by King Edward the Elder , Anno Bom. 905. and is menti- 
 oned by Simeon of Durham, and other Authors quoted by Archbilhop Parker^ 
 the Compiler of the Britijh Antiquities, in thele Words, Plegmundus Ciniua- 
 ricnfts Archiepifcopus, una cum Rege Magnijico cognojuinato, Edioardo fentore Confiimm 
 Magnum Epijcoporum, Abbatum Fidelium, Procerum iff Populorum, i^c. convo- 
 cavit. Which Synod, or Council, was called to divide the large Dioceles of 
 M/>W;fy?fr and >S/;frW« into Five other (as I have already told you) ; where you 
 may plainly lee the Words Yidelium 0/ Populorum , put diltintt from the 
 Word Proceres, if we take that Word to tignify only the greater Nobility. 
 
 I (hall now conclude with a tew Words in Reply to your Anfwer, why the 
 Word Populus, could not among the Saxons take in all Sorts of People, as 
 well as amongft the Romans ; for I annot take it as a laifcfaQory Anlvver, 
 
 N n 2 for
 
 27<^ BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTICA. 
 
 for tliefe Realbns.- i. Becaufe, tho' I fhould grant that the vulgar Sort of 
 People were greater Slaves than they are now, and that they had no here- 
 ditary Properties in their Eftates, but at the Will of" their Lords ^ yet does 
 it therefore follow, that all the Freemen of the Kingdom were Noblemen or 
 Gentlemen, or elfe Villains, as now underftood ? Since Kitardus tells us in 
 the Place abovementioned, that there were Three Sorts of People among the 
 Saxons, Ede/ingi, frilingi, isf Lazzi, i.e. Gentlemen or Noblemen, Freemen, and 
 Slaves or Villains -, and this middle Sort of Men might alio poflels Lands 
 in AUodie, or Free Tenure, tho' they did alio depend upon greater Men for 
 „ „ „ Proteftion, and feem to be thofe who were after the Conqueft called in Doom/day 
 Pag. 56. Book, Comnendatii, i. e. fuch, who tho' they lived under the Proteftion, and 
 vf ithin the Diftrift of fbme great Man, Lord or Patron •, yet as Sir Hen. Sf el- 
 man tells us, were free both as to their Perfbns and Eftates, not as fworn to, 
 or holding of any but the King. And befides thele there were alio great Bodies 
 of Men in Cities, and Burgh Towns, and thole very confiderable lor Eftates 
 and other Riches , who tho' not nobly born, and yet being Freemen, it was 
 but realbnable that they fhould have their Reprsfentatives in Parliament, as well 
 as the former. 
 
 M. I fhall not at prefent difpute the Matter farther with you concerning 
 the Word fopulus, lince I (hall refer fpeaking more about it, till I come to 
 the Times after the Conqueft. And therefore to return to the Matter in 
 hand ; had you but read a little farther in the fame Leaf, in the Author you 
 have cited, you might have found who they were, whom King Edward the 
 Elder called to this Council ; The Words are thefe, FJvcardus Rex Synodum 
 B. A. p. Tr\td'i[fam Nobilium Angloriirn congregavh cm prefidebat Vlegmundm. Here 
 ^'<g- 7.' your own Author tells us in few Words, the meaning of a long Title of 
 
 this Synod now mentioned, viz. that the Bidiops, Abbots, Y'ldeles, Troceres, iSf 
 Topuliis, were all Nobi/es, Noblemen, that is, the Ecdefwfticks and Laics, or , 
 the Biihops and Lay-Nobility, as I fhall make more evident hereafter 5 and not 
 the Vulgui, Commons, or ordinary Sort of People. 
 
 And to this Effe£t Malmsbury, and the Manulcript in the Bodleian Library 
 cited by Sir William Dugdale, and Mr. Somncr, from the Trealury of the Re- 
 cords and Evidences of the Church of Canterbury, cited by Sir H. Spelman, 
 do all report of this very Council, That Edwardus Rex congregavh Synodum 
 Senator urn Gent is Anglorum cut procfidebat Vkgmundm, 8ic. That King Edward 
 convened a Synod of the Senators (in the Saxon, Aldermen, of the Eng/ijh Na- 
 tion) that is, fuch as were ufually called to fuch Councils, which were only 
 the Nobles, and great Men, for ought yet appears from this Inftance. But 
 what if after all, there was never any fuch Synod called, and conlequently no 
 fuch Title to it ? For it was faid to have been aflembled, by realbn of a 
 chiding Letter from Pope formofus ; now this Yormofus died Anno 895. that 
 is. Ten Years before this Council was fuppofed to be called.* 
 
 F^ I fee this Authority galls you, therefore I do not blame you to do what 
 you can to be rid of it •, but I fhall not give it up for all that. For that 
 this Word Yopulorum, then lignified all the Lay-Perfons, who were aftually 
 Koblemen, that is, of the greater Nobility, I think is a great Miftake. For to 
 what Purpole are all thele different Words here heap'd together, fince the 
 Word 'Sroccres had done as well alone in your Senfe, and at once compre- 
 hended all thofe 'Lords or 'Koblemcn, that you would only have to be there ? 
 But the Word Nobiles did not in thofe Times, neither doth at this Day in 
 any other Countrey hnt England, fignify none but great Lords, Barons, or Peers-, 
 lince in Germany and France, and other Countries, every private Gentleman is 
 , KobilU. And 1 think the Middle or lefs Thanes, might then as well be cal- 
 
 ■ led Nobiles, as the great Ones. And the Aldermen, or other Magiftrates of 
 i great Cities and Towns, might alfo very well be ftiled Nobiles, ratwne Officii, 
 
 \ for the time they a£led in that Employment, and might alio deferve the 
 ',■ Name of Senators , as well as the greater Aldermen, or Earls : And if there 
 -iWere no other Lay- Men, but your greater Sort 0^ Aldermen, then what becomcfi 
 
 ■ of your Chief, or Kings Thanes, which you your lelf grant were conltant 
 1 Members of thofe Councils? Nor indeed doth the '^o\A Senator only fignify 
 
 fuch who were Noblemen by Birth, fince among the Romans theie were Se- 
 nators of the Ylit'eian as well as Patrician Order , as any Man who hath 
 
 buc
 
 Dialogue the Sixth. 277' 
 
 buc read Ijtc'uts fhrus, may quickly fee. But as for your Exceptions, That 
 
 there was no fuch Council, becaufe Pope Yormofus is laid to have died Ten 
 
 Years before this Council was called •, it is a bold Affertion to annihilate a 
 
 whole Council, becaufe of the Millake of the Date, or Time of its meeting, i, 
 
 or perhaps in the Name of the Pope, or King then reigning •, efbecially when | 
 
 it was alTembled upon fo remarkable an Occafion , as the ereding of theft ' ■ 
 
 new Bifhopricks, which all our Hiltorians afcribe to this Council. 
 
 But 1 (hall now proceed to another Authority, and that is to the great or Qonx- 
 mon Council held at Ft^mfcf^fryl;?^^ 853. where you will find in Sh H.Spe/man's 
 Councils, as alfo in Ingulphuis Hiftory, that after the Bilhops, Earls, and other 
 great Men, or Thanes, who fubfcribed to the Law of Tythes, granted by way of ^''^' ?*"' 
 Charter there mentioned, wherein thefe following Parties are there mentioned, A/i- 
 orumque Fidelium infinita mult'ituio qui omnes Regium O)irographum laudaverunr^ 
 Dignitates vera fua nomina fuhfcripferunt. And the learned Commentator upon 
 King Alfred's Lite, publifhed in Latin at Oxford, is fo well latisfied, that the Com- 
 mons were meant by this Expreflion, that he hath this remarkable Obfervation up- 
 on this King's granting of thefe Tythes .- Bk videtur Rex Decimal Ecclefu concef- 
 fiffe. Primum Anno S^, Hf 2°vero%'i'^. vel ut a/US') >^, e tola Regions, i^cumAf- 
 fenf It omnium l^obiiium, i!f totiusFopuH. Where this Author rightly fuppoles, that 
 the Words at the Conclufion of this Council, did comprehend the Conftnt of the 
 People or Commons, as well as of the Lords, or Noblemen. Orelfe this reciting of 
 this Word Vcpulus, as diftinft from xhtNobiles, had been altogether in vain. 
 
 So that tho' I do not affirm, that the meet Vulgar, or Plebeian Sort of 
 People did appear perfbnally in the great Council of thofe Times, any more 
 than they do now, yet they were there by their Reprefentatives, viz. either 
 by Knights of Shires, as now, or elfe the chX&i Thanes, or Freeholders of the 
 Kingdom •, as alfo by the Aldermen, or chief Burgeffes of great Cities and 
 Towns, who I fuppofe did then reprefent thofe Politick Bodies, iince all Men 
 could not appear there in Perfbn. 
 
 But I fhall give you another Authority out of the lame Author, viz. Arch- 
 bifliop Parkers. Britifh Antiquities, where when he relates the calling of the P^tg. 87.; 
 Council of Calne, for the turning of Married Priefts out of Monafteries, and 
 Cathedral Churches, and putting Monks into their Places ; He tells us a re- 
 markable Accident that then happened, viz. The falling down of a Room 
 where the Council was afTembled : So that there fell together all of a ludden , 
 (pray take the Words themlelves out of the Authors there cited) Prxfules, Pro- 
 ceres, Equites, Nobiles, pariter & Ignobiles Corruerunt. So that you fee here 
 were other Sorts of Men prefent in this Council, befide the Prtfules, (i, e. 
 Bifhops and Abbots); and the Proceres, (i.e. the Earls and chief Thanes), vi2. 
 the Knights, or Inferior Txincs, Noblemen or Gentlemen •, as alfo Ignobiles, 
 thofe that were not Noble by Birch, fuch as were the Reprefentatives of 
 Cities and Boroughs. And of this Opinion the Archbifhop himfelf leems to 
 be •, for at the End of this Relation he makes this Remark ; Sed nee hujus 
 domus in qua omnium Ordinum, tam Confpicui Qariq-, viri, Confulto Convene- 
 runt tam repentina ruina ope Diabo/ica carere potuit ; where by Omnium Or- 
 dinum, he muft certainly mean the Three Eftates of the Kingdom, in the lame 
 Senfe as the Word Ordincs is ufed by Camden, and other Latin Writers, who 
 call our Parliament Convcntus Ordinum, that is, the Affembly of Eftates. 
 
 M. I pray give me leave to anfwer this Authority before you proceed far- \ 
 
 ther •, I mull beg your pardon, if I cannot believe that all the Perlons whom 
 the Hiltorian relates to have perifhed by this Fall of the Council Chamber, to 
 have been all of them atliual Members of that Aflemby, fince there might 
 have been there divers Perfons, who tho' of an inferior Rank, might have 
 been prefent as Auditors or Lookers on ; it not being then the Cultom to hold 
 thofe Councils fo privately, as we do now ; fb that divers of the common or 
 ordinary Sort of People, called here Ignobiles, and perhaps of the inferior Gen- 
 try too, being there, might all partake of this common Ruin, and fo pay deal 
 for their needlefs Curiomy. 
 
 F. I mult beg your Pardon if I do not affent to your Opinfon in this Matter j 
 for I cannot believe (unlefs you can Ihew me very good Authority for it) that ever 
 the common People or Vulgus, in the Senfe you take them, were let in only to 
 gaze at fuch Aflemblies. For what Room could have contained lo great a Crowd? 
 
 3 And
 
 7^ 
 
 B I B l> £ O T [J E C A P O I. 1 T I C A. 
 
 and if they were in thofe Days lo great Slaves, as the Gentlemen of your Opi- 
 nion pleafe to make them, it is not likely that they (liould be admitted to crowd 
 into the Great Councils then, any more than now, when you allow them, more 
 Liberty, and greater Privileges than they then enjoyed. And therefore I think 
 I may very well ftick to the Archbiihop's Opinion, who luppoles them to hav£ 
 been the whole Allembly of the Three Eftates, who were all involved jn 
 this Ruin. * , 
 
 But letting this pafs, I fliall now give you an Authority of a Great Council 
 
 held under King Eihelred, which will farther confirm our Senfe of the. Word 
 
 Topu/us; which Council you may lee in the Firft Volume oi' Monafticon Anglic. 
 
 contains a Conccflion and Contirmation of divers Privileges to the Muiiaft^ry of 
 
 Vol. I- Wolverhampton, in thefe Words-, Hxc decreta funt Sigeiichi Archicpij :opi ki placito 
 
 F,!. 988. ccr^m Kege tJhelrcdo, iSi' Eboracenfi Archicpifcopo, £?" omnibus Epijcopis, Abba- 
 
 Col. 2. j-^y^^^ Rtgionis Britannht., feu Senatorihus, Diicibus, iif Populo Terr^ : VVhere it 
 
 feems plain to me, that the Populus Terra are here put as a diftin6t Order of Men 
 
 from all the relt aforegoing. 
 
 To come now to the Time after the Danijh Invafion, and the Settlement of 
 
 the Crown upon King Cn/ite, who after he was made King, partly by Conqueft, 
 
 and partly by EleQion, yet altered nothing of the Ancient Conft'cution. And 
 
 r)l.6i9. theid'oiQ Florence oilV'orceJler tells us, that Anno 1017, being the Firlt Year of 
 
 his Reign, he divided the whole Kingdom into Four Parts, and -dKofcvdus ciflh 
 
 Trincipibus C>' onini Fopulo, Ipfe- isf illi cian Ipfo percujferunt : W here you lee the 
 
 Populus or Commons is put diUincl by this -Author from the Gieat Lords or 
 
 Rromton, FoL Noblemen, here called Principes ; and this Council is called by Abbot Bromton 
 
 5-8. in his Hiftory Purlmmentum apud Oxoniam: And alfo in his Charter to the Abbey 
 
 0^ Briadricefworth (fince called St. Edtnundsbury ) which is (till to be lean in 
 
 /the Office of the Kings Remembrancer of the Exchequer^ it is thus recited. 
 
 Ego Cnut^ Rex totius Albionis InfuU, iSf aliaruyn 'Natlonuin plurimarum^ in Cathedra 
 
 Regdtpromotus, cumConfilio, & 'Decreto Archiepjftoporum, Epifcoporum, AbbatunZy 
 
 Comitiirn afwrumque omnium Tidelium eligi Sanciend. : Whence it plainly appears, 
 
 that under the Word Yideles, was then comprehended other Perlbns of an. Inferior 
 
 Rank, or Order, to the Comites, or Earls, there mentioned ; and thefe could mean 
 
 no other, than the Reprefentatives of the Commons, whom I have proved to have 
 
 been prefent in thefe Councils. 
 
 yll. I cannot believe you have yet proved it^ for though I have hitherto omitted 
 to give you my Thoughts of this Word Fidelium, yet I muft now tell you once 
 forall, that by this Word is not here meant, or any where elle in our Siixon Laws, 
 to be underftood the ordinary or common Sort of People, or any that reprefented 
 them, but only Tenants in Capite, or in Military Service., which were then called 
 the Kiflg's V^anes^ and were afterward the fame with the Barones jWnores, men- 
 tioned in King John's Charter. But I fhall plainly prove, when I come to it, 
 that the Word F/</f/«, after the Conqueft, fignified only the King's Tenants in 
 Capite, and were the fame with the AUlites, whom we find to be Witnelles afcet 
 the Dukes, or Earls, to this Charter of King C/?//r^. And though I confefs this 
 Word Fideles, doth in a common, or larger Acceptation, fignify all liich Subje£ts 
 as owe Fealty and Allegiance to the King ; yet in a Strift and Legal Signification 
 (as it is here to be taken) it fignifies only the Barons, or Tenants /'« Gip/zc, as 
 Dr. B. hath very well fhewed us in his Gloffary. And therefore Sir Henry 
 Spelman himfelf diftinguifhes between thefe and all other Subjefts, in thefe 
 Clolf. Tit. Fi- Words, Interdum Spccialiter dicuntur iide/ti., qui Vajjalli, qui Teudo acccpto in 
 ddis. Patroni Fide^ i^ clientela funt, Vicijfimque Suam ci certi obfequii nomine fidcm 
 
 (ifirinxerunt. But indeed it is impoflible to underftand it in your Senfe ^ for 
 then all that fwore Fealty to the King ( and fo were called Fide/es ) (hould have 
 had a Place in Parliament, and all the Men in England above Fourteen Years of 
 Age, muft have been there in Perlbn ; which would have been a pretty large 
 Auembly, and fuch a Multitude as no one Place could have contained them. 
 r.'se 155. " F. If what Dr. B. in his Preface to his Norman Hiftory, page 157. as alfb in 
 his Anfwer to Mr. P. /'rf^e 20. be true, that feudal Tenures owe their Original 
 to WiUiam the Conqueror, though in other Places he is of another Mind -, then 
 certainly this Word Fidetes^ muft have been uled in a larger Senfe, in the Times 
 before the Conqueft, and mult have extended to all thofe who were bound to 
 take the Oaths of Fealty and Allegiance, in the Yolkmote, or County Court ; as 
 
 2 they
 
 Dialogue tie SixtJj. 279 
 
 they did long after the Conqueft, and ought to do fo ftill, if required -, and there- 
 fore this Word Fidiics could be then no more limited to Tenants ]n Qipite in 
 that Time, than it isrow^ who, though I grant they could nor all be prefenc in the 
 Great Council in Perfon, yet they might be there by their Delegates ( as well as 
 they are now ) and who might alio confift of far greater Numbers than they now 
 do-, lincewe find in the Council of Winchcjhr, (but now meiitioned) that after 
 the Dnkcs, Earls, and Great Men of the Kingdom, there isalfo added, dwr unique 
 fidelium injinita ntultitudo-, which great Multitude fure mult have fignified fome- 
 what more than your C\\\d Thanes, or Tenants in Caphc alone; or elfe the Words 
 Comites, and Proceres, might very well have comprehended all the Degrees of 
 Laymen : And therefore I dcfire you to (hew me by Ibme better Authorities than 
 you yet have done, that betore the Conquelt, the Word Videles muft needs fig- 
 nify Tenants in Qipite, and no other ; but that it did not fignify only ib after that 
 Time, I Ihall join Iffue with you by and by. 
 
 I Ihall now proceed to my next Authority, which is from ^/7m/, Abbot of -^rt-'y. X* 
 Rjevallis, who lived not long after the Conquett, who in his Life o^ hdaardth&^''^•'i^^' 
 Onfrlhr, relating the manner of that King's Election in his Mothers Womb, 
 tells us, Kno Rthelred his father called a Great Council about appointing a Suc- 
 ceffor, that hereupon fays thus. Fit Magnus coram Rege Epifcoporum Proccrumque 
 Convent us, Magnus Plcbis Vulgique Confenf.ts; where you lee apparently, that 
 this Abbot made a D;ltin£tion between the Aflembly of the Bilhops and Great 
 Lords, and that of the P/m, Vulgus, or Common People. 
 
 yll Pray give me leave to interrupt you a little before you proceed to any frefli 
 Authorities. I grant it is true, that the Abbot in the Place you mention, tells fuch 
 an idle Tale, that this Eda\ird was chofen King whilft in his Mothers Womb and 
 fo his Father made the Nobility Iwear Fealty to him before he was Born. He is 
 the only Author of this Legend that I know of-, and fuie your felf muft own that 
 It is a little too grofs to be believ'd ; and therefore I wonder that yoa ihould urge 
 that to me for a fufficient Authority, tor the People or Comirions having any 
 Place in the Great Council in thofe Times. ^ 
 
 f. Pray, Sir, obferve to what Purpofe I make Ufe of this Authority ; it is not 
 to make good the EIe'1:ion of Edward the Confeflbr in his Mother's Womb but 
 only to prove who were then fuppofed (when this Abbot writ) to make up the 
 conftituent Parts of the Wittena-Genwt, or Parliament, in the Saxon Times 
 which was then believed by all Men, to confilt of the Clergy^ Higher Nobility and 
 Commns, unlefs you can fuppofe that the Abbot fhould mention the Commons b\r 
 Prophecy. And granting that it was only according to the Cuftom of his owii 
 Time ( which the Author of the Preface to the Decern Scriptores, makes to be about 
 the middle of King Henry lid's Reign) it will iufficiently prove the Antiquity of 
 the Commons in Parliament, to be near a Hundred Years older than the earlieft 
 Time you atfign for it, (viz.) the 49^'' o'c Henry III 
 
 But I (hall now conclude with the Conclufion to King Edward the Confeflbr's vid i*W 
 Third Charter to the Abbey oUVeftimnpr, in a great Council held in the laft Year Com. i.o'l. 
 of his Reign, as you will find it thus recited in Sir H.Spelman's Councils in thefe *-5. 
 Words ; Hanc igitur Chartam mex donatwnis <cf Libertalis, in die dedicationis prx- 
 diB£ EccU. recitart ju(Ji coram Epifcopis, Abbatibus, C.omitibus, iSf omnibus Opti- 
 matibus Anglu, omniquc Populo audiente, i2' vtdcnte -, where by the Opimatcs 
 AngliiC, I think can be underftood no other than the Thanes, or Freeholders ofall 
 Sorts, as well the Kings as others ; as alfo the Deputies of great Cities and 
 Boroughs, the Words being Optnnates Anglix {non Regis); and though it is not 
 likely that the Populus, who are here mention d to be prefent, fliould be the 
 Mob, or Common People, only admitted to {tare and hearken at fuch a great 
 Aflembly -, yet fince the Words are in refpeft of them only, audiente, £?' vidente 
 I fhall not infill upon the Word Populus here, as a Part of this Common Council 
 of the Kingdom. 
 
 But yet that the Word Populus does oftentimes refer to the Reprcfentatives 
 of the Commons, I (hall conclude from the Anfwer of King Harold the lalt 
 Saxon King, to the Meflbge of WiUiam Duke of Normandy, demanding the 
 Kingdom of England-, and that Harold, according to his Promife, Ihould marrv 
 his Daughter: The Words are remarkable, and therefore pray read them out of 
 mU.o^ Mahnesbury^ who lived near tliat Time &;;/;•., lUe ( fcl. Heraldus ) qux wul.mlnud. 
 dixi dePueUx nupiiis rejercns, de Regno {addcbat) prxjmtiwfum fuijje quod ieiiisAn^Mi,m, 
 ' abfjue Lib. -■ Fol. $2,
 
 280 B I B L 1 O T H E C A P L 1 T I C A J 
 
 ahfque general'i Semtus, ^ Fopu/i Convcntu iSf Edido alienam ill hereiitatem 
 Juraverit. Now that by the Woid SenatiU is to be underftood the higher No- 
 bility, fuch as the Bilhops, Abbots, Earls, i!fc. and thar is meant by Fopulus 
 Cap. to. the Reprefentatives of the People, we have Mr. Sf/(/f/:'s Authority on our Side, 
 Fol. 552. ^j^Q j^ jjJ5 ii)i{rertations on I'leta, fpeaking of the great Qiieltion that arole in Par- 
 liament in King Edward III. Reign, concerning King Job/i^s Donation of his 
 Kingdom to the Pope, gives their Conclufion to this Debate, in thefe Words, 
 Ordine umverft tam generis Hieratici, (jiiam Procercs, ^ Senatus, & Fopuha^ 
 folenni inita deliberationc in Comiciis^ illi refponderunt unanimes, irritam plane fuijje 
 Johiinnis Donationem illam ut pote tarn Jine ordinum ajjenfu, quant Jitramento^ 
 in augurati adverfum. But of this great Authority I Ihail fpeak more hereafter, 
 when I come to it in order of Time. 
 
 Since therefore it is apparent that the Commons had a Share in the Great Coun- 
 cils before the Conqueft (as you call it) I defire that you would be pleafed to 
 flaew me how they came to lofe it after the coming in of the Normans, and to be 
 fo long witliout it, as until the 49''' of Henry III, or 18''' of Edvoard I. if your 
 Authors are to be credited. 
 
 yll. I muft confefs the Authorities you have brought out of the Saxon Coun- 
 cils, would feem to be of fome Weight, were I not fenfible, that the Monks, 
 who were the only Recorders of tliefe Councils, are very (hort and carelefs in 
 giving a true Account of them •, and if we go to the Councils themfelves, we might 
 be fufficiently convinced, that all thofe that are laid to be prefent at them, could 
 not have any Places or Votes in thole AlTemblies, as Members of them ^ for in 
 fbme of them (as in tlVis Example) we iind the Queen to have been there, and to 
 have given her Confent to the King's Charters; and yet I fuppoie you will not 
 allow the Qjieen to have been there as an Ettate by her Iclt, much lefs to have 
 been a Member of any of the Three Eftates. 
 
 The like we may fay for thofe Abbeffes we find mentioned to have been 
 prefent in divers of thofe Councils, and particularly in that ot Wmchey.er, you 
 fo much infilt upon, wherein Tythes were granted ; and tlitlc are faid to 
 have approved of the Royal Charter, as well as any of the relt ^ and fure 
 you do not make Women to have had Voices in our great Councils in the Saxon 
 Times. So tliat it appears plain enough to me, that Perfons being menti- 
 oned as prefent in thefe AlTemblies , or being Witneffes to Charters there 
 granted, do not make them to have been conltituent Members thereof And there- 
 fore fince the Saxon Times are fo dark and oblcure, and lo litde to be col- 
 le£l:ed of Certainty from what we find in the old Monkifh Hiftories, and thofe 
 Fragments of Laws and Charters they have left us, many of which are alfo 
 forged by the Monks ^ I think it is Time that we pals over this, to the next 
 Period after the Conqueft, wherein I doubt not but to fhew you, that for 
 above an Hundred Years after that Time, none but the Bifhops, Abbots, Earls^ 
 Barons, or Tenants in Capiie, were fummoned by the Great Couneil or Farli- 
 anient 'till the Time I have fo often mentioned. 
 
 K I fee you do all you can to perplex very plain and evident Proofs ; For 
 as to the Queen's being often prefent _ at the great Councils, it is no more 
 than what was ufual in theie elder Times ^ and that in France as well as here, 
 as any Man that will but perufe the Charters of fome of the Kings oi France^ 
 Po&- 1 56- of the Second Race, as they are in Father Mabilwn de Re diplomatic a, may ea- 
 Fag. 158. j^^^y fitisfy themfelves ^ and as for the AbbelTes, whom we find lometimes men- 
 ''^' '° ' tioned to have been there before the Conquell, they might alfb according to 
 the Cuftom of thofe Times have appealed in Perfon in the great Councils, in 
 the Right of their Monalteries, and of thofe great PoflefTions they held ^ or elfe 
 they might have been often reprefented by their Oeconii, or Stewards, who 
 tranfafted all Bufinefs for them •, and your own Civil Law doth always fup- 
 pofe, that what any Perfons perform by their Lawful Proxies, it is laid to be done 
 by themfelves i and that the Abbefles and Priorefles, did together with the 
 other Spiritual Tenants in Qipite, ioin to grant Scutage upon the Knights Fees 
 they held, after your Conqueft, I fliall Ihcw you before we have finiHied this 
 Difi-ourle.' But fince I think I have fufficienrly proved the Commons being 
 in Pofleflion of this Right by a long Prefcription, I lliall now leave it to you to 
 prove, that they did not enjoy it after the Conquell, and that not until the' Time 
 you fuppofe. 
 
 M. Since
 
 T>ialogue the Sixth. 'z^t 
 
 M. Since you are plcafed to impofe this Task upon me, I (hall willingly-, 
 lubmic to it j and therefore before I proceed farther, pray let us fee how ftr we 
 are agreed. In the firit Place I think you will grant, that till about the latter 
 End 0^ Edward Ift's Reign, there is no exprefs ^iention made in our Records, or 
 Hiltorians, of any Reprelentatives for the Commons, either by Kjiights of Shires, 
 Citizens or Burgeffes of Towns j much lefs the Word Commons, mentioned by 
 them in the Senle it is now taken : For if we perufe Ingulph, or Eadmerus, or any 
 other Ancient Hiftorian of William the Conqueror, or his Son's Time, when they 
 have Occafion to fpeak of the Great Councils of that Age, we can find none men- 
 tioned (befides the Bifhops) except the Principes, Proceres, Primates, ox Opt i- 
 mates Rcgni -^ or elfe in the following Age, thefe Optimates, or Magnates^ 
 ( by Matt. Parii, and Matt, of JVcflminficr, ) are often comprehended under the 
 more particular Titles of Comitcs ijf Baroncs, or eUe by the more general ones 
 ci'Nobilitar, Vniverjitas, Communitas, or Baronagium Regni-., that is, the whole i 
 
 Univerfity, Community, or Body of the Kingdom, reprelented in Parliament by 
 
 the Bijhops, Abbots, Earls, and Barons thereof As for molt of thefe Words, I L 
 
 have given you my Senle of them already, in the Times before the Conqueft ; 
 and though I grant there may be other Perlbns fbmetimes mentioned afcer the 
 Barons, as Mi/ites, Liberi Homines, or Tenentes, yet I think Dr. B. very plainly 
 proves, by thofe Authorities he produces in his Anfwer to Mr. P. as alto in his 
 GloITary at the End of it, that by all the Words before-mentioned, which are ufed 
 in our Ancient Hiltorians, can only be underltood either the Greater Barons, or 
 elfe the Lefs, who were Tenants in Capite, and were a Part of the Baronage or 
 Mobility of thofe Times, and whofe Votes did then conclude all their Subfeuda- 
 tories, or Mefnc Tenants, who held of them •, and thefe together with the Bijhops 
 and Abbots, 8cc. did reprefent all Degrees of Men in the Kingdom, and being 
 often comprehended under the General Titles oi^C/erus and Populus, or elfe Plebs, '^''^- ^- ^- 
 or Vulgus; or elfe under thefe Titles, as yet more generally expreffed by Regnum, ^^'"'''^1'^ 
 and Sacerdotium, \. e. the C/ergy and Laity of the Kingdom ^ the Words Popu/us, 
 and P/ebs, or Vulgus, (ignifying no more in thofe Days, in our Hiltorians, (when 
 they treat of Parliamentary Affairs) than the Lay-Earls and Barons, with the 
 other Lefs Tenants in Capite : So that the Vulgar, or Common People, neither 
 by themfelves, nor their Reprefentatives had, then any Place in our Great Coun- 
 cils: And therefore I think I may boldly affirm with Dr. B., Firft,Thac the Com- ^' ^•■''• 
 mons reprefented by Knights, Citizens, and BurgelTes in Parliament, were not ^''■^'''"'"^■ 
 introduced, nor were one of the Three Eltates in Parliament, before the 49''' of 
 King Henry the Third. 
 
 Secondly, That before that Time the Body of the Commons of England, or Free- 
 men ( as now underltood, or as we now frequently call them ) colleftively taken, 
 had not any Share or Votes in making of Laws for the Government of the King- 
 dom, nor had any Communication in Affairs of State, unlels as they were repre- 
 fented by the Tenants in Capite. And thefe Two Propofitions I think I (liall be 
 able to prove by undeniable Evidence, drawn from our Ancient Hiltorians, the 
 Laws and Charters of our Kings, as alfo from thofe Parliament Rolls, Records, 
 and Afts of Parliament, we have yet left us. 
 
 F. I confefs you have made a very bold Challenge, and if you can make 
 it out, I grant you will carry the Day, and I (hall then willingly fabmit to 
 your Opinion. But fince I find the greatelt Part of our Arguments do 
 confilt in the equivocal LTe of thofe Words, by which I confefs the Com- 
 mons in Parliament are generally exprefled in our Ancient Hiltorians 5 I 
 fhall in the firlt Place fhew you, ( to avoid all unneceflary Difpute about Words) 
 that by every one of thefe Expreflions you have mentioned, the Commons 
 might very well be comprehended, as well after the Conqueft, as before. And 
 therefore to take the Words in the fame Order as you have recited them, I fhall 
 begin wiLii the Word Principes, which I have already proved fignified before the 
 Conqueft no more than Chief, or Principal Men ; and that it means no more 
 after the Conqueft, I (hall fhew you by feveral Authotities. And though I grant 
 that Word is moll commonly ufed by Eadmeriis, yet could it not be meant in 
 the Senfe it is now underltood, there being then never a Prince, nor fo much as 
 a Duke in England. But what was underltood by this Exprelfion in after-times, 
 we muft appeal to Hiltorians. Mat. of Wejlminfier, in his llores Hijior. Anno fi</. 409. 
 Dom. 1280, (being the 7''' Year oi Edward the Firji, which was but Fifteen Years 
 
 O o after
 
 282 B 1 B L 1 O T H E C A P O L 1 T 1 C A. 
 
 after the 49''' He/iry III.) thus reckons up the Conftituent Parts of that Par- 
 liament, Rex, Po^irifcs, af Prificipes AtJgliCcim convrnerunt in unum^ &:c. Yet 
 in V.ot. Clduf. 7. Edvjii/d I. it is called a Parliament ^ and at which the Statute of 
 Mortmain was Enafted. And that the Commons were there as well as they are 
 now, I lliall prove when I come to thofe Times. 
 
 But as for the AVords Prcccres and Popu/us, ufed as diftinfl from them, if 
 rnRik Cot- you pleafe to confult the Ancient Maniifcript Chronicle oi' Waller 0^ Coventry^ 
 ton. ^o Henry III. Anno Dom. 1225, youll find this Paflagei Parificinione Beat£ 
 
 Marie convocantiir ofiii London, Proceres Angl'ix, ilnque traUatu hahiio d'tjfujiore 
 cum Qero, £5" Populo ibidem ccnvocato Rex concejfn Libertates tarn Ecclefi.e quant 
 Regni, qiuun Foreflifjiciit Cart£ fu£ inde confeBx 65' fingulis Coinitatibus libcrattR 
 flenius tejhntur ibidemque concejfa Domino Rcgi a Comitibus, iSf Btironibus, tf 
 Clero if Populo ibidem prjfentibus, ^ui/ita decima omnium mobilium de Communi 
 (ijjenfu, frttterquam de Ecclefiis. 
 Fa!, 21;. But Milt. Paris, in his Hiltory of this Traniaftion under this Year, relates it 
 
 thus: Rex Hen. adnatale tenuit Curiam [nam apud Weftm. Priffentib us derail 
 populo, cum magnatibus Regionis fokmnitate ignur itt decebat complcta, Huberius 
 de Burgo ex parte ejufdem Regis propofuit coram Archiepifcopis, Epifcopis, Comi- 
 tibus, Baronibus, ^ aliis univerjis, &c. But to give you now the rclt in Englijh: 
 The King here demanded the Fifteenth Part of all their moveible Goods j upon 
 which the Parties above-mentioned, with one Accord anfivered, That they would 
 willingly yield to the King's Defire, if he would confirm the ^reat Charters. 
 To which the King having affented, and lealed them ; they granted the laid 
 Supply. From which we may oblerve, that as all the inferior C'crgy were com- 
 prehended under the Word Clerus\ fo muft, by a like Parity of Realbn, the Com- 
 mons be under Populus, or elfe it xvould have been an idle Tautology when it is 
 put, as it is here, diftinO: from AXagnatcs. 
 
 Now fuppofing there be no other Perfons exprefly mentioned hy thefeTwoHifto- 
 tians to have heen at this Parliament of the Laity, but the Earls and Barons, and 
 Laity, comprehended by them under the general Names o'iProccres, Populus^ Alag- 
 nates; yet do but read theConclufion to the great Charter of the 9''' oi' Henry IlL 
 and you will find, that hefides the Archbifnops, Biihops, Earls and Barons, there 
 were alfo prefent, the Knights, Freeholders, and all others of the Kingdom, by 
 their lawful Reprelentatives, as I (hall fliew you more at large, when I come to 
 make Ufe of this Charter, as an Argument to prove the Commons to have ap- 
 peared in Parliament before the 49''' oY Henry IIL So likewile the Statute of Fines 
 made 27. EJivardl. was ordained de Communi Concilio Rcgni, and yet no Men- 
 tion made either of the Affent of the Lords or Commons-, and yet this Statute 
 was made but Nine Years after the 18''' of that King. Since which Time the 
 DoBor himfelf acknowledges the Commons to have been always reiJiefented in 
 Parliament, as they are at this Day \ and )iet Mat. IVeJlminJhv; fpeaking of this 
 Parliament, mentions its Orders only in general Words, thus, Dominica fecunda 
 ^uadragejim.e citatis Magnatibus Regni apud \NcHmomi\erinm; and yet it is cer- 
 tain all the Eftates of the Kingdom were there: So that it is not fife to conclude 
 from the general and equivocal Expreflions, cither of Ancient Statutes, or Hi- 
 ftorians. That the Commons were not in Parliament, becaufe not particularly 
 mentioned. 
 
 1 couU give you more Inftances of the like Kifid, but I will not tire you. But 
 fhall now proceed to (hew, that notwithlfanding the Ufe you make of the Tefti- 
 mony of Mat. Paris, as to the Senfe of the Word Alagnatcs ; yet, that all thofe 
 Hiftorians that writ immediately before, or after him, and continued his Hiftory, 
 do frequently make Ufe of the Word Magnates ^'^ Primates, to fignify the Com- 
 mons, as well as the Lords affembled in Parliament. And for the Proof of 
 this, I (hall give the Teftimonies of Two approved Authors. The Firjl is Thomas 
 Walfingham, in his Hiftory of England; who in Anno Dom. nn, S.Edzvardll. 
 hath tl. ere Word, Recedcns : (Rex) de Bcrcxici partibus pe;'venit Eboracum, ubi 
 mugnum cum Clero tenuit Concilium, £?' Rcgni Magnatibus Vniverfis. 
 
 So likevvife Mat.oi JVcJlminfter, in his E'lores Hifior. in the 24''' oCEdzvard 1. 
 Anno Dom. 1296, relates a Parliament held at St. Edmondsbuiy, at vyhich ap- 
 peared Primates, ac Magnates fui Regni, &c. a quibus novum Tallirgium pojh- 
 /avit, bic. I could give you more of the lame Kind out of this Author, but I 
 fear, kit I (liould tire youj qnd therefore I fhall conclude with the TeiVimony^ 
 
 ■y Ot
 
 Dialogue tie Sixth. 2 83 
 
 o^hen. de Knighton, in his Hiftory, De Eventibus Ang/ie, where, in o. Henry III. 
 he thus fpeaks concerning this King's granting the Great Charters, Poft h.u Rex 
 Henrkus conccjfit Mignatibits terrx duas charras, unam dc Fore ft j, iff alum de 
 libcrtatibus, ob quam cdufam Communes Bjegni concejjerunt quintam deamam partem 
 Mobi/Um, ^ mmobilium. From all which you may obferve, That in tiie Time 
 when this Author wrote, it was generally believed, that this Term Mugnatesy 
 comprehended all the Eltates of the Kingdom ; and likewile luppofed the Com- 
 mons ( whom he here calls Communes, ) to have had a principal Share, not only 
 in the paying, but granting this great Tax. And for the farther Proof of this, 
 pray fee what W. Malmesbury lays in his Hiftory, when reciting the Speech ot the 
 Bilhop of W'tnchefter, then the Pope's Legate, fpeaking of the Londoners, hath 
 this remarkable Paffage, Londincnfcs, qui pr.fcipui hubebantur in Anglia ficuc 
 Troceres; fo that if the Chief Citizens of that Famous City, were reckoned yJcizr 
 Troceres, fure thofe they chofe to reprefenr them in Parliament, might much 
 better deferve that Title. And thus likewile Wa/fingham in his Hiftory, in the 
 \1^^ oi Edward \\. tells us, that he fummoned to a Patliament at L(7;7i^^«, Kegni 
 Yroceres, iS/ frjelatos ad TrnBandum de variis Regni negotiis j but in the dole 
 Roll of this very Year, it appears by the Expcn/is Militum, that the Com- ^^f- cw. 1 7, 
 mons were there as well as the Lords. So that you fee they were all then 5" ^'" '"• -'*• 
 often comprehended by our Hiltorians under the general Term of Froccres ■^''' 
 Regni. 
 
 I come in the next Place to the Words Kobi/es &" Nobi/itas. Waljingham, 5, Mr. Pryri% 2d 
 Edward II. gives us this Account ^ Foft Natale Dominic urn convenit univerfa mul- ^'"■'' "/'^^ ^• 
 titudc Regni Nobilium ad F arliamentum Londoniis. Now what is here meant by "■' '"^' 
 this Mu/titudo Nobilium, may be proved by the Parliamentary Writs of this 
 Year, as appears by the clofe Roll, wherein there are Writs of Summons for the 
 Commons, dire£led to the Sheriffs. 
 
 And that the Houfe of Commons were often ftiled Nob/e in latter Times, ap- 
 pears by a Speech Recorded in the Rolls of Parliament, 7='^ of Richard II. to be 
 fpoken by Sir Alich. de fa Poo/, then Lord Chancellor, to the Lords and Com- ^''.^- ^'"■'- 7- 
 mons, which begins thus, Tdijl vous (i. e, I fay to you) Mejfieurs Pre/ats, & ^"^^' "" ^*^^ 
 Seigneurs Temporelx, if/ vous mes Compaignons les Qnvalers, iff autre s de la Noble 
 Commune de Angleterre. 
 
 And to prove that this Word was then uled in this Senfe amongft Civilians, 
 from whom we derive moft of our Titles of Dignities, you may fee in the large 
 Wotk of Barthol. Caffaanxus, called Catalogus Glorix Alundi, written on this 
 Subieft-, where, in his Righth Part, Confid. 18, he hath this amongft other Com- 
 ments on the Word A'obi/itas ^ Nobi/itas etiam caufatur ex loco, quonuun civis ex 
 urbe fp/endidd oriundus, Nobi/ise\\; for which he there gives many Authorities. 
 And this Title he looks upon as due alio to Country Gentlemen, living upon the 
 Hufbandry of their own Eftates, or Annual Rents. 
 
 And that by the Word Aiagnates, are often underftood the Knights of Shires, 
 commonly called in old t'rrnch, Grantz des Countees ; I can give you fufficient 
 Authorities: Now this Word Magnates is always rendred in our old French, P- R-c. p. 
 by Grams : For the Proof of this, I defire you in the rirft Place to take No- ^'^' ^^• 
 tice, that Rot. C/auf. 3 £". 2. m 16 dorjo, you will find this Title, Inhihitio ne qui 
 Magnates, viz. Ccmcs, Baro, Ali/es, feu a/iqua a/ia notabi/is Pcrfona tranfeat ad. 
 Partes tranfmarinai. Where you lee the Word Magnates is applied to Knights 
 as well as Earls and Barons. And amongft the Common Writs o{ Michae/ma* 
 Term, Anno 34 Edw. I. in the keeping of the Remembrancer of the Treafury of 
 the Exchequer, the Knights of Shires, and Barons of the Cinque-Ports are cal- 
 led Magnates. So alfo in the Statute, 25 E. 5. de fervientibus, it is there en- 
 acted, per Affent de /es ditz Pre/atz, Countes, Barons, iff autres Grandcs de la 
 dite Communalte, illonques Affemb/ez. Alfo in the Statuce-Book printed in 
 French, in the Statute of the Staple, 27 E. 7. the Knights of the Shires, 
 are exprefly called , Grantz des Countees. And laftly , as for the Word 
 Optmates', which is derived from the fuperlacive Optimus, it fignities no 
 more than the heft Sort of Men in any Commonwealth or City. And in 
 this Senfe , WiUiam of Ma/msbury , in his Hiftory , fpeaking of the Rich 
 Citizens of London, harh tins remarkable Palljge, Londinenfes qui pro mag- f^i' ^'i9- 
 nitudine Civitatis optimatis funt. And that not only Knights, but alfo lijch 
 Citizens as were remarkable and eminent for- their Eftates or Offices in Cities 
 
 O 2 had
 
 2'CiA 
 
 B I B L i O T H E C A P O L 1 T I C A. 
 
 had the Appellation of Magnates, appears from an ancient Manufcript Book, 
 
 kept in the Archives of the City ot London ^ where in AnnoDom. 1229. being 
 
 the ^vh of Hen. ?. an Aft of Common Council was made, per omnes A/der- 
 
 <jHu iee,il>M, f„^i„„(,j^ ^ Magnates Gw/^//*f, per ajjenjum un.verfonm uvitim, quod nuUo tern- 
 
 1- 
 
 / ilcr dc Aiiti- 
 
 p. 64 
 
 Ati-. -■-?: 
 
 pore fcrmitterent allqutm viceconntem admiiti in vicecomitem per duos annos con- 
 iinitos, ficut prim extittrant. So likewife in the fame Book, AnnoDom. 1244. 
 29 H.'?. mention is there made of a Diffention that then arol'e about the Choice 
 of a Sheriff^ and the Book lays, that quidam de vulgo elegerunt, Kichol. Bat. 
 per d(]'enj]i>n Major is, b"^ Magnates elegerunt Adam de Bendy. 1 could give 
 you more of a like Nature •, but 1 will not tire you ^ but no doubt the 
 eminent Citizens o^Tork and other Cities, were called Magnates in thofe Times. 
 
 From all which we may fafely conclude, that not only Knights of Shires were 
 called Magnates, but alio the Reprefentatives for the Cities were often (tiled 
 Froceres, Magnates, and Kobi/es, in our ancient Rolls, and A£ls of Parliament, 
 and other publick Writings. I beg your Pardon for being thus long ; but I 
 could not mike an End fooner , and prove the true Senfe of thele Words in 
 queftion, from ancient Hiftorians, Afts of Parliaments, and Records ; by which 
 I hope you will be fatisfied how unfafe it is to depend upon the general and 
 various Expreffions of our Eng/ijh Hiftorians (efpecially, as underftood by thofe 
 of your Opinion) ; fince if we fhould depend upon them alone, the Commons 
 would not oftentimes be found to have been ptefent in Parliament, even when the 
 Records themfelves exptelly prove they were there. 
 
 yl'I. I muft confefs you have made me think more on this Subject, than per- 
 haps otherwife I Ihould have done ; yet I muft obferve, that moft of the Quo- 
 tations you have made ufe of^ concerning the meaning of the Words Proceres, 
 Alagnates, and Kobi/es, £?V. are from Authors who writ after the Time that 
 I own the Commons, as now reprelented, to have been conftantly fummoned 
 to Parliament ^ fb that they might very well, through Hafte or Inadvertency, 
 confound them with the Earls and Lords, and fo ftile them by the lame Titles. 
 For I will prove to you, before the Conclufion of this Difcourle, by undeniable 
 Records, that by the Words Magnates and Proceres, muft be underftood the 
 Bilhops,' Earls, and Barons, as diftinguifhed from the Commons. And I think 
 I can fufficiently prove from Mat. Paris, and the ancient Laws of our firft Kor- 
 man Kings, as alfo from the Magna Clwta of King John, that by the Words 
 Barones are meant the Tenants in Capite, who are there only mentioned to have 
 conftantly appeared in Parliament, till the iSchE. i.; the greater and lefs £,;- 
 rons, or Tenants m Capite, together with thofe of higher Degree, (viz. the Earls, 
 Bilhops, and Abbots,) being the only Perfons who reprefented the whole Body 
 of the Nation, in our great Councils, or Parliaments. And I take this to be lb 
 evident and clear, that 1 cannot quit this Opinion, without you can fhew me 
 better Reafons to the contrary, than hitherto you have done. 
 
 K I fee nothing will fatisfy thofe who have once received a Prejudice ; or 
 otherwife I think it may be proved fufficiently, from that Claule in Magna 
 Charta I have mentioned, that other Perfons were there before the 49/^ of 
 Henry III. befides your great Barons, and Tenants in Capite. And as for the ufe 
 of thofe W^ords you mention, in our Hiftorians after the Reign of Hen. III. 
 nothing can be a plainer Proof for me : For if they did comprehend the Com- 
 mons under thofe general Words or Phrales we have been now difputing 
 about I defire to know why they might not have been likewife comprehended 
 under the fame Tetms, by Mat. Paris, and thole other Hiftorians who writ 
 their Hiftories from the Korman Conqueft to the End of the Reign of Henry 
 the Third s and why they might not have then confounded the Commons with 
 the Lords, as well as they did afterwards. But fince I fee you infift lb much 
 upon your Barons, and Tenants in Capite, whom you will have alone to con- 
 ftitute the Baronagium, or the Commumtof, or Vniverfitoi Baronagti Ang/ia, pray 
 give me leave to ask you a plain Queftion, Were your \Set Tenants in Ca- 
 pite, (or Barones tninores) Lords or Peers of Parliament , or were they Com- 
 moners only ? , , . . , ^ r- 
 
 M. To give yon Mr. Seldens Opinion, in his Titles ot Honour, eap. 5. 
 He luppofes, tliat from the Time of the Conqueft to about the middle of 
 King John, every Tenant by reafon of his Teni're or Lands he held in capite, 
 was indifftrentlv an Honorary or Parliamentary Baron -, but that about the 
 
 : End 
 
 'in
 
 Dialogue the Sixth. 285 
 
 End of King Johns Time, fomeonly that were moft eminent of thofe Tenants, 
 (Ibmetimes ftilcd Barortes Mdjorrs Regni) were fummoned by ftveral Writs 
 directed to them as Lords or Peers of Parliament ^ and that the relt, being the 
 leQer or lower Tenants in Capire, ( ibmetimes iWlei Burones minores,) were for 
 fome Time before this fummoned by general Writs, direfted to the Sheriife or 
 Baylift's, as appears by King Johns Magna Charta. Yet whether thefe Men were ^- A- P- 
 ever really Peers or not, I have Reafon to doubt ^ fince I do not rind but it was P" '^' 
 they alone who for fome Years after the Conquelt, ferved upon Juries in County 
 Courts, and difpatched all the Publick Bufinefs of the County ^ which was then 
 ( as at this Day ) a Drudgery beneath the Peet s to perform •, and therefore I fhall 
 not infill upon it. But thus much I think is certain. That they were a fort of 
 Perfons much above any other Laymen of the Kingdom 5 fince they held their 
 Eftates immediately from the King, and were fo confiderable, as that by the Con- 
 ititutions of Clarendon, they wete not to be Excommunicated without the King's 
 Leave ; and fo were then in fome fort of the fame Order, rat'ione Tenure, with the 
 Great Barons or Peers, being commo nly ftiled jBrf/"i?«^j, and made up but one 
 Eltate or Order of Laymen in Parliament. And from thence I fuppofe proceeds 
 that common Error of Sir fif. Oy^t', that the Lords and Commons did Ancientlv 
 fit together, and made but one Houle. Now if you have any Thing to object 
 againft this Notion, pray let me hear ir. 
 
 F'. I think you and I are come pretty near an Iflue in this Queftion ; for you 
 confefs that thefe leffer Tenants in Capite, and whom you comprile under the Word 
 Bnrones, were not truly and properly Barons-^ and fo far you are in rhe Rights 
 but yet you will have them to be fomewhat more than meet Commoners ^ as if 
 there had been fome Degree or Order of Men in England in thoie Times, who 
 were neither Lords nor Commons, but an Amphibious Race between both. But 
 to prove that they were indeed no more than Commoners, and not Lords nor 
 Peers at all, nor equal with them, we need go no farther than their way of Tryal 
 in Cafes of Treafon or Felony, which was by meer Commoners, who were not 
 Tenants in Capite, as well as thofe that were^ fo that a Perfon who was no Tenant 
 in Capite, might lerve upon a Jury of Life and Death , with thole that were 
 fbi and as the Do£lor, in his Anfwer to Mr. P. has alTerted, that they only lerved 
 ifi the Countrey upon all Juries; and that before the Time of King John. So after 
 all this Noife of none but Lords and Barons appearing for the whole Commons of 
 England, we find by your own fhowing, that Three Parts in Four of the Lay- 
 members of that Council, were as meer Commoners as our Knights of Shires, and 
 Barons of the Five Ports at this Day; nor can I fee any Reafon why the other 
 piefnc, or inferior Military Tenants^ might not be as well compreliended under 
 the Word Barones, as the former, who were meer Commoners likewifo; if we 
 confider that it was neither Nobility, nor Birth, nor the King's Writs of Summons, 
 but only the meer Tenure of their Lands that gave them a particular Right to a 
 Place in that Allembly in thole Ages. So that the Qiieltion then amounts to no 
 more than this, Whether the Commons of England were then reprefented by Te- 
 nants in Capite, or by Knights of Shires, and others, as they are now. But fince 
 you will have none but Tenants in Capite to have had Places therein ^ pray tell me 
 whether you allow that Privilege to all who held in Capite, or not ? 
 
 M. Yes, 1 allow it to all who held in Capite by Knights Service, and who alfo 
 enjoyed a whole Knights Fee ; or lb much as was fufficient to render them able 
 to fultain the Dignity of that Place ; not but that the King had alfo a Prerogative 
 of fummoning or omitting whom of them he pleafed, to his Great Council or 
 Parliament; till the Lefs Tenants in C^Tpi/f thinking it a Wrong to them, it was 
 provided by King Johns Charter, that all of them Ihould be lummoned by one 
 General Writ of Summons, direfted to the Sheriff. But I exclude from this 
 Council, all Tenants by Petit Scrjeanty ; who tho' 'tis true, they held of the King 
 in Capite, yet was it not by Knights Service, So likewile I exclude all Cities and 
 Towns, though the Citizens or Burgelles of divers of them held their Lands and 
 Tenements^ by that Tenure : Since being neither Noble by Blood, nor having 
 Eftates fufficient to maintain the Port of a Gentleman, or Knight, they had no 
 Right to appear there in Perfon among the other Tenants, who were Owners of 
 one or more Knights Fees. Yet do I not affirm, that the Commons were not 
 after fome Sort reprefented in Parliament by their Superior Lords, fince the Bi- g. .}. /? 
 fhops. Abbots, and other Barons, did then make Lords, and give Taxes, not only 117. (Z^<i;«. 
 
 for
 
 286 B I B L I O T H E C A P O L 1 T I C A. 
 
 for tliemfelves, but their Feudatory Tenants alio, though of never fb great Efiates ; 
 znATenure in Capite was then looked upon as the only true Freehold of the King- 
 dom, and the Tenants by it as the only true Freeholders. 
 
 F. 1 (hall (hew you by and by the Faliity of this Notion ; but in the mean 
 Time pray tell me when a Great Council or Parliament was called, who repre- 
 fented thofe Ferfons, who you fay did not appear there-, and made General Laws, 
 and granted General Taxes for themfelves, and the whole Kingdom, when there 
 was Occafion ? For I fee you fliut out the greater part even of thefe your own 
 Freeholders from this Affembly. 
 
 ill. As for the Tenants in Fetit Serjeanty, I at prefent conceive ( though I am 
 not fure of it) that many of them might hold Lands, and perhaps divers Knights 
 Fees, by Grand Serjeanty, or Knights Service alfo^ fince thofe Eitates which were 
 given by the Conqueror to his Servants, to be held of him by fuch and fiich 
 Petit Services, might in Frocefs of Time fall by Purchafe, or Defcent, into the 
 Hands of fuch Great Tenants in Capite, as had fufficient Eltates to maintain that 
 Dignity ^ and as for the reft, they might, for ought as I know, before the Statute 
 de Taliagio non ccncedendo, have been taxed by the King's Writs, according to the 
 Proportion of the Knights Fees, or Parts of Knights Fees, which they then held ^ 
 and according to the Rate of the Sums impoied in Parliament 5 either by way of 
 Aids, upon every Knight's Fee ; or elfe by way of Subfidy, by lb much a Yard, 
 or Plow-Land throughout all Enghmd ^ which has been the only way of Taxing, 
 ever fince that of Knights Fees hath been difufed. 
 
 F; Then I find after all you have faid, that fcarce half your Tenants in Capite 
 had any Votes in Parliament, either by themlelves, or their Keprelentatives ^ and 
 ib having Laws made for them, and being taxed at the King's Will, were as errant 
 Slaves and Vaflals, notwithftanding their Tenure in Capite, as the meaneft Perfon 
 of the Kingdom, who was Taxed (as you would have it) at the AVill of his Su- 
 perior Lord ; which whether ib great and powerful a Body of Men would ever 
 have fuffered, I leave to any indifferent Perfon to judge. 
 
 M. I grant this may now appear fomewhat hard 5 yet fince it was the receiv'd 
 Law and Cuftom of the Kingdom, it was not then look'd upon as a Grievance ; 
 and it was then no more unjuft than it is now, that Perfons under Forty Shillings 
 a Year in Lands, though of never fo good Eftates in Money, or Stock ; or that 
 Tenants for Years, or for the Life of another, fhould at this Day have no Votes 
 at the Election of Knights of Shires, and confequently be without any Repreien- 
 tatives in Parliament of their own Choice, and yet be fubjeO: to all Laws and 
 Taxes (though never fo great) when made and impofed by the King in Parlia- 
 ment. And I am able to give you divers good Authorities to prove, that even 
 London it felf^ and all other Cities and Towns which held of the King in Capite^ 
 and were called his Demefnes, were often taxed by the King and his Council out 
 of Parliament, before the Statute De Taliagio non concedendo: And I think Dr. B. 
 hath proved this beyond Exception, in his Animadverfions upon Mr. /i's Jam 
 Angloriim facie s nova-, and he there gives us the Record itfelf of 59 Hen. III. now 
 in the keeping of the King's Remembrancer of the Exchequer : That the hang did 
 that Tear (as he had divers times before) Talliate, or Tax all his Vcinefne Lands 
 in England, and then likemfe demanded of the City oj London, the Sum of Three 
 Thouland Marks, in the Name of the Talliage or Tax fo laid : And the Mayor 
 and Citizens at laft yielded to it, after a great Contelf. It appearing upon Search 
 of the Rolls in the Exchequer, that the Citizens oi London had been feveral times 
 before fo Taxed, in the Reigns of King John, and the King himlelf; and fo they 
 paid at leaft the Sum which tlie King demanded. By Avhich you Ite, that the 
 greatelt and richeft Cities and Towns in England were Taxed at the King's Will: 
 nay, I think I am able to prove (were it now neceflary) that the whole King- 
 dom was often Taxed by the King and his Council only, before the granting 
 of King Johns Magna Charta ; and the Statute de Tallagw non concedendo, above- 
 mentioned. 
 
 But to return to the Matter from which you forced me to digrefs. 
 
 I think nothing is more plain, than that oar Ancient Parliinienrs were only 
 the King's Court Baron for the Difpatch of the Publick Affairs of the Kingdom ^ 
 and in which, as in the Leffer Courts Baron, or Courts of Manor, the Suitors or 
 Tenants were, together with the Lord, or his Stewards, the ible Judges. So that 
 at firlf, after the Conquelt, it belong'd to the King alone, as the Supreme Lord 
 
 ? of
 
 T)iahgue tie Smh. 287 
 
 of the Kingdom, to appoint or call which or what Sort of chore Tenant> ha 
 pleafed, to attend him with tlieir Aid and Advice, at his Common Councils, or 
 Parliaments. And I think noching is more evident, (as I (hill prove more at 
 large from our Ancient Hiftories, Records and Statutes) than, that before the 
 49''' of Henry III. and fome Years alfo after that Time, none but the Bilhops, 
 Abbots, Farls, and Greater Barons, and fome of the Leffer rf«j/?/'j;>^Gz/7/r^, called 
 in King Johri% Charter, Barones iMimres, then conftituted the whole Body of the 
 Parliament, under the Titles of Baronagiu7n Anglia^ or Communitas, or Vniverfuds 
 Bjron.igii Anglic. And for this I can give you lb good Authorities, that nothing 
 but mote cogent and evident Proofs can bring me from this Opinion. And there- 
 fore I mult tell you, I do not value thofe loofe and inconfiierate Exprefiions of 
 Hiftorians, either before or aftet that Time. 
 
 F. I fee the Teltimcmies of" Hiltorians are of no Credit, if they make againft 
 your Hypothefis \ but I Ihall fliow you your Miftakes about the King's Taxing 
 anon ^ but the main Force of your Argument lies in the Signihcacion of thofe 
 hdtin Words you have laft mentioned-, and which, I muft needs tell you, I think 
 you take in too ftrict a Senfe. For Firft, as ro the Word Baro, I grant it was not P- R. c. 
 much in Ufe before Uni/iam I. obtained the Eng/i/h Diadem. Buro, lays Camden^ ^-'i^ ' '^^■ 
 Britanniprofuo 7i')n agnofcunt^ in AngloSaxonic'is legihus nufqitam comparet^ nee in 
 Alfrici Gloffaria Saxonieo inter iignitatum vocahula hahetiir. For the Eng/iJJ) P*^<^ '^i. 
 Siixons called thofe in their own Language, MdAermen, which in 'Latin weie 
 named Comites, and by the Danes Ear/s ; but it was of fo extenfive an Import in 
 its Signification, that we read of Aldennani Regis, Aldcrmani Comitatus, &c. as I 
 have already fhewed you. So that according to the Itrift Senfe of this Word, ^P<^'- '^'"Z* 
 we had great Number of thefe Aldermen ^ whofe Titles feldom, if at all, de- ^'*' '^''^'"''^* 
 fcended Hereditary, till the Confcjfors Time : And after IVUliam I. the Saxon '^^"' 
 Words Md/dermen, and Thegnes, began to be changed ^ and in the room of 
 Aldermanni ^ Thani, we find Comites iff Barones, as in all our Ancient Laws and 
 Hiltories. Nor was the Word Barones only taken in thofe Days for Great 
 Barons, and Tenants in Capite, but alfb for the Inferior Barons, or Free Tenants, 
 which held great Eftates of other Mefne Lords, as well as of the King, by certain 
 Services, and to whom the Great Lords, or Earls (as Sir H. Spclman (hews us in 
 his Gloftary, Title Awo) often direfted their Charters, Baronihits, & Fidelibus P.tgeyo. 
 Tiofiris tarn Francis, quam AngUs j and we there alfo read fome Quotations from 
 the old Book of Rumfey-Abby, wherein the Barons of the Church of Ramfey, as 
 alfo the Ah/ites, and Liberi homines thereof, are particularly mentioned under'the 
 Tide oi^ Barons ; all which, (as this Learned Author tells us) non deAhgnatibus 
 funt inteWigenda, fed de Vajfallis Jeodalibus, note fcil. melioris. 
 
 And the fame Author fays a little lower, that Batons are often taken //•<? libere 
 Tencntibus in genere, hoc efl tam in Soccagio per fervitium Alilitarc. 
 
 A\. What then? Do you fuppofe that all the Freeholders \n England, by whatfb- 
 ever Tenure they held, v^QieBarcns, and appeared -in Perlbn in Parliament, before 
 the Time Sir H. Spclman in his Gloflary, and Dr. B. aflign for the fummoning of the yid Ghfl'ir 
 Commons to Parliament > At this Rate every Yeoman, or Petty Freeholder, was r/r, "' 
 a Baton : So that this AfTembly might then confilt of above Fifty or Sixty Thou- 
 land Perfons. Since Spot in his Chronicle tells us, that William the Conqueror 
 referved to himfelf the Service of about Sixty Thoufand Knights Fees, which by s. a. p. 
 the Time, I fuppofe, might have been divided into many more leller ones, by ^•'^'•' '9' 
 Co-heirfhip, or by Sale •, and otherwife Parcelled out by the King's Licenfe into 
 Half Knights Fees, Third Part of Fees, Fourth Part of Fees, Eight Parts, Sixteen, 
 Twenty, Thirty and Forty Parts of Fees j and fo have been increaled into as many 
 more. And thefe, befides the Tenants in Soccage, muft needi have been fo nu- 
 merous, that what Room, nay, what Field or Place, was able to contain lb great 
 a Multitude? Or how could any Bufinefs have been tranfafted therein, without the 
 greateft Confufion imaginable ? 
 
 F. So then you your felf muft alio grant, that when all your Greater and Lefs • 
 
 Barons, or Tenants in Capite, appeared in Perfon, Parliaments were much more 
 numerous than they are now-, fince according to the DoQor's Catalogue, out of 
 'Doomfday-Book, ( in his Appendix to his Introduftion to the Engli/h Hittoty, ) all the 
 Tenants in Capite, or Serjeanty, that held the Lands in every County of King IVU- 
 liam, did (befides the Bifhops, Abbots, F^rls, and Barons) altogether arriount 
 but to about Seven Plundredi and thelc in the 49''' of Henry III. by Forfeiture, 
 
 3 and
 
 2 83 B I B L 1 b T H E C A P O L 1 T I C A, 
 
 and new Conveyances from the Crown , or by tbofe other ways you have now 
 mentioned, might be multiplied into twice as many more-, and thofc alfo of fuf- 
 ficient Eftates to maintain the Port of a Member of Parlidment, or Knight. Since 
 Fifteen Pounds a Year was in the Reign of King Joh'n^ and beginning of King 
 Henry III. reckoned as a Knights Fee ^ and he that had it was liable to be 
 Knighted. And if lb, I pray, according to your own Hypothefis, how could Id 
 great an Affembly be managed, as of about Three Thoufand, or Four Thou- 
 IJnd Perfons, without Itrange Confufion and Diforder!' But upon our Principles 
 there will follow no more Abfurdities or Inconveniencies than in yours-, for either 
 thefe Barons of Counties, Burgefles, and Inhabitants of Towns and Cities, were 
 always leprefcnted by Knights and Citizens, as they are now ^ or tile ihefe Barons 
 of Counties appearing for them felves, were Lords of Manors, or Freeholders of 
 good Eltates, who were not fo numerous or inconhderable as you imagine ^ the 
 Freehold Lands in England^ being in thofe Days but in a few Hands, in Compa- 
 rilbn to what they are now. And for this Opinion I have Sir H. Spelinan of my 
 Side^ who in tlie Place already quoted, under the Title o'i Baroncs Com'natus^ 
 exprefly tells us, Hoc nomine conuncn viietur antiqu'is pjgin'n, omn'n Kironum 
 Fecdafucm /pedes, in uno qiiovis Comitatu dcgent'mm : Proceres ne?/!pc, Hf Mane- 
 ricrim Domini, nee non lihere quique Tenentes, hoe eft jundorum proprietarij^ An- 
 glicl'Yxt^hoX^Gisut Juperitts diHinn eft. J^otandum autem eji hoc iibere Tencmcsy 
 nee tarn exiles olitn juijje, nee tarn Vii/gares iit hodie depehenduntur ^ nain viUas, 
 t!f Dcn/inia, in mniita-n H.freditates non dum diftrahebant Kobi/es ; Jed ( ur vidimus 
 in Hibernia) ptnesje retinentes, agros, per precjrios exco/ebanr, iif adfcnptitios. 
 
 So that you fee Sir H. Spelman then believed, that the Manors, and Great Free- 
 holds in Enghmd, were not then Parcelfd out into fo many Irnall Shaies as yoa 
 imagine. And that fuch Liferior Barons, whether they held in Capitc, or not, were 
 
 /.<«mi. Arch. .,|fo called Proceres, fee the Laws of Hcnryl. Chap. 25. The Title whereof is, de 
 Trivi/egiis Procerum Anglm. The Law runs thus. Si exurgat placitum inter homines 
 alicujiis Earomim jocnam hahentium, traUetitr placitum in Curia Domini fui. Now 
 that this Socna was no more than Soc. in old Saxon, fee Spel. Gloft] Tit Sec. i. e. 
 feHa de hominihus in curia Domini fecundum confuetudinem-, fo likewile in Tituh 
 Socha, vel dicitur^ Soc ^ in Saxon focn. i. e. libertas franchefta. From all which 
 we may obferve, that thefe Lords of Manors, ( here called Proceres iSf Barones ) 
 had Court Barons, which took their Name from their Lords, though Feudatory- 
 Tenants or Vavafours. 
 
 But granting that about the End of King John, or beginning of the Reign of 
 Henry \\l. fuppofing that thefe Lords of Manors, and Great Freeholders, whether 
 Tenants in Capite, or others, might amount in all to Five or Six Thoufand Perfons, 
 I do not fee why fuch an Affembly might not be as orderly, and as well managed, 
 as one of Three Thoufand, or Four Thoufind, (fuppofing your Greater Barons, 
 and LefsTf«^/?/x in Capite, to have then made about that Number ;) efpecially if 
 we confider, that moft Bufinefs, or A8:s of any Confequence, (and for which Par- 
 liaments were called) might be prepared, and drawn up by the King and his Council 
 before they met. So that take it which way you will, fewer Inconveniencies and 
 Improbabilities attend my Hypothefis, than yours. 
 
 M. That the Earls and Greater Barons, both Spiritual and Temporal, together 
 with the tenants in Capite, ( although never fo numerous, as you are pleafed to 
 fancy ) then made the Body of the Baronage of England, I have very good Autho- 
 rity on my Side •, but that any Feudatory Barons, or Tenants of a Lefler Degree, 
 ever had any Places or Votes in thofe Allemblies, I think you can give me no fuf- 
 ficient Authority for it. 
 
 'Tis true Mr. P. in his Treatife of the Rights of the Commons afTerted, gives 
 us Two modern Quotations -, the one out of Mr. Camden s Britannia, the other 
 
 i\ig. no. ^jm o^M.1. Selden, to prove this Aflertion. As for the former, it is in the 
 IntTcdu£\ion to the Britannia, M\ publithed in Quarto •, the Words are rheie, 
 verum Baro ex iUii nominibus videatur, qu.r tempus paulatim meliora, tS/ molli- 
 era reddidit ; nam longo poft tempore non Militcs, Jed qui liberi erant Domini, 
 
 F-)!.i6. ^ TJhini Saxonibus dicebanttir, Barones vocari capcrunt, nee dum tnagni hono- 
 
 ris erat, paulo autem poftea (meaning after the Normans Entrance) co honoris 
 pervenit ut nomine Baronagii Angli.e omnes quod.immoJo Regni ordincs con- 
 linereniur. But he doth not tell us that this learned Author, in his lalt Fxlition 
 of this VVotk in Yolw, being fcnfible cf hii Miltake, hath added the Words 
 
 ^upericrei
 
 dialogue the Sixth. '1^89 
 
 Superiorcs before Ord'ines •, whereby it is plain he now reftrains it only to the 
 Eirls and Barons, as they are now underlbod. 
 
 Mr. P"s other Quotation is out of Mr. Seldens Notes upon Eadmerus, where Fo!. 163. 
 Commenting on the Word Barones, he faith, Vocahulum ncmpe alio notione nfur- 
 pari quam vulgo, neque eos duntaxat ut hodie figmficare, quibus pcculiaris ordlnutn 
 Comiriis' /ocus eft -^ but then conceals this that follows, which makes direftly 
 againft him; Sed umverfosy qui Regi£ munificcnt'u^ ad j'ormulam Juris nojhi 
 Qientelaris quod nuUius Vi'df Rrgix g/ebam, fed ipfum tantum modo Regem fpe^lat ^ 
 Tenure en Chief ( Phrufi jorcnfi dicimus ) five Tenura in Capite laii fundia pofji- 
 debant s whereby you may fee that he expreily reftrains this Word Barones to 
 Tenants in Capite only; though your Author takes no Notice of it. Nor in- 
 deed in his Titles of Honour, doth Mr. Selden give us any other Delcription of 
 a Baron, ( I mean fuch who had a Vote in Parliament ) but fuch in the Senle tha; ^^-^f' 5- 
 is taken in Henry I. his Chatter, as it is recited in Matt. Paris, Siquis Baronum 
 neorum, Comitum vel Aliorum qui de me tenent mortuus fuerit. i. e. One who was 
 either one of the Earls, or Greater Barons \ or otherwife held in Capite. 
 
 F Mr. P. is not at all to be blamed ( as you make him ) in thefe Two Quota- 
 tions i in that out ofCa/nden, you cannot deny, bgt he hath truly cited that Au- 
 thor, as it was in his Firft Edition :, and if he afterwards, altered it, it may very 
 well be queftioned, whether he did not add the Word Superior es, rather out of 
 fear of difpleafing the Engl'ifh Nobility, ( whom that , Quotation had before 
 Ihock'd) than out of any Senfe of his being in the wrong-, as it appears by 
 the Words immediately following, when he tells us out of a Namelels Manu- 
 Icript Author, whole Name I wifh he had told us-, ThatW^my III. out of fo 
 great a Multitude of Barons, which vcas feditious and turbulent, called the beft and. 
 chiefeji of them only by Writ to Tarlicunent. By which it plainly appears, that 
 he fuppofed all thole Lefs Barons, or Tenants in Capite, though no Lords, as now 
 underftood, who were thus excluded, to have been only Nominal, and not Real 
 Barons -, and if ^0, meet Commoners -, or elfe he muft extend the Peerage of Eng- 
 land to at leaft Three or Four Thouiand Perlbns ; for fb many Tenants in Capite^ 
 might very well be at that Time. 
 
 The fame I may likewife fay as to the Quotation out of Mr. Selden -, for by the 
 Words, quibus peculiaris in ordinum Comitiis locus eji ; 'tis plain he fuppofed that 
 all the reft of thofe Tenants in Capite were but Commoners ; yet he no where 
 affirms, that none but rhefe appeared in Parliament for all the Commons of Er^- 
 land j for he very well knew the Unreafonablenefs of that Suppofition. Since be- 
 fides thefe B^rowj, 01 Tenants in Capite, BraBon, in his Firlt Book, tells us of Chap. S. 
 divers other Orders of Men, of Great Dignity and Power in this Kingdom, about 
 the Time when you fuppofe this marvellous Alteration to have happened. His 
 Words are thefe, Et fub its ( viz. Regibus ) Junt Duces, Comites, Barones, Mag- 
 nates, five V^avaflbres, CT" Milites, £?" etiam Liberi, tf ViUani, i!f diverfs Poteftates 
 fub Rcge conftitut£ ; and a little farther, funt ^ alii Potentes fub Rege qui di- 
 cuntur Barones, hoc cfl Robur belli ; funt & alij qui dicuntur Vavajfores viri magns 
 Dignitatis. From which Words I defire you to obferve, that he here makes the 
 Magnates, and the Vavajfores, or Feudatory Tenants, to be all one, and alfb ranks 
 them before the Milites. Now whether thefe Vavajfores and Milites, who did not 
 all hold of the King in Capite., were Men of fo great Dignity and Power as thefe 
 whom he here reckons immediately after the Earls and Great Barons, fhould have 
 no Votes in Parliament, neither by themfelves, nor their Reprefentatives, is alto- 
 gether improbable. 
 
 And agreeable to this of BraSon, Du Yrefne, in his Lexicon Tit. Vavajfor, tells Pagl 1262. 
 us, that Vjvajforum duo erant ordines, fub majorum appellatione compleUuntur, qui 
 Barones appeilantur, fub minor urn vero, quos vutgo Vavaffores dicunt\ iff lege Hen- 
 rici I. Reg. Thaines minores, rcfpeciu Thainorum majorum qui Baronibus aquiparan- 
 tur. But that thefe LelTer Thanes or Vavaffors, were alfo ftiled Barones, Sir H. Pa^. 70, 
 Spelman tells us expreily in hisGloffary, Tit. Baro; Etiam Barones Comitum, Pro- 
 cerumque, hoc cji Barones frbdterni, i}f Baronum Barones fjipiffime kguntur ; and 
 of this he gives us many Examples ^ and particularly of the Chief Tenants of the 
 Abbey of Ramfey, above-mentioned. So likewife the fame Author, a Leaf or 
 Two farther, fpeakingof tiieBjr<7Wj oi" London, mentioned in the Charter of King 
 Henry I. underltands them, pro civibw prxjiantioribus qui focnas fuas, tf confue- 
 tudines, i.e. (Mria^habuerunt, i:f Privilcgia, eorummjhr, qui in Comitatu, Barones 
 
 P p ComitatuT
 
 290 
 
 BiBLiOTHECA Politic A. 
 
 Comitatta iicuntm\ &c. Nor did this Title of Barones extend t® London alone ; 
 but he allb immediately tells us in the fame Place, Sic Baroties de Eboraco, de 
 Cejlrid, de Warwico, de Soe Feverjham^ & plur'mm VUlarum Regiis frivilegiis in- 
 fignhim, cum in Anglia iu7n in Gallia, 8cc. And that Barons of -Counties were no 
 more than Lords of Manors, I have juft now proved ; for Socna n]eans no more 
 than a Court Baron, or Court of a Manor. So that here arifesa plain Diftinflion 
 between the Barones Regis, the King's Great Barons, or Tenants in Capiie ; and 
 thefe Lefler Barons, we now are here fpeaking of, called Medmjfe Jhegnes, and 
 Bu?gh Jhegnes, by the Saxons, till they fix on the Word Varliamentum, to fignifjr 
 the Common-Council of the Kingdom ; who, though no Peers, yet were Barones 
 Regni, Barons or Noblemen of the Kingdom, according to the general Acceptation 
 of the Word Kobi/es, in that Age -, and as fuch made up the Body of the Baronage, 
 called by Matt. Far is, and other Authors, Baronagium, or Commiinitas Baronagti 
 totim Angfut. 
 
 M. I fee you do all you can from the equivocal Ufe of the Word Barones, to 
 croud in new and unknown Men into the Great Council of the Kingdom, viz. youf 
 Barons of Counties, Cities, and Towns, whom ( fince you dare nor affirm there 
 were then any Knights ofShkes) you fuppofe to have ferved inftead of them ; 
 i?. A p. and theft you would have to be, not Barones Regis, but Regni, or Terrx, fbrfooth, 
 
 .'.J. i6i. i f of the hand, or Kingdom-., whereas we never had any true Barons tiiat held by 
 Mefne Tenures here in England. This if you deny, you muft deny all Hilfory, and 
 all our Ancient Laws, and Law-Books too; and if you grant it, you mult confefs, 
 that every true Baron was a Tenant in Capite, and by your own Conceflion, he muft 
 then be the King's Baron, or Baro Regis. I grant indeed, there were Nomina! 
 ot T'mthx Barons (fuch as you mention ) many in thoft Times, fuch as were 
 Tenants to Great Lords, Bijhops, or Abbots, of whom we find frequent Mention 
 in our Ancient Hiftories, Records, and Charters. But thefe are not the Men who 
 had ever any Place in our Great Councils ; and I defire you would prove to me, 
 that ever they appeared there before the Times I affign ; and I would alfo have you 
 inform your lelf of the Gentlemen of whom you hwrow this Notion, if they can 
 prove that there were any fuch kind 'of Tenure, as Teniira de Terra, or de Regno? 
 Or whether there was ever any Man that held an Eftate de Regno ? Whether For- 
 feitures or Elcheats wwe to the Kingdom ? And whether Fealty was fworn, or Ho- 
 mage done to the Kingdom ? Or whether an Karl was invefted or girt with the 
 Sword of the County by the Kingdom? Or whether the Ancient Ceremonies ufed 
 at the Creation of Earls and Barons, were done by the Kingdom ? Thus all the 
 Barons of England held of the King •, and thus all thefe Things were performed 
 and done to our Ancient Kings, and by them ; which are moft manifeft Notes of 
 the King's immediate JurilHittion over rhe Barons ^ and that they were his Tenants 
 in Capite, and by Coniequence his Barons only, which you cannot deny -, and of 
 which Tenants in Capite, the Earls and Greater Barons, always Created by Invefti- 
 ture of Robes, or other Ceremonies, were fummoned by particular Writs ; and the 
 other Lefs Barons, or Te-nanis in Capite, ever fince the ly^'' of King John, were 
 fummoned by one Common Writ, direded to the Sheriff of the County ; fince 
 whicli Time ( if not fome Time before) I grant thefe Tenants in Capite were not 
 look'd upon as Barons or Peers of the Kingdom, properly fo called. Yet did their 
 Votes in Parliament ftill conclude, and charge rheir Tenants in the making and im- 
 pofing of Taxes or Laws, which they alone, together with the Bifhops and greater 
 Barons, ftill performed, until the Times I affign. 
 
 F. I fee you are in a Wood, and do not know well under what Clafs to rank your 
 'tenants in Capite-, for if they were at firft all Lords or Peers, how could they ler\'e 
 utoon Juries in Hundred or County Courts? If they were meer Commoners, then 
 there were Commons in Parliament, before the 49^'' 0^ Henry FIL and why might 
 not others as confiderable Commoners, have Places in the Great Council as well as 
 they, whether they were the King's Barons, orTenants in Capite, or not!" But in An- 
 Iwer'tothis, you tell me, that we never had any Barons held by mean Tenure, here 
 m England-, this is plainly equivoal -, for if you mean ic oi' Barons in Capite, it is true ; 
 if of other Baronies, it isfalfe by your own Confelfion. And Sir H. Spelman tells us, in 
 the Title lalt quoted, that the Baron of Burford pleaded to hold of the King per Baro- 
 mam, and yet he was never any Baron of" the Kingdom. Now I defire you to lliew 
 me, if he, and fuch like Barons as himfelf, had no Place in Parliament, who it was 
 reprefented them there. And therefore in Anfwer to your 'Dilemma, I grant that 
 
 every
 
 Dialogue the Sixth. 20 £ 
 
 every Baron by Tenure, was a Tenant in capita -, but every Tenant m cdpite was 
 not a Baron •, and this I think is (b plain, that you your (elf cannot deny it. 
 
 But as to your next Qyeftion , I can anfwer it without aslting the Gentle- 
 man, from whom you luppofe I borrow the Notion, That there migiit be 
 other Barons, or Lords of Minnors, who by reafbn of their ELtates migiit have 
 Places in Parliament (fuppofing Knights of Shires were nor introduced till af- 
 ter King John\ Time, when fuch Freeholders became too numerous all to appear in 
 Ferlbn) and yet thefe might not be Barons by Tenure -. And therefore all your 
 Q^ieltions conclude nothing ; for you fuppofe that which is ftill to be proved, 
 that becauie all the Barons of England, properly fo called, held of the King 
 in Cipite, and were confequently his Barons -, that therefore none but Barons, atid 
 Tenants in Cipite, had any Place in our great Councils, which is the Thing 
 you fuppofe, and I as pofitively deny. 
 
 M. Well Sir, fince you put it to that Iflue, I hope I fhall fully convince 
 
 J'ou, that none but the Perfons I have mentioned' were the conitituent Mem- 
 )ers of the Common Council or Parliament, before 49th Hen. III. or i8th 
 Edw. I. and who alone gave Aflent to all Laws that were made, and all Taxes 
 that were to be impofed on themfelves, and their Under-Tenants, who were then 
 concluded by the A£ts of their fuperior Lords. 
 
 But not to wrangle with you any longer, about the Signification of the g. 4 / 
 Word Biirones, I grant there were Nominal or Titular Barons, very many, p'ag.Hh 
 liich as I have mentioned ^ nay, that there were leveral other great Subjefts' 
 who had Tenants that held 5, 6, 7, 8, or 10, nay more Knights Fees under 
 them, and who had the Name and Title of Barons. But what is this to the 
 Purpofe ? I defire you would prove to me, by any direQ Proof, that thefe Sort 
 of Men had any Voices, either by themfelves, or their Reprelenratives in our 
 
 Feat Councils, till after the Time we allow them ; and this (beiides the Proofs- 
 have alreadv brought) I think is fufficient j fince it is plain, that the Baro- 
 nes Rcgni, or Ttrrx, and the Milttes, and Homines fui, are all one and the lame 
 Perlbns, that is, they were the King's great Barons^ or Tenants in Capite, who 
 alone conftituted the Baronage, or Univerfity of the Baronage of England, or of 
 the Kingdom, in our great Councils, or Parliaments. And for the farther Proof 
 of this, I need go no farrher than thole very Arguments your own Author 
 Mr. P. hath made ule of, in his Right of -the Commons ajjertei ■, wherein he b. a. p. 
 Would prove from cerrain Letters that were lent from the Baronage, or ^'^'n- 
 Univerfity of the Baronage of England to the Pope , againft the Church of 
 Rome\ Kxaftions here in England. And therefore 1 (hall not bring only Frag- 
 ments, Phrafes, or Hngle Words out of the Records or Hiftories "which feem 
 to counrenance my Opinion, contrary to the true Meaning of thofe Records, 
 and the Senle of the Hiltorians, as Ibme of your Men do, but Ihall give you 
 the Quotations out of thofe Authors, whole and entire •, and fhall make fuch 
 reafonable Deduftions from them, as I think you will have no reafon to deny 
 to be fairly raifed from the Words themfelves. 
 
 Thus alfo, as Matt, faris relates, in the 29th Hen. III. the Earls, and Ba- ^^ ^ g 
 rons lent Letters to the Pope, then at the Council of Lyons, to complain of tl e '" ' 
 Pope's F.xaftions ; which Letters are faid by this Author to be diiefted a Mag- 
 natibi/s, is' Univerfitate Regni higlix. And it is alfo true , that in the Ijme 
 Year there were other Letters fent thither, from the lame Parties, to the Car- 
 dinals there aflembled, which are recited by the old Manufcript to have lent 
 MeHengers to the Cardinals ^ and the old Manufcript in the Cottonun Library, 
 that they lent to the Cardinals aflembled at the Council of Eyons, Letters <J 
 Baronihus, Militibus, £5' univerfis Baronngij Regni Anglix per procuratores fuOs 
 Rogerum Bigod Comitcm ^arjf. Willieln^um de Cantelupo, Johannem filium Gal- 
 fridiifs Radulphum filium 'Nicholaf, Fhilipputn Bajj'et, Barones, Frccuratores Baro- 
 nagii Anglic tunc temporis. Innocentio Papa ^larto celchrante Concilium ihi ge- 
 ncrale. Anno Gratia 1245. And the Letters are thus dire£l:etU Vcnerabilihus 
 in Chriflo fralribus univerfis, i!f fingulis Dei Gratia Salulem. Barones, Ahlitet, 
 f^ Univerfitat Baronagii Regni Anglic. And Matt of Wcfhrnnfler does likewilb 
 agree in this Relation, only lliles the Perfons bit named, Milttes, whom Mar. 
 Paris called Viri Kobilcs, iff dijcreti: But this will make no Difference, as I 
 Ihall (hew you by and by ; and to thele Matt, of Wefiminfler adds Mr. William 
 Tcwic Clerk, who feems to have been their Secretary. 
 
 P p 2 But
 
 2p2 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTICA. 
 
 B.A.F- But notwithftanding, it will appear that all thefe Perfons fo lent, named £^- 
 
 Tigc ioh^°4' rones iS> Mlites, Vf Vniverfitas Barona^gij, did not reprefent the Commons of 
 England at all, but only the great Earls, Barons, and Tenants in Capite. For firft it 
 appears from Sir TK". D«^^<7/f's Baronage of England, that every one of the Per- 
 fons here named, was either an Earl, Baron, or great Tenant in Capite, and not 
 Tome I. common Perlbns, as your Author would have them •• And tho' it is true, the 
 
 F0I.J06. Ottoman Manuftript, and Matt, of Wefiminfier call fome of them Milites j 
 ^ yet this makes nothing againft our Opinion •, for as I proved before, the great 
 
 Milites were often ftiled Barons, and the Barons Milites. 
 
 Nor was this Earl, and the four Barons here mentioned, cholen or fent by 
 the Baronage of the Kingdom aflembled in Parliament, to reprefent them at 
 the Council of Lyons, but were only pitched upon by a Body ot Military Te- 
 nants, or Barons, at a Tournament intended to have been held at Lunjlab/e j 
 which was forbidden by the King ; and theie took upon them to warn Mr. 
 Martin, the Pope's Clerk, out of the Kingdom •, as appears by the Account 
 Matt. Paris gives us of this Bufineis, in the Paragraph immediately following : 
 So that the Hiftory of the thing makes it plain, who were the Univerjitas 
 Regni ^ to wit, the Barons, or the Univerjitat Armatorum, who were met to 
 hold the Tournament, and thefe the King there called his Barons. 
 
 And after this, in the 30th of Hen. III. when the Fope did not give Satis- 
 
 fa£tion to their Grievances, the King called (as this Author tells us) ad Parli- 
 
 Matt. Pans, amentum generalijjimum., totius Regni Anglicam totalem Kobilitatem Londini fviz.) 
 
 ^^^' Prelatorum tarn Abbatum, ijf Priorum, quam Epifcoporum Comitmn quoque i^ 
 
 Baronum ut de Statu regni jam vaciUantps efficaciter prout exegit urgens necef- 
 
 g ^ P fitas contreUarent. In this very Parliament the King conferred with the Bifhops 
 
 Fag, 106. by themfelves, and the Earls and Barons by themfelves, about this Bufinefs of 
 
 the Pope's not keeping his Promife : And certainly if there had been then any 
 
 Commons in this Parliament, he would alio have conlerred with them about 
 
 the fame Matter. 
 
 The Refult of all thefe Conferences was, that yet for the Reverence due to 
 the Apoftolick See, they (hould again fupplicate the Pope by Letters, to re- 
 move their intolerable Grievances, and infupportable Yoke. And this they do 
 in leparate Conferences. The Bilhops write by themfelves ; the Abbots and 
 Priors by themfelves ; and the Earls, Barons, ilfc. by themfelves, to the P^pe 9 
 and if there had been any Commons , as at this Day, they moft certainly 
 would likewife have wrote to the Pope, as well as the other conftituent Parts 
 of this Parliament did. 
 
 T. I hope I (hall be able to anfwer what you have now faid : In the firft 
 Place, tho' I (hould grant that thefe Commiffioners lent by the Baronage of 
 England, were all of them Barons, and no Commoners among them ; doth it 
 therefore follow that the Perlbns that fent them, muft have been all Lords too? 
 For ifthofeCommifiioners, were all Peers, who reprefented your Bar cms minor es^ 
 oxTenants in Capite, (who, as you your felf have granted, were no Lords at all) why 
 might not thole Lords as well reprefent all the Commons of £>?^/rf;7i, as they 
 did thefe lefler Tenants in Capite ? So that it feems plain to me, that thele 
 Words, Vniverfitas Baronagij Anglix, mult needs then comprehend fomewhat 
 more than your Barons, and Tenants in Capite only ^ fince the Words Barones 
 t!f Mlites alone had fufficiently exprelFed all the conftituent Members of 
 your Parliament, without adding &' Univerjitof Baronagii, which would have 
 been a Tautology. 
 
 But that it was very ufual for the great Lords in thofe Days, to write 
 Letters in their own Names, as alio for all the Commons of England. I (hall 
 Ihew you by and by , when I (hall make ufe of two other Inlfances 
 of a like Nature, in the Reigns of Edw. I. and Edw. III. And therefore it is 
 no good Argument to prove, that the Commons had no hand in this Met 
 lage, or Letters, becaule they did not write by themlelves 5 much lels is it fo, 
 becaiife it is not exprefly mentioned by Alatt. Paris, that the King confiilted 
 the Commons as well as the Bifhops, Earls, and Barons, that therefore they 
 were not there : Since this Author writing very concifely, comprehends all the 
 Lay Eftates, under the Words Comites iSf Barones, or elfe Magnates alone. So 
 likewile Matt, of WeJiminJJer , when he mentions divers Parliaments in the 
 Reign ot Ediv. I. and Edw. II. exprefles them under the fame Title. And 
 I tho' 
 
 ■.Ttt.
 
 Dialogue the Sixth. 293 
 
 tho' this Author often mentions the Earls and Barons to have done this, or that^ yet 
 
 it is no Argirment to conclude, that the Commons were not then there. And 
 
 for this, pray take thefe Examples out of Matt. Wcflminflcr ^ when Amo Dom. 
 
 1300. the 2&th of Edxcirrd I. he tells us, the King held his Parliament dii Lin- 
 coln, where the Somites i!f Ear ones demanded a Confirmation of the great Char- 
 ters, and they further asked, that the Deforeftations made by the King Ihould be 
 confirmed \ and then he tells us, that ihereupon the Charters of Liberties and fo- 
 refts, xvere again renewed ^ and being pajl under the Great Seal, xxere proclaimed, 
 before all the People, in every County ; where you fee that the Complaints were 
 made by the Earls and Barons •, yet it is cenain, that the Confirmation of thefe 
 Chartets, muft have proceeded from all theEftates ^ tho' the Bifhops,an d Abbots, 
 and Priors, who were then conftituent Members of this Parliament, are not 
 at all mentioned. Yet that they, as alfo the Commons were at this Parliament, 
 will eafily appear, if you pleale to confuk the Claufe-RoU , where the Sum- 
 mons are entred. So alio Henry de Knighton, Anno Dom. 1 301. the 29th EJw. I. tells ^^•^"■'' ^^- ^- ■ 
 us of a Parliament this King held at Stamford, where met the Earls and Barons, 
 and with great Courage perftfled until they had got the Quarter of Yorefis fully 
 granted and confirmed to them. Where note , that tho' by way of Excellen- 
 cy, the Eails and Barons (who then bore the greateft Sway, are here only menti- 
 oned) yet it is certain, that the Commons were alfo fummoned to this Par- 
 liament. Now if thefe latter Hiitorians pafs by the Commons, tho' then confti- 
 tuent Members of Parliament , without any one exprefs Mention, why might 
 not Matt Paris do fo too ? 
 
 But tiiaf he did fo, appears very plainly from the Letters of the Parliament held 
 in 30th Hen. HI. to the Pope and Cardinals, being ftill at the Council ofLy- 
 ons, to remove the intolerable Grievances above mentioned. That to the Pope is 
 leciied at large by Mat. Pam, tho' that to the Cardinals is omitted by him ; p/ib. Cott. Sub 
 but in an Ancient Manufcript of the Time extant \nSix John Cotton^tAhtzxY, Effigkckoi'atr. 
 botn Letters are faid to have been fent to the Cardinals at Lyons, a Ba- 
 rombus, Alilitibi^s, & Univerjitatibus Baronagii Angfht. Now who thele were, the 
 fubiequent Letter to thePo^^ in Mat. Paris will inform us, which begins thus 5 
 SanBijfimo, Sec. Devott jilii fid Richardus Coines Cornubine, Sec together with ^^t' Park, 
 divers otner Earls there named ^ but the Commons are not particularly recited^ ^9^. 70c- 
 yet are comprehended un ler thele general Words, Barones, Proceres, C Mag- 
 nates, ac Nobiles Portuum marn habit at uros , nee non i^ Clerus & Populus 
 umverfus Salutem-, and pray note, that Matt. Paris had before called this a 
 Parliament , Convenientibus igitur ad Parliamentum totius Regni Magnatibus ; ^''^' ^?"- 
 which Words take in the Knights of Shires •, as the Nobiles, Portuum maris 
 habitaturos, do the Barons of the Cinque Ports ; (which by the way are here 
 called Noble, tho' mere Commoners.) And to obviate your Objeftion, that the 
 Word Qerus after Barones, may refer to the Bifhops, Abbots, and Priors, that 
 could not be -, for they at the lame time had already writ Letters apart to the 
 Pope, concerning this Matter; as you may fee in the lame Author immediately 
 hetore. And therelore nothing feems plainer to me, than that by thefe Words, 
 Qerus ^ Populus \Jn]verfus, muft be meant the inferior Clergy, and Commons, 
 appearing by their Reprefentatives in this Parliament, and that lb became 
 generalijfimum Parliamentum, as this Hillorian calls it. 
 
 M. Pray give me leave now to reply. 
 
 In the firft Place I muft tell you, that the Inftances you have brought out of 
 Matt. Wefim. to prove that under the Words Comites and Barones, iff Baronagiun\ 
 Anglid, were comprehended the Commons of England, and that after the Time J ' 
 allow them to have been there, will not do your Bufinefs. 
 
 As to the Inftance about the Pope's Nuncio, it ieems to have been an Order 
 of the Lords only ; the Words being in Latin, de Ajjenfu Comitum tSf Baronum. 
 
 As to the Third Inftance out of Knighton^ he faid indeed, that the Comites iff 
 Barones met at the Parliament at Stamford ; and that might very well be, lince 
 they alone then infifted upon the Confirmation of the Charter of Forefts. 
 
 But as for the Argument you draw from the Direftion of this Letter to the 
 Pope: The learned Dr. in his Treatile againlt Mr. P. hath given us a very good 
 Anfwer to it, to this Effeftj that tho' it is true, that after the Barones isf Proce- P<*&- '"*• 
 res, there are divers other Parties mentioned, yet was this Troop of Words put 
 together in this Letter to no other purpofe, than to make an ImpreUton upon 
 
 the
 
 2^4 
 
 B r B L I O T H E C A P O I, 1 T I C A. 
 
 the Pope, and make him fenfible what a general Diflike the Nation hzl cf his 
 Exaclions and Encroachmencs, and to induce him to a Compliance with their De- 
 fires ; the Multitude or Commons not being any-vvays Pjrcies, or privy to the 
 writing of the Letters. For the Clamour of the People was a great Argument uled' 
 "^ in all thefe Letteis, to affeft the Fopc, how ungrateful his Impofitions were to the 
 
 Nation. But in this of the Temporal Barons more efpecially, who addrels them- 
 fehes to the Pope by Petition, enforcing it by the Clamour of the People, againit 
 thole Injuries and OpprelTions upon the whole Kingdom, it is to no purpofe to 
 repeat all that follows ; only obferve this Claufe, Al'wqmn necejje eft ut ven'iant Scan' 
 data Gainorc Vcpuli , tarn Dom'mum Regem , quam nos molerabiliter impel- 
 lente. And the King likewife in his Letter to the Pope and Cardinals aggravates 
 the Matter, by the like Arguments ^ as appears by this Claule, in his Letter to 
 them •, verutn Clamorem mcomparabilem Magnatum Angl'ix tarn Qer'i quam Topiili 
 mn pofjumits obaudire. From this general Clamour ot the People, and not from 
 their being Parties, it was, that the Beginning of the Letters from the Baronage, or 
 the Univerfity of England, was Huffed with fo many Words and Phrafes, to awa- 
 ken his Holinefs, andinvite him to redrefs their Grievances. 
 
 jP. In return to what you have faid, I muft tell you, that I am not convinced, 
 that in the Parliament mentioned by Matt. Weftm.^ the Demand for the Confir- 
 mation of the Charters was made by the Lords only ; fince it is not likely that the 
 Commons (who are there ftiled Divites Flebps, and are faid to have been grieved 
 by their Infringement) fliould not have been Parties to the Complaint for their Re- 
 drefs •, efpecially fince we find that in all fucceeding Parliaments, the Commons 
 are mentioned as moft eager for the Confirmation of iheie Charters. 
 
 But 'as for the moft material Part of your Anlwer to my Authority from the 
 Parliament's Letter to the Pope, I know the Dr. endeavours all he can, to avoid 
 • the Force of this Obieftion, by making the Parliament top upon his Holinefs 
 nieer empty Words, inftead of Matter -, that is, according to the Dr.s' own Phrale, 
 they only laid an airy Amhufcade to intrap him. But whether the old Gentleman 
 was thus like to be catched, I give you leave to judge. For certainly both he and 
 his Confiftory of Cardinals, knew as well as the Parliament it felf, what were the 
 confiituent Parts thereof, and they could quickly have anfwered them, that they 
 put a meet Sham upon his Holinefs, in mentioning the Noble Inhabiants of the 
 ■ Sea Ports, and all the reft of the People, both Clergy and Laity in their Letters ; 
 whereas they had nothing at all to do with the Matter, nor had fhown any diflike of 
 his Holinefs's Proceedings, For if they had no Reprefentatives in Parliament, how 
 could it be known whether they were aggrieved or not > Or is it likely the Pope 
 had no Nuncio, or Friends, among the Clergy, to give him an Account of the 
 Cheat they there put upon him > And they might as well have talked of the Cla- 
 mours of the Tinners in Cornwall, as of thofe of the Inhabitants of the Sea Ports, iS 
 it was only put in to augment the Clamour, or to fill up the Number of the Com- 
 plainants ; if the People (1 mean both Nobility and Commons) had not been Par- 
 ties to thefe Letters. And you your felf have but now recited a Claule in the 
 King's Letter to the Pope and Cardinals, which makes it plain it was lb ; when 
 he tells them, that he could not flop his Ears againft the Clamour of the Mag- 
 nates, tarn Cleri, quam Populi, i. e. as well of the Clergy, as of the Laity, as the 
 Dr. renders it. So that thefe Words, Gamorem Magnatum, muft fignify here the 
 Clamour or Complaint of the whole People in Parliament ; or elfe they fignify 
 nothing at all. 
 
 And I may as well fay that the Ckrus and Populus never appeared in Parliament 
 
 at all, but that thefe were alfo meer empty Words to ftighten the Pope. But 
 
 r. R. c. what fay you to the next Precedent Mr. P. produces to prove that the Lords and 
 
 Pa&e 1 J 5. Commons together have writ Letters to the Pope, when he attempted to invade 
 
 the Right of the Crown or Kingdom, viz. The Letter from the Parliament at 
 
 Mat. Wiflm. j^i/icoln to thQ Pope, in the 29th of King Edw.l. wherein they aflert the Kings 
 
 >4nML>c;n. Superiority over the Kingdom of Scotland, and defire that his Holii^efs 
 
 would deCft from meddling farther with it. Which Letter, tho' fubfcribed 
 
 by above a Hundred Earls and Barons, as it was the Cuftom of that Age, 
 
 yet it is faid exprefly in the Conclufion, In cujus rei Teftimonium Si- 
 
 gtUatam pro nobis, quam pro tot a Communitate fr.tdiUi Regni Ang/i£ prejenti' 
 
 bus Junt appenfa. 
 
 , M< Tho'
 
 Dialogue the Sixth. 295 
 
 M. Though this Authority is after the Time we acknowledge the Commons to 
 have been fummoned to Parliament, and therefore I need not fpenk particularly to 
 iti yet 1 grant your Argument hath Ibme Weight in it, fince it here Teems, that 
 the Lords did Sign this Letter, for the Commons, as well as themfelves: I Ihall 
 therefore endeavo\ir to Anfwer it. I confefs it appears very fpecious at firli fight ^ 
 but what if I fhew you, that this Letter was written by the Lords only from 
 'Lincoln^ after the Commons had been difmifled from thence by Prorogation or 
 Adjournment? For though it is commonly ftory'd, (but erroneouily ) that this B. a. p. 
 whole Parliament, or at leaft the Tempoial Lords, and the Commons, wrote to ^•'^? 153. 
 the Yope concerning the Jurifdi£tion and Superiority of the Kings oi Englani over 
 the Kingdom of Scotlund: Yet it cannot be fo s for this Parliament met on the 
 OBiWes 0*1 Hillary , or the 20''^ of January, and fate but Eight Days^ the Writs 
 for the Commons Expences bear Date January the 30''' of the lame Year; and vid.F,>;rs4f6 
 the Letter to the Fofe, figned by the Temporal Lords for themfelves, and the ^!'l* "f ^''' ^^- 
 whole Community of the Kingdom of England, is Dated February the 12^'' next.''(,^'*^''' 
 following at 'Lincoln, after the Commons had been difcharged Fourteen Days. So "'"'" ""* 
 that you fee the Barons ftill continued to ftile themfelves the Community of 
 England., and both Spiritual and Temporal Barons, and others of the King's 
 Council, did ttay and difpatch much Bufinefs, after all others were difmifled, ac- 
 cording to the Tenor of the there recited Proclamation, and may be fully proved 
 from the Proceedings of that Parliament, as they are to be found in Ryley% Fla- 
 cita Varliamentaria. So that nothing feems plainer to me, than that the whole f"'- 24I) 2Sr<"« 
 Community of England, for whom the Barons there named let their Seals to that 
 Letter you mentioned, were the Community of the Barons only. 
 
 F. I confefs Mr. ?ryn, in his Animadverfions upon my Lord Coke's Fourth Infti- ^■^^ 9- 
 tute, was the firft who ftarted this Objeflion, That the Commons could not be 
 prelent as Parties to this Letter. Yet he Itill fuppofes that the Lords who ftaid 
 behind, and made a kind of a Great Council at Lincoln, Signed it not only for 
 themfelves, but for the Commons alfb, though nof actually there i and is not lb 
 extravagant as your Doftor, to fuppofe, that by the Words in this Letter, Tarn pro 
 li'obis, quam pro tota Communitate, Sic. are to be underftood the Community of 
 Barons only ; for that would have been a Tautology indeed ; For lb the laft Words 
 Communitas Regni, 8cc. would have fignified no more than that they fublcribed for 
 themfelves, and themfelves ; and that the Word Communitas Regni, ( which I can 
 prove to you by many Examples, did then comprehend the Commons of England) 
 muft here mean more than your Community of the Earls and Barons. For pray 
 take Notice, that the Tenants in Capite, had now by your own ConcefTion, left 
 oft" to appear in Parliament in a Body, as being now reprefented by the Knights 
 of Shires, Hfc So that Sir Edward Coke very well obferves in his Fourth Inftitute, 
 that this Letter was Sealed by above One Hundred and Four Earls and Barons, yet 
 it was by the Aflent of the whole Commonalty in Parliament ^ and Mr. Fryn is 
 fo tar convinced of this in his exa£t Hiftory of Papal Ufurpations, that he Itiles 
 this Letter, Tf)e Memorable Epifile of the Earls, Barons, Great Men, andCommons Pate 80 j 
 /?/ England, 'dc. ^' 
 
 But to (hew you farther that there was no Change, neither of the conftituent 
 Parts of our Ancient Parliaments, nor of the Terms bv which they are exprefled 
 in our Ancient Records, appears by a Plea among Mr. Rykys Printed Pleas of M 375* 
 Parliament, in the ^sth oi' Edward I. where it is recited, that in the Parliament 
 at Car,ip, Will de Tefta, the Pope's Clerk, was Impeach'd per Comitcs, Barones, 
 C alios Magnates, ^ Communitatem totius Regni, concerning divers new and 
 intolerable Grievances laid upon them by the Pope : Where you fee there is no 
 Change of this Word Communitas, after the Commons were (as youfuppoft) 
 certainly prefent in this Parliament •, and why the fame Word Ihould not iignify 
 the faine Thing in the beginning of this King s Reign, as well as now, you had 
 need give me very good Authority to prove the contrary againft fuch clear Evi- 
 dence as this. But this Record goes on, and farther recites, that thefe Letters 
 were fent to the Pope, Ex parte Cvmmunitatis pr.tdiS.e ; and in which, Qerus iS> 
 Populus diUi Regni, fet forth tiie faid Grievances to the full. Now, as the Word 
 Clerus here expreffes all forts of Degtees of Clergy, as well Superior as Inferior, 
 reprefented in Parliament and Convocation, fo muft Populus here fignify the Laity 
 of both Orders, as well the Commons as Lords , lince the Commons were 
 certainly prelent at this Parliament ; and why the Word Populus (liould not 
 
 3 fignify
 
 2^6 B I B L 1 6 t H E c A Politico* 
 
 fignify the lame Thing long before, I can fee no Reafon for it, but the Doclor's 
 bare Aflertion. 
 
 And as for what you fay,' that the Commons could be no Parties to this Let- 
 ter, becaufe it appears by the Writs of Expences, thar they were difcharged before 
 this Letter was written •, admitting it were lb, it makes nothing againft my Af- 
 lertion. For why could not the Conimons agree upon the Subftance of the Let- 
 ter, and leave the Lords to draw it up, and fubfcribe it for them, after they were 
 gone Home ? And that it was lb, appears by the Letter it lelf, which recites. 
 That the Kw^ had caufcd the Tope's Letter, In medio, or p/eno Tarllamento exhi- 
 heri ac feriofe nobis fecit exponi unde habito traSldtu, 6^ deliberatione 'Diligenti 
 fuper contentis in Uteris veftris memoratis^ communis ccnccrs, 65" unanimus omni- 
 um, ^ fmgulorum confenjusfuit. See. Now every one knows, that underftands 
 any' thing of Parliamentary Affairs, that when any Thing is faid in an Act of Par- 
 liament, or other Record, to have been agreed upon in full Parliament, that is al- 
 ways underftood to have been done, all the Eflates being there prefent. Nor can I 
 fee any Reaft>n why this Letter Ihould not be called the Letter of the Commons, 
 as well as of the Lords, fince the very Statutes of that Age were often laid to 
 have been affented to by the Commons, though it is clear they were not drawn 
 lip into Form till after the Parliament was difmifled. 
 
 But that the Cottimons were certainly Parties to this Letter, appears by a Record 
 of the beginning o^ Edward the IIId'sTime, Printed by Mr. Prjw, then Keeper of 
 the Records of the Tower, (and which he tells us he found among the Rolls in 
 the White-Toiver) which Record contains the Heads of a Defence compiled by the 
 King s Council, in order to a ftronger Plea againft the Pope\ taking Cognizance in 
 the Court of Rome, concerning the King of England's Superiority over Scot /and; 
 in the Conclufion of the Second of which Records, there is a remarkable Article 
 
 ^/^e/ ^ relating to this very Letter now before us, in thele Words, hem adfinem ^uoi. 
 
 Fagei^s. Nobiks Regni Anglix £5' Trocuratorcs Communitatis fubditorum Regni prxditli ad- 
 mittantur per ipfum Bominum Regeni ad hujufnwdi defenfiones propenend. prout 
 eoriim Antecejjores ab Avo di&i Dodini Regis nojin erant admijji. Now to 
 what Tranfaftion of this kind, in the Reign oi Edward \. this King's Grandfather, . 
 can this Pafiage refer, but to this very Letter, which was affented, as ^Nd\ pa- pro- 
 curatores Communitatis Regni, as by the Barons, here called Kobiles Regni ? And 
 this Application thereof is given by Mr. Pryn himfelf, when he makes Ule of thele 
 
 Records. 
 
 But to let you fee farther, that the Lords and Commons, for all this Author's 
 Fafe 1^9 Opinion to the contrary, might join in a Letter to the Tope, I Ihall fliew you by 
 that which was writ in the Name of the whole Parliament to the Pope, in the 
 i7«h oi' Edward III. about the Provifions of Benefices, which then grew fb exor- 
 bitant, that Walfingham tells us in his Hiftory, ^uod Rex iff tota Knbilitas Regni 
 vita Edw III P"^^ ^°^^''^-> ^^' "'hich Phrafe the Letter it felf will heft explain. The Beginning 
 fo/. i6i. ' and Conclufion of which I (hall give you in Englijh, as you may find it in Mr. E'^'s 
 
 Book of Martyrs, 
 Vol. I. F*gc To the MoJ} Holy Father in God, Lord Clement, by the Grace of God, of the 
 5°'- Holy Church oj Rome, and of the Univerfal Church, Chief and High Bijhop, his 
 
 Humble and devout Children, the Princes, Dukes, Earls, Barons, Knights, Citizens 
 <2«i Burgeffes, and all the Commonalty of the Realm of thghnd, ajjembled at a Par- 
 liament holden at Weftminfter, the 15'^ ^/May laft pa ft, Uc. in Witnejs vihcreof 
 tee have hereunto fet our Seals. Given in the lull Parliament at IVeftminfier, on 
 the 18''' Day of May, Anno Dom. 134^. 
 
 And it ftill appears by the Parliament Roll of this Year, viz. 11^^ Edzcard ill. 
 n. 59. that the Commons Petitioned the King, that the Lords might ftay at the 
 Parliament till they had perfected and Seafd this Letter. 
 rt Kt R And that there was fuch a Letter then written by the Parliament, appears by 
 
 mViv! Edv'. the King s Letter to the Pope about the fime Matter, ftill among the Tower Re- 
 in OT. 3. i cords-, (in which he imitated his Grandfather, Edward L and^ Great Grandfather 
 Henry III. who alfo lent Letters to the Pope on fuch like Occafions) ; but in thofe 
 to excuie the Archbifhop of Canterbury from being the Author of thole Cotn- 
 plaints, he had this Paffage, that fince it was the Judgment, tarn Prccerum ^ 
 A'obilium, quam Communitatis Regni in ultimo Parlumento centra Provifortm 
 Exercitum. 
 
 To
 
 Didlcgue the Sixth. 297 
 
 To conclude-, I think nothing is plainer, than that under the Vniverfitas Rcgni, 
 in the Firft Letter to the Pcpe, the 29''' of Henry III. and under the Commuhitas 
 Rfgni, mentioned in the Letter of the 29''' of Edvoard I. were meant the fame 
 Eftates or Orders of Men, as were rnore particularly recited in this prefent Letter 
 under the fame Words j viz. The Temporal Lords and Commons in Farhament 
 Aflembled. 
 
 M. I muft freely tell you, I am not yet latisfied with the Senfe you now put 
 upon ihefe Words, Vniverjitas, zni Coffimiinitas Regni, before the Commons 
 were fummoned to Parliament j for you your lelf muft grant, that as the Word 
 Vntverfitas Regni takes in the whole Reprelentative Body of the Kingdom, lb 
 likewife the Word Commiinitoi fignifies no more than the fame whole Body or 
 Community thereof Therefore if I prove to you, that in thofe Times this Uni- 
 verlity or Community confifted only of the Earls, Barons, and Tenants in Capite, 
 that Word Commumtas Rcgni, ought nev^ to be interpreted by the Englijh Word 
 Commonalty or Commons ot England, till after rhe Time that I allow the Commons 
 were admitted to make a conftituent Part of the Great Council or Parliament, 
 nor always then neither. And Mr. P. in his Book which we have fo often cited, 
 hath done very unfairly to make the Univerfitoi and Communitas Regni, to fignify 
 the Commons of England, before they ever appeared in Parliament at all 5 and fo 
 hath he likewife abuled the Word Topulns, as I have already obferved, to fignify 
 the Commons, when indeed there is nothing thereby meant, but the whole Af^ 
 fembly of the Laity, which at that Time confifted of no more than the Earls, 
 Barons, or other Tenants in Capite. And though I grant that by Communitas Fr£- R. a. f. 
 latorum, or Baronum, are often underftood the Body of the Prelates or greater ^-'S^ ^a. 
 Barons only, called by way of Eminency, Proceres & Magnates -, yet moft fre- 
 quently, thefe, with all the other Tenants in Capite, did make the whole Body of 
 the King's immediate Tenants in Military Service, and were all together called the 
 Baronage of England, or the Community of the Kingdom; and for this I think I 
 Ihall give you undeniable Proofs by and by. 
 
 F. 1 am very well aware that the Word Topulus often fignifies the whole Body 
 of the Laity, yet rot esxluding the Commons, as I have already fufficiently 
 proved. For then the Word mult fignify quite contrary to its genuine Signifi- 
 cation ; inftead of People, the Greater Nobility only ; yet when that Word is put 
 after, as diftinO: from Magnates, it muff mean the Commons as now underftood, 
 I fhall now fliew you. 
 
 For that this WorlPopjilus does not always fignify the whole Body of the No- 
 bility only, but takes in oftentimes the Commons too, pray fee Matt. Weji. who 
 tells'us, King Edward \. in the 34''' Year of his Reign, making his Son a Knight, Pol- 55. 
 Pro hac militia fiii Regis concejjits eji Regi Trigcftmus Denarius a Populo iSf Clero^ 
 Mcrcatcrcs vera vicefimum conccjferunt : Upon which your Doftor in his Gloflary 
 very well remarks, that it is exident upon Record, who were the Populus meant 
 by theHiftorian, viz. the Comitcs, Barones, ^ alii Magnates, nee non Mlites Comi- 
 latuum. So that unlefs the Knights of Shires were Lords, it is plain Populus takes 
 in the Commons too. But Vniverfitas Regni, and Communitas Regni, called in 
 Trench le Cojumunc T>'angletcrre, is indeed often taken for the whole Community, 
 or Body of the whole Parliament •, and this Sir Edward Coke owns expreily in his 
 Second Inftit. upon thefe Words, In Articulis fuper Chartas : Thus (fays he) P^ge ^^9. 
 here Le Commune is taken for People; foas tout le Commune is here taken for all 
 the People ; and this is proved by the Senfe of the Words. For Magna Charta 
 was no. granted to the Commons of the Realm, but generally to all the Subjefts 
 of tl\^ Realm, viz. to thofe of the Clergy, and to thofe of the Nobility, and to 
 the Commons alfb. 
 
 And this is a Rational as well as GramrnKical Interpretation : For as the Word 
 Univerjitas is derived from the Adjeftive Univerfus, which fignifies the Whole, or 
 Univerfal: So the Word Communitas is derived from the AdjeSlive Communis, 
 Common or General. So that theie Two Words, when ufed fimply in a Political 
 or Legal Senfe, ought to take in the whole Body of the Kingdom, or all Sorts and 
 Conditions of Freemen, appearing themfelves, or by their Lawful Proxies or Re- 
 prefentative", in Pailiament. 
 
 But I have already futficiently proved, that under thofe General Words ufed in 
 our Hiftorians and Records, viz. Principes, Proceres, Kobiles, Magnates, Barones, 
 l^ alij de Regno, were then comprehended either all the confiderable Freeholders, 
 
 Q.q ' or
 
 298 
 
 B 1 B L 1 T H E C A P O L 1 T 1 C A. 
 
 or Lords of Manors, or elfe the Knights of Shires, Citizens and Burgelfes. So that 
 if the Senfe of tliele Words have been fufficiently explained, I think no reatbnable 
 Man can have any Caufe to doubt, whether thefe Abltrad Words, Kobi/ifjs^ \Jni- 
 verfitas, and Comnninitas, (liould be taken for aril Sorts and Degrees of Men, when 
 thus reprefented in the Great Council-, or whether they fhall be confined to the 
 Greater or Lefier Nobility only, viz. the Great Lords, Bilhops, and Tenants in 
 Capite, as you would make me believe, which requires ftronger Proofs than what 
 you have yet brought. 
 
 Befides which Senfe of this Word Communhas, or le Commune., it is alfo more 
 commonly ufed at this Day, and often then too, in another more reltrained and 
 legal Senfe j and that is, when it is ufed for the Ommonalty or Commons 0^ England., 
 diftinft from the Peers i and this may very eafiiy be diltinguifhed, by ')bferving, 
 that when it is taken in this Senfe, it is .always fet after the particular Enumera- 
 tion of the other Orders of the Lords or Peers, viz. the Archbifhops, Bifhops, 
 Abbots, Priors, Eails and Barons •., or when it is put contradiftinB; to the Word 
 p. R.C. Mngmiics. I fhall give you fome Authorities and Examples from Hiltorians and 
 
 P^&<i 35- Records of both thefe; and that in the Times preceeding thole that you allow the 
 Commons to have been fummoned in Parliamenr. Of this Sort is that which 
 Page^i^z. Matt. Weflminficr mentions as a Parliament held the ^y'l" of Henry HI. and 
 which is thus recited in the Patent Roll of this Year ; where, after the Excom- 
 munication denounced againft all Infringers o^ Magna Charta, there is this fblemn 
 Claufe added. That if to the Writing concerning the faid Sentence, any other Thing, 
 or in any otherwife fliould be added thereunto, befides the Form, of the faid Sen- 
 tence then to be denounced and approved of; that then Dominiis Rex, & pnedi&z 
 Magnates, ff Conimunitas Topuli Froteftantur pub/ice before all the Bifhops, that 
 they would never confent thereto ; and conclude thus, Iti citjus Rei Teflimonhim., 
 tf inpofierum Vent at Is Tejiimonium, tlie King, the Earls or Norfo/k, Hereford^ 
 mfex, and Warwick, Tetrus de Sabaudia, ad Inftantiam- aliormn Magnatum iff Po- 
 pu/i PrefcTipti^ J/gilla fua appofierunt -^ where you may fee, that it was ufual be- 
 fore the 49 ^i' ot Henry III. tor thofe that were Peers to put their Seals for the 
 Communitas Populi, or Commons. 
 
 M. I pray give me Leave to anfwer your Authorities as you bring them, left I 
 not only forget fome of them, but alfb tire boch you and my lelf with too long a 
 s. A. P. Difcourfe. I hope I am very well able to prove, by the Learned Doctor's Affi- 
 Pusey^. Itance, xhzi t\\i: Comnunitas Popjd'r^ heie mentioned, doth lignify not the Com- 
 •^ monalty or Commons, but the Community of the Laicy «ihere prefent, confift- 
 
 ing of the Greater Barons, or elfe of the Lefs, or Tenants in Capite. And for 
 fb/. 865. Proof of this, pray take Notice, that Matt. Paris called this Council Tota Ang/i£ 
 Kobi/itas. And in this Parliament the King demanded a great Sum of Money of 
 them, after much Conteft, and upon Promife to reform all Abufes, according to 
 the Tenure of rhe Great Chartetb ; thereupon the fame Author tells us. The 
 Church granted the Tenth of the Revenue for Three Tears, and the Knights (or No- 
 bility ) granted for that Tear Scutage; to wit. Three Marks of every Scutum, or 
 'Knights Fee. And then the Archbifhops and Bifliops in their Pontificalibiis., wirh 
 light Candles in their Hands, in the Prefence, and with the Aflent of the King, 
 the Earl oiCornwal, his Brother, and feveral Earls there named, £?' aliorim Opti- 
 fnatum Regni Anglue, and othet Chief Men of the Kingdom, Excommunicated and 
 curfed all thofe that from thenceforward fhould deprive the Church of her Eighty 
 and all thofe that fhould change, alter or diminifl) the Liberties of tht Church, and 
 Ancient Cuftoms of the Kingdom, efpecially thofe granted in the Great Charter of 
 the Common Liberties of England, and Charter ot the Foreft granted by the King, 
 Archiepifcopis, Epifcopis, iff c^xteris Anglix Prahltis, Comitibus, haronibus, Militibifs, 
 iff Libere 'lenentibus, 8ic. i. e. To the Archbifhops, Bifl:ops, and other Prelates of 
 England-., and to thefi^rA, Barons, Knights and Free-Tenants, or Tenants in Mili- 
 tary or Knights Service : For they only were fuch as paid Scutage, which was at 
 this Time a kind of Compofition with the King, for the confirming Alagna 
 0)artd, and was never charged but upon Knights Fees; and thefe were fuch that 
 held perhaps one narrow or fcanty Knights Fee only ; or fome part of a Knights 
 Fee; as an Half, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth Part, iffc. who all paid a Pro- 
 portionable Share of Scutage to the Great Lords, or Tenants in Capite, for the 
 Land they held of them in Military Service, which was paid firit to the Greit 
 Lords, and by them paid to the King. 
 
 And
 
 Dialogue the Sixth. 299 
 
 And from rhence I colleft, that befides the Rarmes Mnjores that came to this 
 great Council or Parliament, there were alio the Tenants inQipite, according to 
 the Dire£tionsand Law for Summons in King/^/'-^'s Chaiter, who wsi-e compre- 
 hended under the Words tota KobilUiU, iff Milites ; and that other Tenants 
 that held of the Tc-nanrs in dp/rr by Knights Seivice, were bound by their Ads, 
 tor they all knew how many Knights-Fees they held of the King m Qipite •, and it' 
 they had given any away to others, they held of them as they did ot the Crown, 
 and anfwered a proportionable Rate towards this Tax, tor the Fees, Qjuntiiies or 
 Parrs of Fees they held of them ^ about which there could be no Miltike after 
 the Scutate was aicertain'd. So that in lb great an AlTembly, where all the No- 
 bility of England were called together by the King's Writ, and upon fo great an 
 Occafion and Solemnity, as confirming the great Charter of Liberties after fuch 
 an extraordinary Manner, it cannot be doubted, but befides the Barons, all the Te^ 
 nants in Cipite, both Great and Small, which were then very numerous, were pre- 
 lent, or at leaft, molt of them ^ trom whence it is not difficult to tell you wlio 
 the CommnnitiUf were ^ after the Pre/.ues, Biirons and Mjgnates^ they were no 
 other than the fmall Tenants in Capite, who were all fummoned by one general 
 Writ, not chofen and lent by the People, but fummoned as the great Barons in 
 general, by King Johns Magna Chart a, as I (hall (hew you hereafter. 
 
 V. I hope I (hall be well enough able to prove, that what you have now al- 
 ledged is pure Imagination, or in the Dr.'s Phrale, an airy Ambufcade, and quite 
 contrary to the Senfe of Aiatt. Parps, as alfo of the Lawyers and Hiltorians of 
 thofe Times. For in the firlt Place, nothing is plainer, than that this Author by 
 the Woids Communita* Popu/i. muft underftand an Order of Men diltin£l from 
 the Magnates-^ or elfe if the Word Magnates might have comprehended them all, 
 it would have been to no Purpole to have mentioned any more. 
 
 But to anfwer thole Authorities you bring from Mat. Paris 5 as for the Word 
 Kobi/itas^ fince you Hill infilt upon it, I have already proved that the whole Parli- 
 ament, as well the Lotds Spiritual and Temporal, as Commons, were both before 
 and after this Time comprehended under thefe Words, Nobilit^i Anglic ^ and if 
 you yet doubt of it, I can give you a plain Authority out of IValfingham ; for it is 
 in his Life oi' Edw. II. Anno 1327- where relating the Manner of that King's De- 
 pofition, he tells us, That when the Queen and Prince came to London, there then 
 met Tota Regni Kobifttof, to depofe the King, and chufe his Son in his Stead-, 
 and he prelently fhews what this NobHitm was, for then there was fent to the 
 King, (being Prifoner in Kenelxaorth Cattle,) on behalf of the whole Kingdom, 
 Two Bijhops, Two Ear/s, Two Abbots, and of every County Three Knights; and 
 alfo from London, and other Cities and gteat Towns (elpecially the Cinque Ports.; 
 a certain Number ofPerfons, who informed him of the EleQion of his Son, and 
 that he (hould renounce the Crown and Royal Dignity, t^c. This Proof is lb 
 plain, it needs no Comment. 
 
 As for the reft of your Argument, the Strength of it chiefly confifts in this, 
 that the Tax there mentioned is laid to be granted a Miltttbus, or Tenants in 
 Cipite, (as you would have it) of Three Marks upon every Knight's Fee. But in 
 the firft Place I defire you to take notice, that this Scutage is not Scutage Service, 
 but a general Land Tax, or Manner of taxing according to Knights Fees, and which 
 was-continued-long after Hen. III. Reign as it appears by thisPalfage \n'S\x Hen- 
 ry Spe/nians Gloflary, Tit. Scutagium ; Edtuardus primus habuit 40 Solidos de quo- 
 libet Peodo Anno Regni i; Dom. 128J. pro Expeditione contra IVallos. And it was 
 alio granted by the Lords and Commons after the 18th oiEdiv. 1. when you and 
 the Dr. fuppofe the Commons to have then come to Parliament •, and if f), I 
 defite to know why a Militibus here mentioned by this Author, mult only lignily 
 Tenants in Capitc, by Knights Service, and not Knights ot Shires ; or other inte- 
 rior Tenants by Military Service •, lince it is not here laid a Mi/nibus qui de Regne 
 tenuerunt in Gipite ; and therefore it is a forced Interpretation of the Dr.'s, aijd 
 without any Authoritv, to limit thefe Words Militibus, t!f liberc Teneniibus, i^ 
 omnibus de Regno nojiro (which you omit with an iffc.) as alio the omnibus Ho- 
 minibus Liberis Regni noftri, only to the Arch-Bijhops, Bijhops, and other Prelates 
 oi" England, and to the Earls, Barons, Knights and Free Tenants, or Tenants in 
 Military or Knight's Service -, becaule they were only luth as paid Scutage-, where- 
 as you have already acknowledged that Magna Chart j was granted to all the Peo- 
 
 Q. q 2 pie
 
 900 B I B L I 6 T H E C A P O L 1 T I C A. 
 
 pie of England, who had all a Benefit by ir, and who paid towards the Aid there 
 granted, as well as the Tenants in Qipitc. 
 
 Bur it" Knights Fees alone were taxed, and that by the Tenants m Capite only, 
 I delire to know by wliat Right all Tenants in Petit Serjeanty, and by Burgage or 
 Soccage Tenure (who made a greater Body of Men in this Kingdom in thole 
 Times) could pay this Scutage, fince they held not by Knights Service, but by 
 certain Rents or orher Services, and fo not appearing in Perfon, could have no 
 Reprefentatives in this or any other Parliament of thofe Times. But if you will 
 tell me they might pay according to the Value tlpt Knights Fees were then reck- 
 oned at, viz. ibr every 20 /. a Years Ettate -, I defire to know how this could be 
 called Scutage, or how the Tenants //? Qpite, or other Lords from whom they held 
 thoie Lands, could give away their Money tor them. And in the next Place I defire 
 alio to know how all the Cities and Boroughs \n England could be charged with this 
 Tax; a great many of them (as you your lelf grant) holding of the King in Capite^ 
 cr elle ot Bilhops, Abbots or other mefne Lords by Soccage or Burgage Tenure, fo 
 that this Tax, if granted only by theTm/^/x in Capite, by Knights Service, could 
 reach them, and no other Perfons ; but if by this Word <i yTI/Z?//^/« may be underftood 
 Knights of'Shires, then tlie Tax was general, as well upon Soccage Tenants , as 
 thoie by Knights Service. 
 
 But tor the other Words you infift upon, vtz. the Libert Tenentes, which you 
 tranilate TV;?./;?/^j by MUtary Service ; if that had been the Meaning of thefe Words, 
 then they had been altogether in vain, fince you have already told me, that the 
 Milires were fo called, ncn a Mi 'it art Cingulo,fcd a feodo ; and if it were no Name of 
 Dignity, then certainly rhe Word Ah/ites would have ferved to comprehend all 
 your Likri Tenentes, or Tenants in Capite, without any other Additioi]. But that 
 thefe Words Libcri Tenentes, do not here fignity Tenants by Milirary Service, 
 pray fee Sir Henry Spelmans Gloffary, Tit. Ijber Homo, iff liber Tenens -., where he 
 there gives us a more general Signification of thefe Words thus, Ad Kobi/es olim 
 fpeclabant ij}i Tituli, a majoribiis ortos omnino Liberis ; aiid then ends thus, vide 
 in'^enuus, Lcgalii, Homo Trancus, Tenens Libere, alia-r Liber Tenens quo etiam 
 Senfii occurit mterdum Homo liber -., which upon every one of rhefe Titles lie makes 
 to fignify all one and the fame Thing, viz. an ordiriary Freeholder. And therefore 
 it is a very forced Interpretation of yours, to limit thefe Words Ommumtas To- 
 piili, only to the Community or Body of the Earls , Barons, and Tenants in 
 Capite. 
 
 Tho' I confefs you are very kind in one main Point, in underftanding the 
 Communitai Vopuli to mean the Community of the Leffer Tenants in Capite, that 
 were no Barons ; and then do what you can, thefe Words mutt here fignify meer 
 Commoners, or Commons, unlefs you can Drew us a Third Sort of Men, who, 
 tho' neither Lords nor Commons, yet had a Place in Parliamenr. So that thefe 
 Gentlemen, notwithftanding their Tenure, wereno more Noble than their feudatory 
 Tenants, or Vavafors themlelves ; nay, than the Knights of Shires are at this 
 Day : And then granting (as I doubt not but I (hall be able to prove) that the Ci- 
 ties and Boroughs had then alfo their Reprefentatives there; I pray tell me whe- 
 ther or DO there were not Commons in Parliament before 49 Hen. III. or 
 not. Which is contrary to your Dr s Afiertion in divers Places of his Anfwer 
 to Mr. P. ^ ^ 
 
 And that the Word Popu/us muft here fignity the Commons, and not the whole 
 Body of the Laity, appears plainly by this Place you have quoted ; fince it is re- 
 ftrained by your lelf, to mean not the whole Community of the Kingdom, but 
 only the Community of Lefler Tenants in Capite , who were not Lords. ' But 
 that Matt. Pans doth alfo in another Place take the Words Pcpulus for the Com- 
 moners, and not for the whole Body of the Laity, pa:ay again remember what he 
 favs under Anno 1225. where relating the Manner how Ahgna Charta came to be 
 confirmed in 9ch Hen. III. he tells us, Bex Hcnriciis adKat&le tenuit Curiam fuam 
 iipiid IVejh/i. Priffentibus Ckro, i!f Pcpulo, cum Alagnatibus Regionis -, which pray 
 let us put into Engliflo, and lee if it will not prove whar I fay, r/2. The Clergy and 
 People being pielent with the Great Men of the Kingdom. Now if the Word Mag- 
 nates (as you ;;}!irm) did rhen comprehend all the Barons and Tenants in Capite, to 
 whatPurpofe is the Word People put here as a diftinft Member of this Parliament? 
 But to Ihew you farther that this Word Populus is not always to be underltood for 
 the whole Body of theLaicks, but Lords and Knights of Shires, I Ihall (hew you 
 
 2 out 
 
 mi'
 
 T>ialogue the Sixth. qoi 
 
 out oilViilfingkim, Anno 1297. 24rh Edw. I. where he mentions a Parliament held 
 at St. Edmundsbury, in quo a Civiratil'ur, iS Burgis concrO'u efl Rcgi OHaxu, a Po- 
 pulo vero reliquo duodecimo pars Bonoium : Where by Popu/us is not only meant 
 the Peers, but Knights of Shirts, oxGitinds des Count ces alio. 
 
 yll. I am not prepared at prefcnt to anfwer all the Queries and Difficulties that 
 you can make or raile againlt the Dr's Arguments ; yet I think I am able to give 
 you a very fatisfa.'-lory Anfwer why all Tenants in Soccage (hould be bound by the 
 A£ts of thofe of whom they held their Eftates. For fince fas I have already pro- 
 ved) all the Lands in Enghmd (except what belonged to Religious Houfes) was 
 granted out by King William the Conqueror, to be held in Capite by Knights Service 
 and was again granted out by theft Head-Tenants, to their teudatory or mefte Te- 
 nants by the like Services, there were very few Lands granted in Free-Soccage at 
 the fir ft. And tho' it is true that in procefs of Time, many of thofe Eftates and ^' '^' ^' 
 Lands became Free Tenements, or were holden in Soccage, that is, were Free- 
 holds, yet the Lords ftill retained the Homage (which in the Times we fpeak of 
 was no idle infigniticant Word) and by that a Dominion over the Eltate 5 whereby 
 upon Difbbedience, Treachery, or Injury done to the Lords, the Lands were for- 
 feited to them •, and tho' neither the Lands nor the Tenants to them (which were 
 termed Freeholders) were fubjeft to any bale Services, or fervile Works ; yet the 
 Lords had ftill a great Powet over thefe Tenants, by realbn of their doing Homage 
 to them i for co nomine, their Lands were many ways liable ro Forfeiture ; and 
 therefore it was but reafbn, that the chief Lords being Tenants /« C.^/'/f, (hould 
 conclude their Tenants in Soccage alfb, and both make Laws and give Taxes for 
 them, without their being at all privy to it. But admitting I grant, that before 
 the 49th oi Henry III. there were in fome Senfe Commons in Parliament, tho' not 
 as Knights, Citizens and BurgefTes, chofen by the Common People as their Re- 
 prefentatives s yet will it not deftroy mine, nor the Dr's Allertion ^ who in the In- 
 troduttion before the Anfwer to Mr. P. only affirms, T/wr bejure the i\.^th afore- 
 faid, the Body of the Commons of England, or Ordinary freemen (at now under- 
 Jiccd, or Of we now call them) coUeSively t alien, 6fc. had not any Share or Votes in 
 mahng Iaws, unlefs an they were reprejented by the Tenants in Capite. 
 
 f : Be it fb •, but I am fure in many Places of the Dr.'s Book, he abfolutely ^''^^ ^ '*• ^• 
 denies, that there were any Commons in Parliament, till the Time he afiigns. ^'o^^^i-^^' 
 
 But as for what you alledge in Anfwer to my Queries, how Tenants in°Soccage "' ' ' 
 could have Laws made for them, and Taxes laid upon them by their Lords or Te- 
 nants in Capite ^ Your Anfwer is wholly grounded upon Milt^kes : For in the firit 
 place, King William did not grant all the Lands in England to be held of him by 
 Knights Service •, fince (as I (hall prove hereafter) there were many fubordinate 
 Tenants to Bifhops, Abbots and other Great Lords, who never forfeited their 
 Eftates at all, nor were difTeized of them by your Conqueror, and who had alfo 
 great Numbers of confiderable Freeholders under them ; as in iC?«/, the greateft 
 Part of the Land was Gavelkind, which was Soccage Tenure. 
 
 In the next Place, neither wete all the Lands he beftowed upon his Pol- ' 
 lowers granted to be held by Knight's Service j fince you your lelf own that 
 a great deal of Land was given by him to his Inferior Servants, to be held 
 by Petit Serjeanty, and other Tenures j and befides this, a gteat deal of other 
 Lands was regranted by that King himfelf, to fbme of thofe old Proprietors 
 who had been difpofielled, to be held in Soccage •■, as appears from E/etu, who 
 fpeaking of thefe Sort of Men, fays exprefly ^ In hujufmodi maneriis yfcilicet 
 Regis] erant Libert Homines, Liberi Tenentes, quorum quidam cum per Potenti- 
 ores a Tenementis fuerant eje^i, cadem poji modum in Villenugium tenenda re- 
 fumpferunt ; £5' quia hujufmodi Tenentes cultores Regis e\Je dignojcuntur, pro- 
 
 vifu fuit quies , ne fe&at Jecerent ad Comitatum, vel Hundredum, Sec. 
 
 quorum Congregationem tunc Soccam appellarcnt, hinc ejl quod Sucmanni h\lig 
 dicuntur, Sfc. 
 
 Where you may fee that thefe Socmen, orSoccagers were then created by a new 
 Tenure from this King ■, and are alio called Libert Tenentes, Freeholders, which 
 is contrary to your Dr.'s Notion, who would conhne the Tide only to his Tenants 
 in Capite. Nor did all the Tenants laft mentioned grant their Lands to others to 
 be held by Knights Service, fince they as well as the King did at firft, as alfb in 
 procefs of Time, grant Lands to the old Englijh Proprietors to be held of them in 
 Soccage •, nor was Homage the proper, or only Branch of Soccage Tenure, hue 
 
 Fealtyi
 
 3C2 B I B L I O T tl F. C A P O L 1 T I C A. 
 
 Fealty-, (unlefs the Land had been held by Knights Service athrft) as you may fes 
 in Littletons Second Book, SeQ. 1 1 8. Nor did this Souage Ten.tre give the Lord 
 any more Right over his Tenants Elhte, to Tax hina dea'to iff b up, at his Will, 
 by reafon of the Subjeftion he was in to the Lord, in refpeil of Forfeiture -, lince 
 then the King (hould have had for the IJme Reafon, the lame Right over all his 
 Jcnants in Cipite, to Tax them likewife at his Pleafure. And this Right of For- 
 feiture in cafe of Felony, or lor want of Heirs, continued to the Lords as well of 
 Soccti^c Tenants, as others, long after the Time you aflign for the coming of the 
 Commons to Parliament, even lo our own Times ^ and yet for all that, thole Lords 
 could not give Taxes for fuch Tenants in Soccage at their Pleai'ure. 
 
 But that we may proceed, pray confider alfo the Form of the Peace agreed up- 
 on between King Henry III. the Prince his Son, and the whole Body of the King- 
 dom, Aflembled in Parliament, to compole all Differences between the King and 
 n'ithHenAn. theBarons: The Title of which in the Record is thus^ H£c eft forma ?ads a 
 m. 6. dorjo. Domino Rege iSf Domino Edwardo filio fuo, Prje/atis, Of Froceribus omnibus cum 
 Commit nit ate tot a Regni Anglix Communiter H^ Concorditer approbata. Which Ar- 
 ticles were figned by the Bilhop of Lincoln, the Bifhop of Ely, Earl of Norfolk, 
 Earl of 0A-t7«, Humphry Bohun, WiUiam de Monte Canifio, iSf Majore London ; jn 
 Tarliamento London Menfc Junii Anno Domini 1264. Hxc ant em Ordinatio facia 
 eft London de Confenfu, Voluntatc, i^ Precepto Domini Regis, nee non Prelatorum^ 
 Baronum, ac etiam Communitatis tunc ibidem prefcntium. 
 B. A. P. M. I think the Doftor hath given us full Satisfaction as to this Record, in his 
 
 Anfwer to Mr. P. the Subllance of which I fliall here give you in (hort. 
 
 Firft. It is certain, that at the making of this forced Peace, Simon Mountjord^ 
 and his Faftion, then held the King and Prince, as alfo Richard Earl of QornKul^ 
 the King's Brother, as good as Priibners, and made them do what he plealed $ 
 and he carried the King and Prince along with him, until he had taken in all 
 the ftrong Places of the Kingdom; and when he had done, then he called this 
 Parliament, which could not be one in the Senfe it is now taken, fince there were 
 none there but the Earls, Barons, and Heads of the Rebels, which had the King 
 and Prince in their Power, and (as you your felf fet forth ) were the fame Perfons 
 that Sealed it for themfelves, and the other Barons, and the whole Community of 
 the Kingdom cK England s which Community muft be the Community of the 
 Barons and Great Men, or Tenants m Capite, by Military Service, and no other; 
 for how can the Lords and Barons fign any Thing for the Commons, as at this 
 Day underftood ? They did not then, nor now do repreftnt them. 
 B.A.p. But I (hall give you another Authority, to make this clearer, of fome Years 
 
 ^■'£•81. before, related in Matt. Paris, viz. AnnoDom. 1258, 42d Henry IIL where 
 Letters are faid to be lent, a Communitate Anglit, to the Pope, concerning Ayrser 
 deVtilenee, Bifhop Elefl oiWincbefter ; the Direction is thus, SanliiJJim in Chrifto 
 Fatri, Kc. Communitas Comitum, Procerum, Alagnatum, Alioruinque Regni Anglix 
 cum fubjeUione debita. Pedum Ofcula, Sic. And to put the Matter beyond all 
 Doubt, it is certain that thele Letters were fealed by Six Earls, and Five Barons 
 only, vice tctius Communitatis. I need not give you their Names, fince you may 
 find them in the Author himfelf, as alfo cired by the DoOor. And as for H. Bigod, 
 the Chief Jultice, and the Four Perfons named after him, they are proved by 
 Sir William Dugdale, in his Baronage of England, to have been the Greateft Barons 
 in the Kingdom. 
 
 Now pray let me ask you this Queliion : Did theft Eleven Perfons, all Great 
 Earls and Barons, reprelent the whole Commons, or Community of England, as at 
 this Day underftood ; or did they reprefent the Community of the Barons only, 
 .together with the Alios, the Milites, which held by Military Service of the Great 
 Barons, znd the Ltis Tenants in Capiie? for the whole Community here intended, 
 muft be one of them; take which you pleafe, you'll lofe the Caule. For certainly 
 thefe Great Earls and Barons that lealed this Letter, vice torius Communitatis, 
 were not chofen nor fent by the Commons to this Parliament or Meeting ; nor 
 were the Commons reprelented as at this Day by them, as you your lelf have al- 
 ready granted. 
 
 f . I hope I (hall not need to make any long Reply to this Anfwer of yours, or 
 rather of your Doctor's, fince it is built upon the fame falfe Suppofition with the 
 other, viz. that the Words Cum Communitate totd Regni Angli.e, muft always mean 
 only the Community of the Tenants in Capite ; which Suppofition, if it be falfe in 
 
 vour
 
 Dialogue the Sixth. go^ 
 
 your former Argument, is alfo as falfe in this of tlie lj)ris and Commons tooj 
 and therefore it is impertinent to repeat my Anfwer to it. 
 
 But if this were no true Farliament, becaufe Simon Mountford had then the 
 King and Prince in his Power •, tliis would likewife ferve to fJnparliament that 
 of the 49*'' of this King; from whence the Gentlemen of your Opinion date the 
 firft coming of the Commons to Parliament ; fince the King and Prince were as. 
 much in Simon Mcumford'% Power then, as now ^ and yet no Man as I know of; 
 ever queltioned the Validity of it ; though I cannot aUb omir, that you pals hy in 
 thisL^//^'r, the Words Magnatum aliorumque Regni-^ under which Words, (as I 
 have already proved ) might very well be comprehended all the Knights of Shires, 
 as well 32. Citizens and Burgefies-, unlefs the Words had run thus (as they fhould' 
 have done to have made out your Afiertion ) aiwrionque qui de Rege lenent in 
 Capite. 
 
 But to come to the main Point you infill upon x, which is, How thefe Great 
 Earls, and Barons, could feal this Form of the Peace, and thefe Letters to the 
 Pope, in the Name of all the Commons o^ England? 
 
 Before I anlwer to that, I pray give me Leave to ask you one Qiieftion, You 
 have already allowed that the ordinary Tenants in Cipite, (of which that numerous 
 Body chiefly confifted ) though called by Courtefy Barones Alinores, were really 
 no Barons, nor Peers of the Realm -, and if lb, were but Commoners. Now pray 
 tell nie how thefe Great Earls and Barons you mentioned to have Signed this 
 Peace, and this Letter to the Pope, could put their Seals for thofe who were no 
 Barons themfelves, by your own ConfefTion ; and you cannot fay they reprelenced 
 them, for they were as good Tenants in Capite, as the Greateft Lords? But if you 
 lay they did it by their Order and Confent, pray why might not thefe Great 
 Lords, or Barons, as well do the like for the Knights of Shires and BurgelTes, by 
 their Appointment ? Since I have already proved, that the Lords did aft thus in 
 the Letters which were lent to the Pope concerning the Bufinefs of Scot/and. And 
 befides. I mult here obferve, that the Doftor and you do not deal fairly with 
 your Adverfaries, in citing this Authority of the Lords and Barons Signing thefe 
 Letters to the Pope, Vice tot im Communitatis Anglix-^ fince I acknowledge in this 
 Place, the Word Cotflmunitas being put alone, doth mean no more than the Com- 
 munity of the whole Kingdom. But in the Authority 1 have quoted, it is put after 
 the Earls and Barons, and fo then muft mean the whole Commonalty or Body of the 
 Commons, in the Senfe they are now taken, and as it hath been always uled in 
 French as well as in Latin, when it comes after the Earls and Barons (as I have 
 already noted.) And tor this pray fee the Stat, of Wefiminfler L made the 3'' of 
 Edward \. but Eleven Years after the 49ti> oi Henry III. Ver F ajjent7nents dcs 
 Archievefques, Evefqucs, Abbes, Priors, Counts, Barons iff tout le Comminalty de 
 la terre iUonquesfummones. Which Phrafe I can fhew you to have continued the 
 lame in molt of our french Statutes, during the Reign of this King, and all his 
 Succeflbrs in many Records, and A8:s of Parliament, whillt they were writ in 
 Latin or French ; which I fhall omit reciting, becaule I fuppole you your felf will 
 allow it. 
 
 I have a great deal more to fay concerning the true Senfe of the Words Com- 
 munitas, le Commune, fSf le Communalty ; which becaule it is long, and it now grows 
 late, I Ihall defer till another Time. But I think 1 ihall be able to ftiew you from 
 undoubted Records, and Acts of Parliament, from the Reign oif Uenry III. as low 
 as Richard II. that thefe Words, when ufed as I have now laid, after the Earls and 
 Barons, cannot refer to them, but to another diftin£t Eftate or Order of Men, then 
 called les Communcr, or les Communes, in EngliJ}} the Commons of the Kingdom, 
 diftinft from the Bijhops and Lords. 
 
 M. I Ihall not now difpute with you concerning the Senfe you have put upon 
 the Words you mention, but I grant they often fignify the Commons, after the 
 i8''' of Edward I. in fome A£ls of Parliament, zrd Parliamentary Records; but I 
 myft beg your Pardon, if I cannot allow Co«;«/^w</x to fignify the Commons at 
 ' this Time in your Senfe •, and therefore am not yet convinced that the Words 
 la Communalty de la tare, mentioned in the Statute of Weftmmfler I. ought to be 
 underltood or englilhed by the Word Commons ; who, I do not fuppofe were 
 then above once called to Parliament, till the i8''' of this King. 
 
 But as for what you argue from the Knights of Shires being often called Mag- b. a. /, 
 nates, ^ndGrantz des Count ecs, I allow they are often lb itiled in our Statutes P.<^eji?. 
 
 ^ and
 
 go4 
 
 B I B I. 1 T H E C A P O L i T I C A. 
 
 and Rolls o^ Parliament -^ but if you confider the Reafon of it, this will do yotr 
 little Service, fince they were fo called Irom their being at the beginning of their 
 Election, chofenout of the Greateft and moft confiderable T(?/z.?;7rj- inQiplte. un- 
 der the Degree of Barons in each County, and no other ^ who were chofen co 
 reprefent the Omnes alios qui de Rege Tenem in Capite, mentioned in King Johns 
 Charter -, or them, and all the other Military Tenants by mean Tenure. For 'tis 
 fcarce to be believed, that thofe Tenants in Capite^ who made fuch a Nolle for 
 B. A. P. their Liberties, would part with this main"Point, of being perfonally prefent, or 
 
 P-igi 19- elfe the Body of them reprefented by fome of their own Number in every County. 
 And it may be upon this Account they had the Title of Notable Knights, Sic. in 
 Crp. 1$. the Ancient Writs of Summons, directed to the Sheriffs-, though all the Tenants 
 by Knights Setvice, as Suitors to the County Courts, were the Ele£l:ors. And this 
 was very likely the Reafon of the Statute of the 7^*^ of Henry IV. that the Ele- 
 Qion fliould be made in the County Court by all the Suitors:, and alfo why the 
 Statute of the 18''' of Henry VI. by which any Man that had 405'. per Annum of 
 any Tenure, who was before permitted to be an Eleftor, was altered by the lo^'' 
 ch.ip.2. o\' Henry \T. and fo explained, that none but Freeholders of 40 x. per Annum, 
 
 fhould afterwards be Eleftors, with refpeft to the leaft Part of a Knights 
 Fee, viz. 401. per Annum, which were now come into the Hands of very 
 LL. Hen. 1. ordinary Men. F'or anciently, ibon after, or near the Conqueit, there were very 
 ci>.tp. 29. |-g^y^ Qj. j,Q gfgjj- Soecagcrs •, that is, fuch as held great Eltates in Soccage-., and nei- 
 ther the fmall ones, nor the Nativi, or Copyholders, were reputed Liberi, or Le- 
 gales Homines, (as before-mentioned) or performed the Service proper to fuch 
 Military Tenants, or thofe to whom they had alienated part of their Fees. But 
 fince I have tired you as well as my felf, in wrangling about the Senie and Mean- 
 ing of the Words in Difpute between us, I fhall tor the future take a (horter Cut, 
 and give you Two or Three Authorities from our Ancient Laws of William the 
 Conqueror, and Henry II. and Richard I. which together with King Johns Alagnii 
 Ch.vta, will, I think, make it plain enough in Confcience, that the Commons, as 
 now reprefented, were not fummoned to Parliament, during the Reign of King 
 John ^ and whether they were lb fummoned before the 49''' of Henry HI. ( when 
 they were called but once, till above Twenty Years after ) Will be the other Part 
 of my Task. 
 
 I. I approve of your Method very well, and I alTure you I love Pedantick Dif^ 
 putes about the Grammatical Signification of Words as little as your lelf, unlels 
 where it is abfolutely neceflary 5 as indeed you have rendred it fo, by railing the 
 greatelt P'^^'t of your Arguments from the equivocal Ufe of thofe general Words, 
 whereby ovi Ancient Laws and Hiftorians have ftiled the Conlticuent Members of 
 our Great Councils ; which if they are well cleared, I think it is high Time to 
 fall upon fome more folid Arguments. But before you come to that. I cannot 
 forbear obferving that you your felf do allow, that in all Afts ot Pariament and 
 Kccords, after the 1 8'^ of Edward I. the Words Gmmunita^, and le Omm.tne., 
 when put after the Earls and Barons, do fignify the Commons in the lame Senfe 
 in which they are now taken:, but I ir.jlt ronfefs it feems incredible, (nayalmoft 
 impofilble to me) that thefe Words Uiould fignify the Community of the Tenants 
 in Capite, in the 48'^ of Henry III. or 18''' of Edward I. (begin where you 
 pleafe)-, and yet that the next Parliament after thofe, the fime Words (hould be 
 taken in quite another Senle, for the Knights oi' Shires, Citizens and Burgeffes; and 
 that no Statute, Record, or Hijiorian ot that, or fucceeding Ages, fliould take the 
 lead Notice of it. 
 
 But before I conclude this Part of the Queftion, I cannot but refliify a great Mi- 
 
 ftake you have fallen into, by adhering to the DoiStor with too implicit a Faith. 
 
 For whereas you fuppoie, that the Reafon why our Knights of Shires were called 
 
 anciently Grants des Countces, was becaufe they were at firit elefted out of the 
 
 Tenants in Capite only ; and who with the other Tenants by Military Service, were 
 
 alfo the only Eleftors of them at firIt, till the Statute of the 7'h oi' Henry IV. 
 
 ordained the Ele^ionjhould be made in the County Court by all the Suitors, as iF iP 
 
 had not been many Ages fo before. Whereas, if you pleafe to perufe that Statute 
 
 r, f^ a little better, you will find it was not made to enlarge the Number of the Eleftors 
 
 ■ ^^^' '^* r*^*^ of Parliament Men •, for long before that Time, all Sorts or Degrees of Fret 
 
 *<-c^ holders, as well Tenants in Capite, as their Tenant^by any kind of Tenure-, or 
 
 v^ethejL^ldjng offuchT(rfftf/?/j in Caplte^oi dfe of others^ as Abk>ts and Priors, 
 
 I. ""^ ^ ■ " and
 
 Dialogue the Sixth. 30 c; 
 
 and other MefneTtrax\t%, did alike owe Suit and Service to the County Court, 
 and confequentI>MvereJall_alike capable of giving their Voices there, at the EleQion 
 of Knights of Shires, however fmall their Eftates were. Nor was that Statute of 
 henry \V. now cited (which requires the EleQion of Knights 'of Shires to be 
 made by thofe that were fummoifed, and all other that were there prefent ) made 
 to conter any new Right upon fuch Freeholders, but only to prevent the Abufes ol 
 Sheriffs, who were wont before that Statute to procure Knights of Shires to be 
 chofen clandeftinely, without any due Summons, or Notice given to the Free- 
 holders of the EleQion ■, muchlefs doth the Statute of the 8''' o't Henry VI. confer 
 any new Right or Privilege upon Freeholders of 40J. per Annum, to give their 
 Voices at fuch Election, ( as you fuppofe ) but only takes away the Right which 
 the fmaller Freeholders of under 40 s. per Annum ( whetiier Tenants in Gipite or 
 not) had before, and reftrains it only to fuch as JhaU hive Lands or Tenements to 
 the Value of 40 j. hy Tear above all Owgcs. And it is yet a much greater Miltake 
 to fuppofe, as your Do8;or doth, that this Statute of the 8^'' of Henry VI. was at 
 all altered by that of the \o^^ of this King, which is no more than an Explanation 
 of it, viz. that by 40 x. per Annum, was meant 40 r. freehold., and that of Lands / 
 lying ivithin the County where the Eletlton fhould be made. So that nothing caa'^ 
 prove more exprclly, that allFreeholders, as well Tenants in Capite, as by any 
 other Tenure, were all alike capable of Elefting, and being Ele£led by the Ancient 
 Law and Cullom oi^ England, long before thofe Statutes, and confequently were all 
 alike Freeholders in the Eye of the Law. 
 
 But if you have nothing at prefent to objeSl againft what I have now laid, 
 pray purfue the Method you have undertaken, and let me fee thofe convincing 
 Proofs you fo much rely upon, and which you hope may alfb ferve to convert 
 me. 
 
 M. Before I undertake this Task, pray permit me to give you my Opinion, in 
 anfwer to the Difficulty you have now propofed, which I confefs feems to carry 
 fome Weight with it ^ but thofe Prejudices will foon xanifh, when we confidec 
 that the firft Time this Alteration was praftifed, it was done in the King's Name, 
 though by theabfblute Power of i'/zwo;? 7lfo^/7//^/-/, in the 49''' of 7/^;//^ HI. and 
 after a Difcontinuance of above Twenty Years was again renewed by Edward I. 
 at the Dehre of the Earls and Barons, as I hope I fliall fhew you before we have 
 finifhed our Converfation. And therefore it being firfl done by the King's abfb- 
 lute Power, and after with the general Confent of the Lords, there needed no 
 Statute to introduce ir, any more than there was in the Reign o^WiUiam the Con- 
 queror, to give the Bifhopsand Abbots that held by Knight's S'fru/c^jPlaces m Par- 
 liament among the Temporal Lords, and to bring their Lands which were held be- 
 fore in I'ranc Almoigne, under the Yoke of Military Service. 
 
 But to proceed in the Dqfign I have undertaken ^ it is neceflary that I fliew 
 you firft of all, who were thofe freemen, or Freeholders, properly fo called, upon 
 whom the whole Burden of the fubordinate Government of the Kingdom chiefly 
 relied, and who then conftituted the Legal Univerfity or Community thereof^ im- 
 mediately after the 'Korman Conqueft, and during many Kings Reigns after that 
 Time. 
 
 I fuppofe you are not ignorant, that King William the Conqueror having outed 
 all, or at leaft the E/t^/j/^ Nobility and Gentry of their Eltates, gave them away to 
 his Trench and Norman Followers, to be held of him and h\sSucceJfors in Capite, 
 either by Knight's Service, or Fetit Serjeanty -, referving to himfelf the Ancient 
 Demcfnes of the Crown, and adding more thereunto for the Maintenance of the 
 Royal Dignity j and for this I need refer you to no better Author than Doom/days 
 Book it felf And then, after he had thus diftributed the Lands of England, as 
 aforefaid, he compbfed a Body of Laws ftill extant, and which are in great part 
 Additions to the Ancient Laws of King Edward, and his Predeceflbrs. I fhall B. a. a. 
 give you Three or Four of thefe new Laws, and then I fhall leave you to judge, ^-tgf 254. 
 who were the true Freemen, or Freeholders of the whole Kingdom. 
 
 The Firft is the 52^ Law of this King, Tit. De Fide, i^ obfequio erga Regem. Lamb.Anh. 
 Statuimus ctiam iit omnes Liber i Homines, fxdere iff Sacramento affirmarent quod P'igi « 7°) & 
 intra iS/ extra Regnum Anglix, {quod olim vocabatur Regnum' Britannix) WiUielmo '^""' 
 Regi Domino fuo Fideles ej]e volunt. Terras i!f Honores iUius omni fidelitate fervare 
 cum eo, 6?" contra inmicos iSl atienigenas defendere. 
 
 R r Now
 
 Qo6 B I B L 1 O T H E C A P O L 1 T I C A, 
 
 Now whofe thefe Freemen were, that were thus ro maintain the King in his 
 Lands and Honours, we (hall fee in the 55th Law tbllowing; Tit. De Qwmehiri^ 
 feu leudonm Jim; iff Ingenuoriim junniinitatc ; Volumus etiam ac fiimiter prxci- 
 pimus, £?" concedwuis lit onirics Libert Homines totius Monarchix Rcgni noJ]n prx- 
 diBi habeant i!/ teneant terrai fita*, if FoJJeffiones JuiU, bene t?" in pace, libere ab 
 omni ExaBione injujlti, t^ ab omn'i laliagio^ ha quod nJnl iib eis exigatur, vel ca- 
 piat ur, niji ferviiiian ficum libenim, quod dc ^urc nobis facere debent., i> facere 
 tenentur ^ & prout Statu turn eft eis iJf illis, a nobis datum i!f conccjjum jure Uere- 
 ditario imperpetuum per Commune Concilium totius Regni noftri ^ whereby you 
 may fee, that all the Freemen here mentioned, who were to hold their Lands 
 and Polieflions in Peace, and free from all unjuft ExaSlion and Taillage, were only 
 fuch who were to perform Free Service, (i.e. Knight's Service) which was before 
 appointed and granted them in Hereditary Right by the King in the Common 
 Council of the Kingdom. 
 
 B. A. P. So that none were properly Freemen, or exempt from Tax or Talliage, but 
 
 Pag. 17. ^^^Y\ as held by Military Tenure, tho' not Knighted. 
 
 And pray alfo, by the way, take notice, that by this Commune Confihum Rcgni 
 you are not tounderftand a Council of Englijh Men, or of Eng.ijh and Irencb 
 together, but one wholly made up of Frenchmen or 'Kcrnums, who as well Bi- 
 fhops and Abbots, as Temporal Earls and Barons, held almoft all the Lands in the 
 Kingdom by Knight's Service, 
 
 Which is alfo farther made out by the 58th Law ; Jit. de Client um feuViiffaUo- 
 rempntftationibus. Statuimus etiam iff fir miter pr^fcipimm, ut omncs Comites^ iff 
 Barones, i!f Mi/ites, if> Servientes, if/ Vniverfi Liberi Ho7nines totius Rcgni noftri 
 pr.edi[ii habeant iff teneant Je feiiper bene in Armis, iff in Equis ut dceet, iff cportet 
 iff quod fint femper profjipti, iff bene parati ad fc/vitium J iiu7n integrum, nobis ex- 
 plendumiff paragendu?n cu7nfemper opus adjuent Jeeundum quod nobis deb ent, de 
 Feodisiff Tenementis fuis dejure jacere\ iff fie ut illis jlatuimus, per Commune Con- 
 fi/ium totius Regni noftri prsdiffi iff illis dcJimus, iff concejJimM in feodo. Jure Ux- 
 redfitario, hoc prxceptum nonfit viol at um ullo modo fuper foris fa&urafu noftram ple- 
 
 ^^'^■' mm : So that here all the Freemen of his Kingdom were to perform their Mili- 
 
 tary Services, with Horfe and Arms according to their Fees and Tenures. There- 
 fore they were Tenants in Military Service only {'which in thofe Times were the 
 only great Freemen, and that Service the only Free Service) which were meant in 
 this Law ; and how different they were from our ordinary Freeholders at this Day 
 (for whom neither of thefe Laws were made) I dare leave it to the Judgment of 
 every indifferent Perfon. 
 
 Thefe then were the Men, the only legal Men that named and chofe Juries, and 
 ferved on Juries themfelves, both in the Country and Hundred Courts, and diP 
 patched all Country Bufinefs under the Great Oihcers, as will appear by the next 
 Law with a little Explication by what follows: Vt Jura Rcgia ill.tfajervare pro vi- 
 ribus conentur fubditi, Statuimus etiam if firmiter prxcipimm ut omnes Liberi Ho- 
 mines totiM Rcgni prxdiBi fint Iratres conjurati, ad Monarch a^n noftram iff adReg- 
 niim noftrum, pro viribus fuis if facuhatibus centra ininiicos pro pcftefuo defen- 
 dendum, if' viri/iter fervandunt, Pacem, iff 'Dignitatem Coronx noflr.c, intcgram ob- 
 fervandam, iff adjudficium reBum, iff Jufiitiam confianter omnibus modis pro pofifte 
 fuofimc dolo, iff fime dilaticne jaciendum. Now the Judgment they were to give, 
 and the Juttice tliey were to do by this Law (befides that in their own Courts and 
 Jurifdiftions) was principally as they were Jurors or Recognitors upon Aflize, iffc. 
 (tho' fome of the greatclt of their Milites were often Sherift's, Himdrcdaries, and 
 other under Judges md Minifterial Officers of Juftice in their feveial Counties) as 
 may befeen in GknvilJe every where, but efpecially Vib. 2. c. 10, n. lib. 9. c.y. 
 cij-if iib.i-^. throughout. This of being 5w/(?rx to the County and Hundred 
 Courts, iffe. being a Service incident to their Tenures; and before them many 
 Times anciently in the County and Hundred Courts, and not privately in a Cham- 
 ber, were executed Deeds, Grants and Donations of Lands, contained in very 
 fmall Pieces of Parchment, witneffed by Jho>u/u of fuch a Town, John of ano- 
 ther, Richard of a third, ifc. which were Knights, and Liber: Tcnentes in Mr- 
 htary Service, hi thofe Towns of confiderable Eliares, and not the lovfer Sort 
 of People : And this Execution of Sales and Afllirances in open Courts, was as 
 publick and notorious, and as lecure, as if ac that time there had been a publick 
 Kegiller for them. ^ 
 
 . F. Before
 
 T)ialogue the Sixth. ^07 
 
 E Before I anrwct your Conclufion from King Williams Laws, I muft tell 
 you lam not at all fatisfied neither with the Account you give, how the Com- 
 mons of England could come in to be a Part of the Parliament, without any 
 Noife or Notice taken of it, either by our Afts of Parliament, or Hiltorians •, lince 
 it is not only improbable, but alio quite contrary to Matter of Fad, and Hiitory 
 it felf; as I fliall, I hope, make good, when we come to treat of that Subje£V. 
 Nor is your Argument of any weight, fince it doth not follow , that becaufe 
 William the Conqueror ^o fubjefted the Lands of Bifhops and Abbots to Tenure bv 
 Knight's Service -, that therefore this was done by his fole Power, without any 
 Law for it, made by the Common Council of the whole Kingdom. Since I ob- 
 ferve in the firft Law of King William, which you have now cited, that the very 
 Services which (you fay) were referved upon the Lands he had belbwed, are laid 
 to be fo appointed or fettled, by the \lommon Council of the whole Kingdom ; 
 and therefore certainly the Services of the Bifliops and Abbots muft be fo like- 
 wife ; and therefore I mutt confefs my felt" to be of Mr. Seldens Opinion in this 
 Matter, who prefumes there was a Law for it, tho' now loft j and cannot be- 
 lieve that this King (how powerful foever) ftiould attempt to introduce fo great a 
 Yoke upon all the Bifhops, and fo many of the Abbots and Priors of England^ 
 without their Contents exprefly given to a Law, and made in the Great Council 
 concerning it, tho' that Law (as many others of this King) is not now to be found. 
 
 But to come to the main Defign of your prefent Difcourfe, which is to fhew 
 that none but Tenants by Military Service in Cipite were in the firft Times after 
 the Conqueft,properly the only true Freemen or Freeholders of the whole Kingdom. 
 I Ihall (hew you firft, that the Notion is quite new, and never heard of, till the Dr. 
 (from whom you have borrowed it) firft broach'd it ; neither Mr. Law^W, Mr. 
 Somner, nor Sir Henry Spelman, nor any of our Englijh Antiquaries or Lawyers ever 
 difcovered any fuch Thing, before your Dr. arole to difperfe thefe Clouds ; every 
 Man of the Kingdom, who was no Villain, being look'd upon as a Freeman, and 
 every Owner ot Lands of Inheritance, though of never fo fmall a proportion, rec- 
 koned a Freeholder, and his F.ftate called his franc Tenement, or Freehold, as 
 well in our Ancient as Modern Laws j and that Freehold was not reftrained only 
 to Military Service, within a Hundred Years after the Conqueft, appears by King 
 Johns Magna Chart a ^ in which it is exprefly recited, xhdX^IuUus diftringatur ad fa- 
 ciendum majjfi fervitium de feodo Mi lit is, nee de alio Libcro Tenement o q^uam inde 
 dehetiir \ and that Soccage Tenants, tho' by Villain Services, were as much Freemen 
 as your Tenants in Catite, lee Spelmans Gloflary, Tit. Socman, where he lays thus ; 
 Socmannus in natura hrevium (brevi de Reffo) proprie talis r^, qui Liber eft, tf te- 
 net de Rege, feu de alio Domino in antiquo dominico tcrrcts fuof feu lenementa in 
 Villenagio. Ijbro SanSi Albani Tit. HouBon, Chap. L Rege Anglic munerium de Hou- 
 Bon tenuerunt in dominico ; omnes Tenentes Liber i, fcil. Of cuftumarii per fokam 
 dejendebant tenementa fua, 8f c. ex quo patet fokmans liberos homines fignifk are. 
 
 But fince you leem to make a Diftinftion between Freemen and Freeholders 
 properly, or improperly fo called •, fince King WiUiam's Laws you have now cited' 
 do not warrant any fuch Diftinftion-, I muft beg your Excule, if I am not of your 
 Opinion ^ for the Firft Law you have quoted Warrants no fuch Thing ; it only 
 lays, Tlmt all Freemen in general, fhall take an Oath of Fealty to the King, to main- 
 tain him, hii Lands and Honours, againjl his Enemies and Strangers. 
 
 Now it is apparent, that this Law extended to all Freemen (who were by the 
 ancient Saxon Laws recited in the Addition to the Laws of King Edward) to 
 take the very lame Oath in the Folkmote, as they were after your Conqueft to do 
 according to this Law, either in the County Courts, or Sheriffs Tourne. Nor will 
 the next Law do the Bufinefs any more than this ; for the Words are. Thai 
 all freemen of our faid Kingdom may have and hold their Lands and TojfeJJions free l 
 
 from all unjuft Taillage Exaclions, i!fc. Which Word Pojjcfftons extends not only to •^ 
 
 Lands of Inheritance, (much lefs to Lands held by Knigh'ts Service) but alio to 
 Eftates for Life, and all other Chattels or PoffeflTions, as well real as perfonal : 
 Nor doth the Words Servitium Liberum, extend only to thole Services which 
 were referved upon Lands held by Knight's Service in Capite, but alfo to thole 
 Common Services (called Trinoda nece0tat) which I have formerly mentioned, 
 viz. The building and repairing of Caftles and Bridges, and Expedition againft. 
 Foreign Enemies, which all the Lands in England were liable to, as well after, as 
 before your Conqueft •. Nor will the 58/^ Law make more for you j for tho' it 
 
 R r 2 only
 
 2c8 B I B L I O T H E C A P O L 1 T I C A. 
 
 
 A. r. 
 
 only fays that all Earls, Barons, Knights, and their Servitors or Efquires, and. all 
 Freemen of the Kingdom (hall always be fitted with Hor(es and Arms as they 
 ought 10 be, and which they ought to do according to, and by realbn of iheir 
 Fees and Tenures. Now it is plain, that this Law carmot extend to the lels 'i'emmts 
 in Cnpite onlv, fince they, according to your own Senle, are comprehended under 
 the Word Milhes, and their Scrvicmes, which Eeiris to mean iheir* ibudatory 
 Tenants, are as much tyed by this Law to find Hovles and Arms, as the Tenants 
 in Capite themlelves. So that whereas the Law fiys exprtfly, Univerji Liberi He- 
 mines totins Regni, it (hould have been to make good your Senle , Vnlverfi 
 Liberi Homines qui de Rege Tenant in Capite •, and as for the other Freemen who 
 were of lefler Elhtes than to find Horfes, they were to be ready with fiich Arms 
 as befitted their Condition, as we lee it explained by the AfTize of Aims oi Henry 
 IL •, fo that this Law of King William is not to be taken in the Senle you pur upon 
 it. That all the true Freemen of the Kingdom were obliged to be ready with 
 Horfes and Arms, as if none were Freemen that did not ; but referring the Words 
 Horfes and Anns to thoie who are to find both •, and the Word Arms to t!io(e Free- 
 men who were only obliged to keep Arms fit for Footmen, which Senfe the 
 Words will very well bear, tho' expreffed generally and concifcly according to the 
 Mode of thoie Times, which abhor'd more Words than needs : And if thcle Laws 
 will not prove what you bring them for, m.uch lefs will the latt you have cited : 
 For if the Word Omnes Liberi Homines totius Monarchuc^ in the firlt Law, who 
 were to take an Oath ot Fidelity to the King, muft extend to all the Freemen of 
 England, (as certainly it did) all Freemen being alike obliged to be Iworn in the Court 
 Leet, and County Court ^ fo mult this too, the Title being, that Omnes fuhditi, all 
 the Subjefts (hould endeavour to maintain the King's Rights with all their Power : 
 and tho' I grant that ^/^Wz/ihere are the fame with Liberi Homines in the firft Law'; 
 yet fince by that Law all Freemen were to take the Oaths or Fidelity to the Kingjthefe 
 muft be alfo the very fame Freemen, who were to be iworn Brothers to defend 
 the Kingdom, according to their Power and Eftates, So that all that you h3\e 
 faid to prove your Tenants by Knight's Service in Capite, to be the only Freemen 
 that ferved on Juries, ^c. being built upon a falie Interpretation of theie Laws of 
 King William^ are but the mere Fancies and Imaginations of the Author from 
 ivhom you borrowed them. And you your lell, (or rather the Dr. irom whom you 
 torrow thefe Notions,) have fufficiently confuted this Fancy of the Tenants in' Ca- 
 pite being the only Freeholders in the Kingdom ; for at the End of that laft 
 Speech, you are fain to fall a Peg lower, and gi a it th.it all Military Tenants what- 
 ever, as well thofe in Capite as all others that held of them by the like Service, 
 were included In this L.iw of your Conquerors, and confequently were capable 
 of the like Privileges, either of ferving in Parliament in Peribn, or elfe of being 
 ele£\ed Knights of the Shire. 
 
 But taking the Words Liberi Homines in the largeft Senfe, and as they are in the 
 Ma^na Charta oilsSng John, and iff/?. III. Chap. 14. where it is ordained, that 
 Liber Homo non amercictur pro parvo deliUo, nifi Jeeundum modiim illius deliBi, fal- 
 vo fibi contenemenio fiio , & mercatar eodcm niodo, faiva marchandiza, ijf vil- 
 knitsfalvo Wanagio ^ Upon which Words Sir Edward (Me in his Second Inft. ob- 
 lerves, that Liber Homo is here meant fuch a one as enjoys a Franc Tenement, that 
 is, any Sort of Freehold. 
 
 But pray go on to prove by fome plainer Authorities , that the Archbijhops 
 and Abbots, &c. together with the Earls, Barons, and other Tenants in Capite, were 
 the only Council of the Kingdom for the a.neifing of Taxes, and making Laws 
 in the Times immediately fucceeding the Reign of King William the Firit. 
 
 ill I fhall perform your Defires, and will- begin with the great Council or 
 
 Parliament held at Clarendon, of which Matt. Tar is tells us, Anno^Dom. 1 164. 10^'' 
 
 p'a^e\2. of King i/^/^. II. In prej'entia Regis Henna apicd Clarendon 8 Ca/end. Feb. &c. de 
 
 fo/..ioo. n.2o. mandato ip/i/ts Regis, pre/em ibus etiam ArihiepiJccpis,Epifcopii,Abbatib!ts,Tncrib!is, 
 
 Comitibiis, Baroriibus, iS> Proceribiis Regni, jacia eft Reeognitio ; and which ^uadri- 
 
 logiis and Gervafe of Canterbury, comprife under the general Terms oi' Tr^efti/es, 
 
 e/ Troceres Regni •, the Bifhops and Great Men of the Kingdom. 
 
 Lib. I. c. 26. What can be more clear by this Enumeration of the Conltituent Parts of this 
 
 x.Script. Colt, full Parliament (as Mr. Sclden and other Authors agree it to be) than that the Com- 
 
 ^/^n'";f°' inons were then none of them, and that the C/erus and Trpu/uf in Hoveden, 
 
 were only the Cycrg-j and /.(•'>•- A'('A///>y'. 
 
 A.D. 1 1 54. 
 
 So 
 
 '« 
 
 t
 
 Dialogue the Sixth. qoo( 
 
 So likewife when thefe Conftitutions were agjin reneweJ b/ this Kin» a t JW- 
 th.tmpt'-'n, rhe fams Aurhor tells us, (tho' by a Miltike it is written Korrin/him) 
 That i<ex Pater ibi cekbravit Magnum Concilium de St at ut is liegni, i^ coram Rc^e ^^'^'^- ^ot. 
 Vil'wfu\ iff coram Archieptfcopis, Epifcopis, Comiiibus iff Baronibits Rcgni pa • ^ ' *" ''• "• '^''^■ 
 which Council is more particularly recited by BcncdiBus Abbm m his Manu- 
 fcript Hiftory (now in the Cottonian Librarv) Anno 117^. (which was the 25th 
 Hen. II.) Circa Vejh'.m Convfrjiona Sancli Faufi, venn Y>ommus Rex i/fi/ue 'Nor- 
 thampton, & Magnum ibi cekbravtt Concilium de Statutis Regni fui coram Epifco- •^''<* ;£#:/'« 
 fis, t?' Comitibus, iS' Baronibus Terrs fux ; i!f coram eis per Concilium Regis Hen- '" 
 rici Villi f.ii. i!f per Concili.im Comitum, C Baronum &' Alilitum, iff Hominumjuo- 
 rum banc f ■bfcnptam ajfijam Jecit, &:c. 
 
 And Ralph de Diceto, Dean of St. P.7/^/X (A. D. 12 10.) a diligent Searcher into , 
 the Hiftories and TranfaQions of his own and former Times, do'th yet more fully cou^' ^''^'"' 
 declare the Meaning of Abbot LcncdiH, in the Account he gives of this Great );." 40. ' 
 Council, thus j Rex jaxta Confilium Yilitfui Regis, coram Epifcopis, Comitibus, Baro- 
 nibus Mi'itibusiff aiiis Hominibus Juis in hoc confentientib//s, &c. Hoc autem faffum 
 eji apud horihamptonam^ -7110 Kal. Febr. From all which Authorities we may 
 collect:, that this Council at Aorthampton, as well as that at Clarendon, was a 
 Great or Common Council of the whole Kingdom •, to whicii were fiimmoned 
 of the Laity, only the Earls and Barons of his, (viz. the King's) Land, to which 
 is alio aided, fur the better explaining who were underltood under thefe Ti- 
 tles of Baronum, AViHtum, C Hominum fuorum ; that is, fuch Tenants in Capite 
 as he pleded to fummon, and were his Men or Military Tenants tho' not Knight- 
 ed, and w'loheld Lands either of the King, or his Son, to whom the King might 
 aflign divers of thefe Barons and Tenants in Capite to atturn Tenants to him, and 
 to maintain his Court and Kingfliip-, and t he King's C(?;»i/«, and Barones ter- ^' '^' ^' 
 ra/ucC. weie the Earls and Birons of his Kingdom that held immediately of him, '^^' ^°^' 
 or were his immediate Tenants m Capite:, and that Homo fuus &' homines fui ^ 
 doth always fignUy the King's, or any other Lord's immediate Tenants by Knight's 
 Service; tot you may confdi S/'fZwj/z's GloITary, and D;^ Pa-^/J^^'s Lexicon, under 
 thefe T'-'es. • 
 
 But farther, to confirm who were then the Conftituent Members of our Great 
 Councils pray fee the Title to the Affize of Forefts under King Richard I. which 
 Hovedon lecites in theie Words ; Htc eji Ajjiza Dom. Regis ^ iff htgc Junt prx- H''^ii- Pi'-- 
 ce^ta de I'crefiisjuis in Anglix faEla, per Ajjenfum iff Confilium Archiepijcoporum, 44)- /'«-4o^ 
 t/ Abbatum Comiium, iff Baronum, iff Mlitum tntius Regni. Where by Militum 
 is to be underltood noc only thofe Tenants in Capite tliat were Knighted, but alio 
 all other Tenants in Capite tho' not actually ^0. And if the Word ever fignifies 
 any other Peilons, they were not ordinary Freeholders, but Libcrl Tenentes g j, ■r 
 m fervitio Alilitari, Freeholders by Military Service, as you may hnd in Fag.'/ot 
 the Dr. s Glollary, Tit. Frobi Comines, Aiilites, &:c. But pray remember alio /'.^g. 01. 
 wliat Sir H. Spelnian lells us in his GloQary, Tit. AVdes, that thefe Ah/ites 
 (when put alone) were properly the Liberi Tenentes, or Tenants in Capite -, ^ui 
 mn i A\ilitariCingulo,JedaFcodonomcnfumpfcrunt. So I think that no ingenious 
 Man but will confefs that all thefe Councils were General Conncils or Parlia- 
 menfs of the whole Kingdom, confilting of no other Perlbns than Tenants 
 in Capite. 
 
 v. To return an Anfwer to all your Authorities together, I muft now repeat 
 what I often laid, that there are no firm Arguments to be drawn from the doubt- 
 ful Words, and general Exprelfions of our Ancient Hiftorians ^ and I doubt not 
 but to Ihew you, that all thvi whole Strength of your Reafons confilts in this 
 alone. 
 
 But fince I have already fpoken fb much of the various Signification of the 
 Word Barones Regis iff Regni, I Hull omit that, and now proceed to the relf of the 
 Words, which you chink make fb plain for youj and (hall only obferveat prefent, 
 that thefe Words Barones and Milites, are always Itretch'd or contrafted, accord- 
 ing as the Gentlemen or your Opinion find it belt to fuit with their Hypothefis. 
 
 As for Example. If the Word Barones is put alone, then it muft lignify none 
 but Great Barons, and Tenants in Capite -., if it be joined with Milites, then by 
 Barones mult be only meant the Great Barons or Peers -., and by Milites, thofe Te- 
 nants i/i Cipite who were not Lords. If any other Vioid'iioWow Ab/ttes, then this 
 
 3 Word
 
 ^10 B 1 B L 1 T H E C A P O L 1 T 1 C A. 
 
 Word mull fignify only fuch Tenants in C/piteas were Knighted. So likewifeyou 
 deal with all other Words, tho' of never fo comprehenfive a Signification. 
 
 But why may not I with as iruch Reafon affirm, That by Barones mentioned in 
 thefe Authorities, is to be underftood the Barones properly lb called •, and by the 
 Milites all Military Tenants, if not the Knights of Shires, whether they were Te- 
 nants in Cdpite, or Feudatories to others : For Radulphus de Diceio in Anno 104.0. 
 in the Laws of Malcohn the Second, King of Scots^ mentions certain Milites^ Va- 
 Viifores, qui tencnt de Barontbus terras fiias 5 and that not only Tenants in Capite^ ■ 
 but all others of whomfoever they held, who were able to maintain themfelves like 
 Knights, might be then forced to receive Knighthood, appears by two Writs of 
 24''' and 26'*' Henry III. as they are found in the Clole Rolls, under this Title, 
 Kit. Cl..-if. forma de Militibus facendis •, and I defire you would read the Writ it (elf 
 »4ch H. II f, ^g^ Vicecomifi Northampton, Salittem. Frxcipimus tibi quod per tot am BaUivam 
 liof'aauf'^ /«tfw in Singulis bonis Villi s^ Hj fmiliter in pleno Comitatu tuo daman facias, quod 
 24chi7. III. omnes illi de Comitatu tuo qui tenent Feodum Mi/it is integrum, vel etiam minus 
 ps.i. m.6. quam Feodum integrum, du7ntamen de Tenement Suo tarn JWilitari quamSocagio 
 '^o'io. poljint fujlentari, iS> Milites non funt, Sicut Tenementa fua deligunt, citra fejlum 
 
 omnium Sanilorum Anno Regm KoJIri 2 J. Arma capiant iff fe Milites fieri jaciam. 
 Et fi qui fuerint tales qui citra Terminum ilium fe Milites fieri non fecerint. Omnia 
 Nomina cormn Statim a Termino illo, iS quantitatetn, £?' Valorem tenc mentor urn fuo- 
 rum nobis fcire jaciiis Tejie Rege, apud Lewes 25 die Julii. 
 
 Similiter Scribitur omnibus Vicecomitibus. From whence you may obferve, that 
 not only Tenants by Military Service, but alio by Socage Tenure were then liable 
 to Knighthood. 
 
 And as for, the Words Homines Sui, which you will have only to mean the 
 King's Tenants in Capite, thole Words havefo equivocal aSignificaton, that there is 
 no Argument to be drawn from them •, for they may as well fignify all the King's 
 Subjects fworn to him by Fealty and Allegiance, as Tenants by Homage, or Knight's 
 Service only, as Sir H. Spclman in his Gloflary obferves upon the Word Homo^ 
 dicitur de quovk Fradiorum Tenent e,fiva Soctnanno, five Militari : And for this he 
 cites the Book of Ramjey ; and if Suus be added to Homo, it doth much alter the 
 Cale, as appears by the Words following, in the lame place, Dicitur Frxterea de 
 ^uovli Minijiro, & Subdito, i!f f.epe occurit hoc modo in Antiquis Frivi/egiis, non 
 Solum Vajfalos, iSf Tenentes, fed i'amulos, tfj Subditos quoflibet Significans ; and for 
 this he gives us fex^eral Authorities. 
 
 So that you fee thefe Words do not only fignify Tenants in Capite, but alfo any 
 other Subjefts, and lb might take in the Knights of Shires, with the Citizens and 
 BurgefTes likewife, at leaft the Reprelentatives of fuch Cities and Burroughs as 
 held of the King in Capite, by your own Senle of thefe Words. 
 
 But I (hall however lay fomething of the reft of the Words you infill upon, out 
 of Abbot Benediff, viz. Barones terra fu.t, which means no more, than Regnifui 
 before-mentioned, and then it will fignify no more, than that all the Barons of 
 his Kingdom were fummon'd to this Aflembly. For the Signification of which 
 Word, I can give Mr. Selden's Authority for •, who in his Firft Edition, 2d Part, 
 hath this remjrkable PaflTage, fpeaking of the (everal kinds of Barons, he (ays, 
 " That befides the Barones Regis, there were Barons of Subjefts holding, not of 
 " the King, but by Mefnalty, who made a third Rank of fuch as were Lords of 
 " Manors, tfc Out of this may be underftood why, and in what Senfe Baronagium 
 " Anglix, Rex ^ Baronagium fuu?n, ifj fine Affenfu Baronagii Jai, (b often occur 
 " in our old Stories, taken as well for the King, and the whole State fometimes, 
 '* as for the greater Nobility. 
 But if your Dr. had been pleafed to have compared the Authors he quotes with 
 Pait 4j. others, nay, with the Title to the very Conftitutions 0^ Clarendon themfelves, as 
 he hath given them, as in his Appendix to his Wx^oxy om 0^ ^uadrilogus, this Ob- 
 Cot. 1395. jeftion would have been needlels^ for if you confult Gervafe ok' Canterbury, he 
 ftiles the Parties to this Council Frjifules, and Froceres Anglicani Regni. And as 
 Pal. 100. Jqj. j\i,ff_ Paris, pray oblerve that after the Word Clerm (which there coming im- 
 mediately after the Bifhops, Abbots, and Priors muft needs fignify the Inferior 
 Clergy,) he exprefles the Lay Orders thus ; Cum Comitibus Barontbm acFroceribus 
 cunBis, where we may obferve the Word Froceres here put diltinft from Barones^ 
 which may very well fignify not only the Lels Tenants in Capite, but the Knights, 
 Citizens and Burgefles, as I ha\e already proved the Word Froceres does often 
 
 fignify, 
 
 P. ij6, 277.
 
 Dialogue the Sixth. o 1 1 
 
 Cgnily, both in our Hiftorians and Records 5 but the ^adrilogus gives us the Title 
 of th'efe Conftitutions more exaftly in thefc Words, FaBii eft ifia Recogfiitio^ coram' 
 Archtepifcepis, Epifcopii, iff Clero, iff Comitibns, iff Proccnbus Regni ^ and' in the 
 next Line he lays. That thofe Cuftoms^ were thus recognized, per Archiepifcopos, 
 Epifc'opos, Comitcs, Barones iff per Kobi/iores, iff Antiquicres Regni ^ where he 
 likewife diftinguifhes between the Bilhops and Interior Clergy y and thole who in 
 the firft place he calls Proceres Regni, in the next he calls Nobi/iores iff Amiquiores 
 Regni, by which he might mean the Knights of Shires, Citizens and Burgelles, 
 who were called in the Saxon Times Scniores iff Sapientes, as I have already 
 proved : Now if the Inferior Clergy appeared by their Reprefentatives at this Coun- 
 cil ( fince they could not then all come thither in Perfon any more than now j) 
 to imagine that the Commons of Enghni lliould not be likewife there by their 
 Reprelentatives of their own Order, is to deprive the Commons of that Right, 
 which you cannot but allow to the Inferior Clergy. 
 
 To conclude; You your lelf confefs, that your Lefs Tenants inCapite, fometimes 
 called Barones Mnores, were only nominally, and not properly Barons of the King- 
 dom, in the Senle that Word is now taken ; and if fo, pray give me any fatis- 
 faftory Reafon, why other Commoners as well as they, viz. the Knights of Shires, 
 Citizens and Burgefles, might not then likewife have had Places in our Great 
 Councils or Parliaments. 
 
 ill. I fee you ufe your utmoft endeavour from the various and equivocal Senle 
 of the Words in Queftion between us, to prove that the Commons in the Senfe 
 they are now taken, might be comprehended under the Words Barones, Mi/ires, iff 
 Homines fid, which it is very certain could not be, according to the Conftitution 
 of the Government at that time. And therefore I (hall give you a very plain 
 Anfwer to your Queftion, why other Commoners as well as the lefler Tenents in 
 Capite could not be prefent, or have places in thole Great Councils, becaufe it was 
 contrary to the received Cuftom and Law of the Kingdom at that time, appears 
 by thole Claufes of King Johns Charter, which Dr. B. hath made ufe of with fo 
 good fuccefs againlt Mr. P. and the Author of Janus Anglorum, 8f c. And therefore 
 1 delire you would read them along with me, as they ftand here in the Appendix 
 to the Dr.'s Compleat Hiftory of England; and as he hath tranfcribed them from p^gt iJi. 
 an Ancient Manufcript in Bennct College, and divided them into fo many diftinO: 
 Articles or Chapters ^ but thofe we chiefly infift upon are thele. 
 
 Article 14. IKuUum Scutagium vcl Auxiliinn ponam in Regno noftro nifi per Com- 
 mune Confilium Regni noftri, nifi ad Corpus noftrum redimendum, iff ad Primoge- 
 genitum fiium noftrum Mfitem faciendum, if'' ad Primogenitam filiam noftramfemel 
 Maritandam, iff ad hoc non fiet nifi rationabile Auxilium. 
 
 15. Simih modo fiat de Auxiliis de Civitate Londinenji, iff Civitof Londinenjis, 
 haheat omnes antiquas Libertates iff Liberas Confuetudines fuas, tarn per terras 
 quam per aquas. 
 
 1 6. Pr St ere a Volumus, iff concedimus quod omnes aTiA Civitates, iff Burgi, i3, 
 Vills, iff Barones de quinq; Portibus, iff omnes Portus habeant omnes Libertates, 
 fff omnes Liberas confuetudines fuas •, if' ad habendum Cammune Concilium Regni de 
 Auxiliii affidendk, aliter quam in tribifs cafibus pradiBis. 
 
 17. Et de Scutagiii afjidcndis fuhmoneri faciemus Archiepifcopos, Epifcopos, Ab- 
 hates, Comites, iff Alajores Barones Regni JingiUatim per Literal noftrof. 
 
 18. Et pr<eterea facicmus fubmoneri in generali per Vice Comites, iff Ballivos no- 
 fir OS omnes alios qui in Capite tcnent de nobis, ad certum diem fci licet ad termnutn 
 quadraginta dierum ad minus, iff ad certum locum, iff in omnibus literii fubmonitionis 
 caufam fubmonitionk illius exponemus. 
 
 19. Et fic fafla fubmonitwne negotium procedat ad Diem ajfgnatum fecundMm 
 Confilium eorum qui prafentes fuerint, quamvis non omnes fubmoniti venerint. 
 
 From which Ancient Monument we may draw thefe Conclufions. 
 
 1. That the King exercifed a Royal Prerogative before this Charter of Aflefling 
 Aids, and Scutages upon all f^rts jnd degrees of Men, without the Alfent of tl^ 
 Great or Common Council, (fince called the Parliament) from doing which for the 
 Future, the King by this Charter tied up his own Hand, unlefs in the Three Cafes 
 here particularly lefeived. 
 
 2. That there is no mention of any other Members to be fummoned to this 
 Council, but the Archbifhops, Bilhops, Abbots, Earls, and Greater Barons by par- 
 ticular Writs, and all the other Lellcr Tenents in Capite by one general Summons 
 
 by
 
 \'. ::ii 
 
 9 12 B I B L I O T H E C A P O L 1 T I C A. 
 
 by the Sheriff. So that it is apparent, that the Great Councils before this time 
 E.jir.o. only confifted of fuch Earls, Great Barons and Tenencs wG/pi/f", as the King by 
 fpecial Writ was pleafed to fummon •, and this new way brought in a greater Num- 
 ber of the Tenants in Cip'ne than ever had appeared betbre ^ fo that if it (liould be 
 true, which you aflert, that this Charter was no new Grant to the People of En^- 
 /iind, but a Confirmation of their Ancient Rights and Liberties, it muft then ne- 
 ceffarily follow, that Great Lords and Tf/iants m Ciphc, called fometimes B,irones 
 Minores, were then the only Reprelentatives of the Commons. 
 
 And that the Interior Tenant's Confent was included in the AfTent of his imme- 
 r. 4. P. diate Superior Lord, whofe Prefence was required in thole Great Councils or Par-, 
 
 liaments, need not, I think, be doubted ; and I can give you, if need be, feveral 
 Authorities to prove it. But pray obferve further, that here is no mention at all 
 in this Charter of any Citizens or Burgefles to be fummoned to the Great Coun- 
 cil, unlefs you will have them included under the general Title of all others who 
 hold in Gipite, and then none but fnch Cities and Towns who held in Cjpitc could 
 pretend to fend any Members ^ much lefs is there any mention of any Knights to 
 be chofen for Counties, which certainly would have been particularly provided 
 for by this Charter, had they then had any place in this AfTembly. So that I 
 think it is very plain, that the Commons were not otherwife reprefented than by 
 thefe Tenants in Opite for the relt of King Johns, and moft part of King 
 Hemy Illd's Reign, for ought I can yet difcern : For though this Charter was 
 confirmed in the Second and Ninth Year of that King latt mentioned, per Comrtiune 
 Confiliim totim Regni •, yet there is likewife no mention made of any Knights and 
 Citizens, or Burgeffes. 
 
 F! Before I anfwer this main Argument of yours, (which I freely grant carrteth 
 the greateft (hew of probability of any you have yet brought) give me leave to 
 take notice, that I think you are very much out in your firit Conclufion, That be- 
 fore this Charter, the King exerciled a Royal Prerogative of impofing Taxes with- 
 out the Affent of Parliament ; for if you mean that this Exaftion was exercifed de 
 jaBo, and from thence you would make it a Prerogative of the Crowii, I grant 
 this was true, not only before, but after this Charter, before the Statute de Xtlljgia 
 non concedendo was made •, but if you mean de Jure, I affirm that our Kings were 
 as much tied up by the 55 th Law of William the Firfl, (which you have already 
 cited) from Levying any unjuJlTaxes, 01 Exa&ions, fine Communi Confilio totius 
 'Regni, as they could be afterwards by any other fubfequent Law that could' 
 be made. 
 
 But I (hall proceed to anfwer the Authority you have now brought from this 
 Claule in King Johns Charter to prove, That none but Tenants in Capite had any 
 place in our great Councils, or Parliaments. But tho' I confefs the Charters , of 
 Henry IIL and Confirmations 0^ Edward I. are the fime with this in the moft ma- 
 terial Parts i yet there are feveral Claufes (of which this Claule in queftion is one) 
 which are in King Johns Charter, and yet are totally omitted out of both thole 
 of Henry IIL as I (hall (hew you hereafter. So that Lt theSenfe of this Place be 
 what it will, I defie you to (hew me any great Council of the Kingdom, that 
 was ever fummoned according to this Imaginary Model of yours :, and that I do 
 not fpeak without Book, that Parliament or Council of 9. Hrnry III. held but 1 1 
 Years after King Johns Charter was confirmed ; Mit. Paris (as I have already ob- 
 ferved) tells us, it confifted of Qert/s, &" Popu/us cum Magnatibus Regionis. 
 
 But give me leave to read this Claufe, according as your Dr. himfelf hath 
 Printed and Tranfcribed it, and as your felf have now read it -, and I doubt not, 
 but it will appear plain enough, that the Claufe you infitt on in this Charter, doth 
 not at all concern tht great general Council of the Kingdom ; and for the proof of 
 tlris, I defire you only to obferve, that by the 15th and i6th Claufes of this Char- 
 ter you have now read, both the City of London, and all other Cites, Burroughs, 
 and Towns, had a Right to make a part of the common Council of the Kingdom 
 for the AfTefsment of Aids, (otherwife than in the Three Cafes there excepted.) 
 For proof of this, pray take your Dr.'s Paraphrale to this Claule along with you 
 in his Appendix to his compleat Hiftory of England, viz. That they, viz. the Ci- 
 rjg. iji.E. tizens, Burgeffes, and Cinqus ?o:ts fiyall fend thoir Reprefentatives or Commijfto- 
 ners to the Common C/mncil oj the Kingdom, for the Ajjefsmcnt cf Aids : So that ac- 
 cording to his Conceifion, there mult have been Citizens and Burgeffes in the great 
 
 Council
 
 Dialogue the Sixth. q i o 
 
 Council, in the Reign oF King John ; and if fo, I defire you to tell me whether 
 thole Gentlemen were Commoners or not ? 
 
 But 1 will not infill too much upon his Conccflions : Since, perhaps he may lay 
 he did not make that ParaphraCe upon Magna Chjrta, but that it was given him by a 
 Friend ; but 1 think it is very plain from the Words themfelves, which pointout a 
 Diftinftion between the Common Council of the whole Kingdom, mentioned in 
 the lirlt Ciaufe, which was to meet to Grant or Aflel's Aids or Sublidies •, and 
 that other Council or AlTembly, conlifting of all the Tenants in Capite, which by 
 the 17th and i8th Claules ot that Charter, were to meet to aflefs Efcuage^ and to 
 do fuch other Bufinefs as was exprels'd in their Summons. So that nothing feems 
 plainer to me, than that this Aflembly mentioned in this Charter, for affeiring 
 Efcuage, was a diltinft Council from the great Council of the Kingdom, which 
 was appointed for the granting of other Taxes, called Auxilia, and tor the ma- 
 king of Laws. 
 
 M. I confefs this Glofs of yours ftems at firft fight very plaufible, and agree- 
 able enough to the way of Reading and Pointing with which : the Dr. himfelf 
 publilhed this Charter ; but for all that, I much doubt whether you are in the right, 
 or not ; therefore pray give me leave to put off this Debate till our next Meeting, 
 fince it now grows lace ^ and in the mean while I will take time to confider the 
 Arguments and Authorities you have now made ufe of. 
 
 K Pray take your own time, but do not defer it above a day or two ^ for I 
 have a great mind to have this Queltion difpatch'd off our hands : I am your 
 Servant. 
 
 M. Good Night, Sir. 
 
 Add, in Page 284. 1. 12. as follows. 
 
 But that the Houfe of Commons were anciently often comprehended under the 
 ftile of Grantz (which is the Ctme with Magnates m Latin) pray confult the Par- 
 liament Rolls of Edward III. where you will find the 4;/; of that King, this Paf- n. £, 
 fage 5 iff efi ajj'entie, ijf accorde per noJJre &' Seigneur le Koy^ i^ tous les Grantz in 
 pleyn Parliament -^ (that is, in tiill Parliament, where both Lords and Commons 
 were prerent,j that the Proceedings of the Lords againft thofe that were no Peers 
 fhould not be drawn into Example, ^c. Now pray fee the Commentaries of the 
 molt Learned and Reverend Author of the Grand Queftion, upon thel'e Words in p. n- 
 this Record ; ' This hath all the Formality of an Aft of Parliament, and therefore 
 * all the Eftates were prefent : So likewile in the fame Year, in the next Roll but 
 ' one i Accorde eji per noftre Seigneur le Roy, f /on Counfeil in Plein Farfuunent ; j^_ g 
 
 which was an Aft of rarliamdnt concerning thofe that had followed the Earl of 
 ' Lancafier. So in the $^^ of this King, we have the particular mention of the jsj. j^^ 
 ' Bifhops, as fome of thofe who make a full Parliament •, Accorde eft per noftre 
 
 Seigneur le Roy, Prelates, Counts, Barons, £?' autres Grands de Roialme in pleyn 
 ' Varliament. So in the 5^'' of Edward III. the Archbifhop of Canterbury made n. 5, 
 ' his Oration m pleyn Parliament, which is thus explained, en le prefence noftre 
 ' Seigneur le Roy, Cf tous les Prelats, £?' autres Grantz. And in another Roll, ft 
 ' eft accorde t?' aft'entu per tous in pleyn Parliament ; and who thefe were, we are N. 9. 
 ' told in the fame Roll j viz. les Prelats, Counts, Barons, iJf tous les autres Sum- 
 ' mans a mefme Parliament. 
 
 Now this is the cleareft Explication of thefe Words in full Parliament, viz. in 
 the prefence of all thofe who were Summon d ; fb that if the Commons were then 
 Summoned to this Parliament, (as certainly they were) they mult have given their 
 AfTents under the Title oi' Grantz; fince the Prelates, Earls, and Barons were par- 
 ticularly mentioned before. 
 
 s r 25ibliotl)cra
 
 5H 
 
 }Pil)liot!)eta ^olitica* 
 
 DIALOGUE VII. 
 
 Whether the Commons of Englafid^ icprefented by Knights^ 
 Citi'zetiSj and Bnrgejjfes in Farhament^ were one of the 
 Three Efiates in Varliamentj before th^ 49th of Henry 111. 
 or i8th o^Edw. I. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 F. "^^ U are welcome, Sir, but I did not expeO: to iee you again fo 
 
 \ loon. 
 
 M. I beg your pardon if I come unfeafonably •, but the truth is, I have fo great 
 a defire to conclude what we began upon, that important SubjeO: we laft difcourfed 
 of, that I could not be at eafe till I had done my endeavour to give you Satisfaftion 
 therein, if it be poflible. 
 
 But to come to the matter that we now meet about ; I muft now tell you again, 
 that tho' I confefs this Glofs of yours upon King Johns Charter, feems plaufible at 
 firft fight, nay, is agreeable to the Dr's own way of dividing and reading the feve- 
 ral Articles of this Charter ^ yet upon better Confideration, I can fee no good rea- 
 ibn for making a full, or at leaft a half flop in the i6th Article, after thefe Words, 
 omms hbcras conjuetni'mes fuas •, adding the reft that follows, £?" ad habendum 
 Commune Concilmm, Vfc. to the following Claufe, 6?" dc fcutagih ajjidcndis^ 
 ^c. much lefs for fuppofing as you do , without any ground , that there 
 were two forts of Common Councils, one for aflefling Efcuage, and the other 
 for granting all other Aids and Taxes. And then, if read othervvife, it will 
 plainly appear that it was one and the fame Council of the Kingdom that did then 
 both grant Aids to the Crown, and affefs Efcuage ratione tenure ^ which I am the 
 more inclined to believe from the Fourteenth Claufe here cited, which fays. That 
 noScutage or Aids (hall be impofed, unlefs by the Common Council of the King- 
 dom. Now to what purpofe is this lb exprels'd, if there was to be one Council for 
 the granting of Aids, and another for the affefling of Efcuage : So that if this Com- 
 mon Council of the Tenants in Cafne might grant Aids, and aflefs Efcuage upon 
 the Subjefts ( unlefs in the Cafe before excepted ) I fee no reafon why they fhould 
 not be the only Council, for the giving their AfTent to Laws alfb •, and conlequently 
 of concluding not only their own Tenants, but the King's Tenants in fetiy Ser- 
 gcanty and Soccage, nay, the Tenants of any other Perfbns whatfoever. 
 
 And thoguh I have feriouUy confidered Mr. P's Appendix to the Rights of the 
 Commons aflerted, and Dr. fi's Anfwer to it, asalfohis Animadverfions upon Jani 
 Anglorinn, iSfc. Yet can I not fee any colour of an Argument for making Liny di- 
 ftinftion between the King's Curia of his great Lords and Tenants in Capite, and 
 the Great or Common Council of the Kingdom -, but that they were then all one 
 
 and
 
 'Dialogue the Seventh. q i c 
 
 and the fame. It would be tedious to me, as well as you, to run over all the par- 
 ticular Authorities and Examples which have been urged Pro and Con in this Que- 
 ftion. But I defire you, or your Friend Mr. P. to fhew me that there was any Bi- 
 Jhops, Ejris, Bjrons, or other Members of Parliament in the Times we now treat 
 ot, thar had any Place, or Vote therein, but according to their Tenur«, and the 
 ancient Cuitom of all Feudal Tenants, who by the Genmn^ Gothic, and Lombard 
 Feudal Laws (which in fubltance were the iame with oursj were always fum- 
 moned to the Court of the King their Supreme Lord. 
 
 But farther, to prove that this Council for AfTefling Efcuage, was no other than 
 the great Council of Parliament of thofe Tenants m Cipite, appears from Littleton's 
 Tenures, where in his Second Book, Sed. 97. he teils us. That after an Expedi- 
 tion Royal into Scotland, Efcuage fhaU be AJJejJed in Parfuvnent upon all thofe who 
 failed to do their Service m that Expedition. So that if the Parliament did then 
 Afiels Etcuage, I defire to know why they might not do it in the Reign of King 
 John, if this great Council of the Archbilhops, Bifhops, great Lords and Tenants in 
 Cdpiie, were the Common Council of the whole Kingdom in thofe Times? Yet 
 that Efcuage was not always AffelTed in Parliament after this Charter of King John^ 
 but that the King by his own Prerogative did often grant his Tenants in Capite 2l 
 Power to take Scutage of their Tenants without any AfTent in Parliament, the r. a, p. 
 Dr. hath given you above a dozen Examples in the Reigns of Henry IIL and -R*^? u?- 
 King John. 
 
 Tnus it was for Aids and Scutage Service ^ but if it was for Scutage impoftd in 
 Parliament as a Tax upon Land by the Common Council of the Nation, then the 
 Tenants in Cipite were not only the Ible Grantors, but the ColleQors of that Scu- 
 tage too, trom their Mefne Tenants : And the Writs to the Sheriff were different H- p. 121. 
 from thofe in Scutage Service, though the fame in Subftance ; as likewile appears 
 by thofe Records the Dr. hath there given us. 
 
 F. I doubt not but I fhall make good my Aflertion, and fliall be able to defend 
 what Mr. P. hath in his Learned Treatife aflerted concerning this matter. In the 
 firtt place, 1 mult Itick to that way of reading and pointing of this Claufe in dit 
 pute fince it is not only agreeable to the Dr's Manufcript Copy, but alfo to the 
 old Erench Copy, publilhed by Father D'Archy in \m Spicilegiim, Vol. 13. which is 
 written in the French of that Time : But to anfwer your Obje8:ion againft this In- 
 terpretation, you your felf have in great part helped me to do it, by that true 
 Diftinction you have now made between a Scutage as an Aid or Tax, and as a Ser- 
 vice ; the latter of which you aifert might be granted to the King, to be railed by 
 his Tenants in Cipite upon their Under-Tenants ^ whereas the former was only 
 grantable in Parliament by the Common Council of the whole Nation. Which 
 Tax, I affirm, was always granted to the King, and impoled by the Common 
 Council of the Kingdom only, and not by the Tenants i/i Capite alone, betore the 
 Expedition was undertaken. Whereas Scutage Service (confidered as a Payment of 
 ib much Money) was never due or payable, till the Expedition was ended ; and 
 then only upon fuch as had failed to lerve in Perfon, or by fufficient Deputies; and 
 was then to be alleffed by the Tenants in Capite alone. 
 
 And though I grant it may feem to have been a Prerogative as you call it, ex- 
 erciled by fome ot our Kings, Ibmetimes to grant his Tenants in Capite, a Licenfe 
 to take Scutage of their Tenants, without the Affent of the Great Council of the 
 Kingdom ; yet fuch Payments or Alfeflhnents were either according to Law, and the 
 exprefs Grant of this Charter it felf; as is that Writ of King John to the Sheriff ^" ^- ^^ 
 of GloceJ}erJhire, tor the AUtfling of an Aid or Scutage Service of three Marks on ^"^^ "^' 
 each Scute upon the Tenants of Saher, Earl of Winchefier, for making his Eldeft 
 Son a Knight, and which the laid Earl miglit have claimed of his Tenants by the 
 C'^mmon Law, as alfo by the 2orh Article of that Charter. But for a Scutage Tax 
 Littleton x^Xh \.\\ Lib. 2. Seft. 101. That becaufe fuch Tenements came at firfi 
 from the Lnrds, it is Reafon they Jhould have Efcuage cf their Tenants ; and the 
 Lords in fuch cafe viight diJJrain for the Efcuage fo Afcjj'ed by Parliament -, or 
 in fome Cafes they may have the King's IVnt directed to the Sheriffs of the fame 
 County, {Sec. to Levy Jitch Efcuages jnr them, as appears by the Regij]er, 
 
 But if either King John, or King Henry III. granted Writs to levy Efcuage upon - 
 the Under-Teiints of the great Lords, and Tenants m Capite, without their own 
 Confent in Parliament, this ought to be no more cited as a Precedent, than any 
 other illegal A£ts committed by thofe Kings; fince, as our Records and Hiltories 
 
 S f 2 tell
 
 Br.:!l. lib. 
 
 (6 BiBi. lOTHECA Politic A. 
 
 teW us, it was fuch illegal Proceedings which weie the Caufe of the Barons Wars. 
 And it is txprcfly againft the Words of this Charter of King 'fohn, which you 
 have now quoted, viz. nuUum Sctiiugmm vel Auxilium fonam in Regno nojiro, 
 wfi per Commune Confilium Regni nojln. 
 
 So that notwithltanding all you have yet faid, it doth not appear to me, how 
 Scutage, when given as a Tax upon Knights Fees alone, and to be levyed not only 
 from the Tenants in Qpite themlelves, but their Under-Tenants ; as alfo from the 
 Tenants of them, who though they held m Cipiie, yet held not by Knights Ser- 
 vice ^ fuch as were the Tenants in Ferry Sajdinty, and thofe who held of the King 
 in Chief as of ieveral Honours, and not of his Crown as in Capire, could ever 
 charge fuch Tenants without their Conftnts given either by themfelves, or their 
 lawful Reprelentatives ; much lefs could your Tenants /// Giphe Tax or Charge 
 fuch as did not hold in Qipnc themfelves, viz. thofe Abbots and Priors who held 
 Lands in Right of their Monalteries in Franc Almoignc, and who, together with 
 their Under-Tenants made about Two third Parts of all the Abby-Lands in England ^ 
 • or could Tax thofe, who not holding by Knights Service at all, but by Tenure in 
 Soccage, or Fee Farm, did nor hold their Lands as Knights Fees, and therefore 
 could never be taxed hy your Tenants in Capite lor fo many Knights Fees, or Parts 
 thereof And Bratlon (who lived at this very Time) had diltinguilfied to no pur- 
 pole between thole Common Services which all Tenants owe their Lords, and the 
 . , ijj ^ general Taxes or Charges impoJed by the Common Confent of the whole King- 
 .. 16. /. 37.' dom. The Words are very remarkable, pray read them. Sunt quxdam Communes 
 prej]ationes qus fcrvitia non dicunrur, ncc de conjuerudine veniunt ntfi cum necejji- 
 "^i.c. when tut intcrvenerit, vel cum "^ Rex venerit. ficut funt Hidagia, Corragia., Carvagia, ijf 
 the King ^7,;^ plura de necejjitate & ex confenju Communi rotius Regni introduBa qu£ ad Do- 
 comts to I'jr- jjjjfjii,^ j-^„£ jjgjj pertinent. And therefore I cannot fee any Reafon why the great 
 1 m.nc. Lords, and Tenants wG//'//^, ihould have ever Power to lay a general Tax upon 
 the whole Kingdom, not the Tenth Part ot which did then hold of them by 
 Knights Service. So that nothing feems plainer to me, than that there was (as 
 P ^ ^ our Ancient Hiftorians tell us) a diftinft Court, which was held anciently three 
 
 Pai^ izi. Times every Year, viz. at Eaftcr^ Whit funt ide, and Chnftmas ; and then the King 
 was attended by all the Bifhops, great Lords, and other Tenants in Qipite^ and 
 this was called Curiu^ or Confilium Regis ■., and if any Difference of Right did arife 
 between the King and his Tenants, or between Tenant and Tenant, here it was to 
 be heard and determined •, and many other Things were there afted and done, in 
 relation to the Kings Barons, or Tenants in Cipire only. 
 
 But under Favour, this was not the Commune Confilium totius Regni, or Parlia- 
 ment (as we now call it ;) for the King held this Court ex More, or by Cultom, 
 without any particular Summons, as Simon oi' Durham, and Florence oflVorcefler^ 
 and divers other Writers of the Lives of our firit Norman Kings, do fhew us. But 
 when they take notice of the meeting of the Commune Confiliujn totius Regni, their 
 Pag. 69:. Expreflions alter, and then they fay, that. Rex afcivit, as it is in OrdericusVitalis, 
 
 Expr^cepto Regis conveneriint : or as Eadmerus Rex SanBionefua adunuvit. 
 
 And Matt. WeJIm.oi latter Times takes notice of this Union, or Meeting of this 
 Curia, or Aflembly of Tenants in Capiie, together with the Great Council or 
 Parliament, in his Hiltory of Hen. III. Where relating how the King again con- 
 firmed the great Charter in a Parliament, Anno Domini 1252. being the ^y'h of 
 his Reign, he hath thefe Words, In quindena Fajchx (adunato magna Parliamento, 
 &c.) So that it feems plain to me, that by this uniting of the great or whole Parlia- 
 ment, muft be underitood rhe Conjun8:ion of both Councils together ^ and there- 
 fore, when this Council of Tenants iw C.//?//^, that thus met ex More took upon 
 them to aflels Efcuage, and tranfa£l other Matters of Confequence, without the 
 Confent of the major Part of the Tenants in Capite, who often failed to appear 
 at thefe Courts, or Aflemblies held ex More, it was then and not betbre, ex- 
 preily provided by this Charter of King John, that Eftuage Ihould not be affefled 
 for the future, without Summons, or Notice given of it to all the Tenants in 
 Capire, who had Right to be there. 
 
 M. I fee you would fain prove that there was a Council or Aflembly of great 
 Lords and Tenants in Capite, diftinft from rhe Parliament, and which met ex Alo- 
 re, and that thefe were the Perlbns, who were by this Charter to aflemble for the 
 aflefling of Efcuage ^ which is a meer precarious Hypothehs ^ nor can you, or thole, 
 trgm vvh<:'ni you borrow thi? Notion, make it out from any good Auth'.-rity ; 
 
 2 fcr
 
 Dialogue the Seventh. oxy 
 
 fur 1 havc'already proved, that the Earoncs Kcgn 6" ^cgm, were the fame Pcr- 
 fons-, and that ufually the Barons or Tenants m Gipite ot what Quality Ibcvcr, did *• -■^- ■''• 
 repair to the Kine's Court at Chnjlmjs, Ejjhr, and IVhiTjunJay, doth appear to ^''''^'' "3- 
 have been the Cuftom of thole Times, from the Teltimonies otour ancient Hilto- 
 rians, and which you your felf alfo aliedge. 
 
 But to prove by I. ;amplcs out of the Authors you have made ufe ofj that the 
 Bilhops. great Barons, and Tenants in Capite, were then alone the ^reat Council 
 of the Kingdom, pray read Eidmerus fpeaking thus •, Cclebratnm efi Cnnctli m in ^"'- ^T- " •" 
 Ecc/cJiJ De.iti Petri in occidentali parte juxta hondinu>7i Jita, Commurn Conf,nf.i 
 Epifccporum, Abbatum, i^ Vnn:ipium tvtius Regnt, d?" buic Conventui affuerunt 
 Trimatts Regni utriufjue ordin/s. And at this Meeting were prefenr, tlie Prime 
 Men of the whole Kingdom of both Orders -. In this Council the Bilhops and B .- 
 rons are called the Principal or Chief Men of the Kingdom -, yer, thcfe were all ihe 
 Kings Barons, they all held of him in Cipite, as did all the Chief Men of the 
 Kingdom. So likewife in another Meeting under this King if^/^. I. when Arch- 
 bilhop Anfelm was to give his Anfwer to the King, according to ihe Advice of 
 The Bilhops, and chiei Men of the Kingdom, the fame Author tells us of^«- 
 felm, that at Eajhr, ad Ctinatn vcnit. Communis Concilii votem accipit, 6ic. Now pj ^ 
 pray tell me what Common Council this was, of the Bilhops and Chief Men ^ ^' 
 of the Kingdom, that Anfelm referred himleif io^ Was it mi ex More, by Cu- 
 ftom ? You cannot find in Eadmer any Summons to it, neither Kcx ufcivir, 
 noT pTiteepto Regis convener unt, nor Rexfanttionefua adunuvit. In lliort, jiot to 
 multiply Examples, look where you will in Eadmerus, or any other of the an- 
 cient Hiftorians you have cited \ and you will Itill find, that thePcrfons who met 
 ex More, and without any Summons, were the ilime who affembled by the King's 
 Summons at other Times, that is,theP/-/w//)^j, mi Epi/copi Regni ox Ten\i', called 
 more generally, Primates utriujque crdinis, or the Bar ones, or Alajores Regni, 
 who did at thefe great Feafts pro more, go to Court, and there hold a iblemn C«- 
 ria, or great Council ; and that thefe made up the Vnivcrjlty, or whole Bo- 
 dy of the Kingdom ^ pray lee what Ma'. Paris fays of fuch an Affembly. In die ^"'-^SS. «.4o. 
 Pentecoftes Domtnus Rex Anglorum Lcndini I'rjium tenens magnum, iy ferenij]i- 
 mum, tunc compojita per RegniVniverf.tatetnElegantiEpiliold, &c. This was about 
 the Pope s Exattions, as hath been belore delivered : And Hen. III. in hii Letter to 
 the Pope , calls the lame Perfbns Ahignates Angli<e , which in his Letter 
 to the Cardinals about the fame Matter, he calls Magnates Kojiri, as you may 
 fee in the former Citations of them. 
 
 i-'.But pray give me leave to ask you this Q^ieftion -, Might nor our firlt AWman 
 Kings often Summon the Common Council of the Kingdom at one of the faid 
 ufual fealts, fince it was lb much for the Conveniency of the Bilhops, great Lords, 
 and Tenants /■« G/p/f^r, (who I grant, were then all'Members of the Great Coun- 
 cil) to meet all the reltof the Kingdom, or Reprelcntatives of the Commons, at 
 the lame Time , though the Writers you have quoted may not mention their 
 being fummoned at all ? And as tor the AVrits of Summons, ttiofe of much 
 latter Parliaments being loft, how can it be expected we Ihould noiv prove tiieir 
 being fummoned fo many Years before > 
 
 7^1. I confels it might be fo, that upon extraordinary Bufincfs, and when the 
 Occafion was great, and the King defired a greater and iuller Appearance, they^^'^'''' 
 might alio receive an exprefs Summons at thole Times. But then I muft defir'e ''^'"*" 
 you to (hew me any mention of a Summons to any of thefe Common Councils, 
 which when called at other Times, are molt conltantly mentioned in this Au- 
 thor. And I dehre to know of you, what you will lay to thole Words pro more 
 c&«ufff/V,which is fpokenotthe moft general Councils, when theCommuniiy of- the 
 Kingdom met at the King's Court > You cannot deny, but that the Tenants in Ca- 
 pite, were the King s Baroncs, Milites^ Alagnates, &:c. Upon this we will jayn 11- 
 fue ^ and 1 affirm (without bringing Proots which are inh.iitc in this Cjle) thjr 
 all the Bilhops, Earls, and Barons oi' England, did hold their Lands, Earl- 
 doms, and Baronies of the Oown, or (wrtich is ail one) of the King, as of 
 his Perlbn, and that, was in Capite. 
 
 JVilli'if" tiie Conqueror, as 1 laid before, divided moft of the Lands in England 
 amonglt his great followers, to hold of him ; he made Earls and Baroiis, urch as 
 he plealed: They and their Defceiijdanrs held upon t:ie fime Terms wi;h the hrft 
 Grantors, which was, to hnd fo many Horle and Arm,, and do fuch and fuch Ser- 
 
 vi :e>i
 
 c^i B 
 
 E 1 B L 1 O T H E C A P O L 1 T 1 C A. 
 
 vices ; both Titles and Lands were Forfeitable for Trenlbn or Felony to the King ^ 
 did Homage for them ■, and every Bilhop, Earl and Baron of tngLmd^ was in 
 thofe Circumftances, and held of the King after this manner. 
 
 Other Lands were given to other Perlbns for meaner Services ^ as to his Wooi- 
 xcanls^ Forejlers, Hunt [men, Falconers, Cooks, ChdmbcrLiins, Goldjmths, Bayliffs 
 cj Minnors in his own Hands, and many other Officers, which in Doom fday- Book, 
 aie called, lenx Jhinorion Regis, and iomctimts Servientium Regzs -, And I 
 doubt not, whatever the Notion of ?etyt Scrgeanty now is, but that originally, 
 this holding of Lands was the true Tenure ^ not but prefenting the Lord with a 
 Bow and Arrow, a pair of Spurs every Year, iS'c. might alfo be called Petyt Ser- 
 jeanty, though not fo properly as the other. 
 
 I*. Not to multiply Words to no purpofe, I think your Reply is far from being 
 fatisfaQory •, for in the hrft place, it is very unreafonable to demand that we (hould 
 now Ihew the exprefs Summons to thefe Common Councils which were not held 
 de more ; fince you know that all ancient Records of that kind are deftroy'd and 
 loft ^ for if we could produce them at this Day, the difference between us and 
 thofe of your Opinion, would quickly be at an end ; as appears by thofe great 
 Councils, which are faid exprelly, by the Hiftorians I have cited, to have been 
 fummoned, and yet no fuch Writs of Summons are to be found ; nor is it any 
 good Argumenr, that becaule our ancient Hiltorians mention no diftin£t Summons 
 to the great Council?, when met at the ufual Times of the meeting of the Tenants 
 in Capite, that therefore there were none fuch, fince we find they often pafs by 
 much more material Matters than this. 
 
 And though I grant that the Tenants in Capite were then part of the great Coun- 
 cil of the Barones, jMi/iies,t> Miigndtes Rcgni ^ yet does it not follow for all this, 
 that none but the Kings Barons, and Tenants in Cipite, were Members of the great 
 Council of the Kingdom ; fince there might be in thole Times other confi- 
 derable Freeholders, who (though they held their Lands of the Tenants in Cu- 
 fne, yet) might be there as Knights of Shires, or elfe appear in Perfon at thole 
 Affemblies as well as the other-, and befides, there were others, who, though they did 
 not hold of the King in Cipite, but of fome great Honour or Cattle, or elfe of fome 
 Abbot or Prior -, yet were Men of very great Eltates, and very numerous; all which 
 muft otherwife have had their Lands tax'd, and Laws made for them, with- 
 out the Content of themfelves, or any to reprelent them. Nor is your Affer- 
 tion at all true. That William the Conqueror divided molt of the Lands in EngLmi 
 to be held of him in Cipite. For befides thole Servants and Officers you latt men- 
 tioned, near Two thirds of the Lands of the Abbies and Priories in England were 
 not held, as alfo much other Lands in Kent, and other Countries, per Baromum, 
 or Knights Service, but in libera Eleemofina only, or Soccage, as 1 have already 
 prov'd •, and confequently neither they nor their Tenants could, according to your 
 Hypothefis, have any Reprefentatives in Parliament. 
 
 And farther, you your felf grant, that thofe Lands you mention, which were given 
 out by your Conqueror, to his IVoodioards, lorejlers, Sec. did not capacitate them to 
 appear in Parliament, fince their Tenure was only by Petit Serjeanty, and not by 
 Knights Scrx'ice: Nor could they become the Kings Tenants in ancient Demefne, 
 becaule fuch Tenants held wholly by Soccage Tenure ^ whereas it appears plainly 
 by Littleton, that Tenants in Petit Serjeanty were fubjed to Wardihip, Marriage, 
 and Relief So that whoever will but confider, that near half the Lands in England 
 were held by Bilhops, Abbots, Priors, i^c. and of whom not a Third Part held by 
 Knights Service of the Crown ; and will then likewife confider what a valt number 
 of Tenants thole Abbots, Priors, Deans and Chapters (who were not Tenants in 
 Capite at all ) muft have had; and who either held Eftates in Fee, or elfe for Life 
 under them in Soccage, as well as by Knights Service ; as alio all the other Ibrts 
 of Tenures I have already mentioned, which either held of the King as of Ibme 
 }-[onori or Cattle, or elle of other Melhe Lords by other Tenures than Knight's 
 Ser\'ice ^ muft certainly conclude, that not above one half of the Lands of the 
 whole Kingdom was held either immediately of the King, or elle of other Mefne 
 Lords by that Tenure. So that if all thele Perlbns, which were far the greater Num- 
 ber of the Free-holders in England, Ihould have been thus excluded from having 
 any thing to do in our great Councils ; 1 doubt not but we llioulJ have found 
 fuificient Clamour in our Hiftories againft lb unjuft a Conftitutionj and when the 
 
 whole
 
 Dialogue the Seventlh 319 
 
 whole Body of the Kingdom was in Arms againfl: King John at Rumnig-Mead, 
 they would likewiie have inferred a Claufe for them lei ves, if they had not had 
 their Suftrages there before, either hv themfelves in their own Perfons, or by their 
 lawful Reprefentatives. And theretbre upon the whole Matter, I durft leave it to 
 the Confideration of any unprejudiced Man, whether it is not much more probable, 
 that the Conltitution of Knights of Shires, Citizens and BurgeflTes, appearing in' 
 Parliament, fhould be much more ancient than the Time you affign -, than that lo 
 fmall ;i Body of Men as the Bilhops, Lords, and Tenants inQipite, (hould reprefent 
 all the reft of the Freeholders and People of England, who never held of them by 
 Knights Service at all. Nor have you yet anfvvered the Quotation I have brought 
 out of Braffon in my laft Difcourle to the contrary. And whoever will but con- 
 fult that Auihor in his Chapter of Tenures, will find, that the Tenants in Cipite 
 were lb tar from having a Power of charging all the MeOie Tenants at their Plea- 
 fure, that in his Chapter de Tcnurh, it appears, that a Mefne Tenant in Capite ha- 
 ving purchafed an Eltate for a valuable Confideration, was liable to no other Ser- 
 vices and Conditions, than what his Tenure exprefs'd •, which once performed, the 
 Lord had no more to fay to him : And if fo be he laid any further Burthens upon 
 him, he might have had a Writ of Acquittal out of the King's Court againft him 
 direfted to the Sheriffs; feveral Forms of which you may lee in G!anvi//e, and in 
 the old Regilter. 
 
 M. We are not to reft upon meer Probabilities ; for fome things that now appear 
 to us unreafonable at this Time, might then be very juft. For if the Feudacary 
 Tenants ot the Biihops, Barons, and other Tenants in Capite, were well enough 
 contented with the Confticution of the Kmgdom as it tnen was ; and that ic 
 plainly appears by matter of Faft, that there was but one Common Council for 
 the wiiole Kingdom ; and that, of the Bilhops, Abbots, Great Lords and Lefs Te- 
 nants ;'« Capite only, it is in vain to argue of any Unreafbnablenels in, orlncon- 
 veniencies that might arile from fuch aConftitu'ion, though perhaps a great part 
 of the Kingdom did not hold in Capite, nor yet by Knight s Service ; and there- 
 fore tho'-!^h .he Feudara' y Tenants of the Tenants in Capite, were upon the Per- 
 formance of their Services acquitted of all othei Charges^ yet this was ftill to be 
 underftood only of fuch ordinary Services as thofe Tenants were to perform by 
 virtue of their Tenure?, fuch as was Scutage Service, or the attending upon their 
 Lord.^ when they U-ent out to War along with the King •, but did not extend 
 to fuch Scutages as were gran.ed in Parliament, or as a Tax t.pDn Land by 
 the common Confent ot" the Nation ; for then the Tenants in Capite were 
 not only rhe Grantors , but the CoUeftors too , of fuch Scutage Tax , from 
 their Military Tenants; and the Writs to the Sherifi's were different from thofe 
 for Scutage Service. And for proof of this, I defire you would perufe that Writ 
 which the Do£lor quotes of the i9rh o^ Henry \\\. which is If ill to be feen in 
 the Clofe Roll of that Year. Rex Vice Coiniti Sujjex jalutem. Scioi quod Archie- c;. 19. /f. 3. 
 pifcopi, Epifcopi, Abbates, Priores, Conines, Barcnes, Hj omnes alii de Regno nojlro "^" ^' '^'"'^''' 
 Anglu qui de nobis tcnent in Capite, fpontanea voluntate fua, iff fine Confuetudine, 
 concejjerunt nobis Efficax A :xilium ad magna Negotia nop- a Expedienda, undc provt- 
 fum c(i de Confilw illorum, quod habeamin de fcodps Milit.im iff IVardis, qux de 
 nobis Tencnt in Capite dujs Marcas aipreditlum Atixi'ium faciendum, & unae pro- 
 viderint reddcre nobis iinam mcdictatem ante Fepum fanUi Mchaelis , Anno 
 Regni 1 9. 6?" aliam Medietatem ad Pajcbe, Anno Regni noftri 20. Ideo tibi pre- 
 cipimus quod ■■ ad Mandatiim vcnerabi/is Patris R. Ciceftren. Epifcopi Cincrllarii * This M.m- 
 voflri, fine dilatione Dijiringof omnes Milites 'zSi liberos Tenentes, qui de co Tcnent ^^^'^ "•"•'^^ "^"^ 
 
 per Servicium Militare in Balliva tua, ad reddendum ei de finnilis fccdis mi lit urn, P-iyfr^.n ^^ 
 cc- iir J J sf J /nil- I- •! c> J nil Lliancellor, 
 
 o Wardis dUiU Marcas, ad prcdittum Auxilium nobis per manum juam Redden- i,uc as a Te- 
 
 dum in Terminis prediBis. lunc in Capite. 
 
 Sic fcribitur p) aliis Epifcopis, Abbatibi^s, Prioribus 0' j\lagnatib//s. 
 
 Now I defire you to tell me whether any thing can be more plain, than 
 that this Tax was granted by a Common Council of the Kingdom, according 
 to that Claufe of King John's Charter I have now cited : Wherein it is firlt 
 efpecially provided, that no Aid or Scutage ffiall be impofed upon the King- 
 dom, unlefs by the Common Council thereof •, and yet you fee by this Writ, 
 that the Archbifhops, (S'c. with the Barons there mentioned, together with the 
 other Tenants in Capite alone, granted an Aid or Scutage Tax of two Malk . 
 for every Knights Fee which they held of the King; and that by viitue there 
 
 ol
 
 Qy^O B I B 1- I O T H E C A P O 1. 1 T I C A. 
 
 I'f not only tbofe Knights Fees they held in their Hands, but alfo all thofe 
 Subieudataiy Tenants called here Freeholders, who held of them by Knight's 
 'Seivice, were likewile ch:'rp,ed for every Knight's Fee fo ht-ld , the like 
 Sum of two Marks. Now L think nothing can be more plain from this Re- 
 coid, than that this was a Common Council of tiie whole Kingdom, and yet 
 confilkd of Tenants w Ctphc only ■, and tlieretbre I delire you to (hew me 
 iome better Proois than you yet have done, that theie Tenants inCapite ever 
 made a diftincl Council, difterent from the Common Council of the whole 
 Kingdcm. 
 
 y. I grant this feems at firft fight to be a good Authority for you ^ but 
 I doubt not for all that, to prove, that it m.akes wholly againft you ^ and 
 will, together with thole other- Proofs 1 (hall urge, make out this difference 
 between the two forts ol Councils, I have already afferred \ and thetefbre I 
 muft tell you, that there is no neceifity of underltanding the Words de Con- 
 fil'io iUontm ( mentioned in this Record ) to refer to the Common Council 
 of the whole Kingdom, it not being here faid to be granted per Commune 
 Concilium totius liegni •, and then there can no more be proved from this 
 Record, than that a Common Council of the Tenants in Cipire, took upon 
 themfelves an unufual Power, fine confuetuJine, as the Writ here mentions, irj 
 thole Times, to charge not only themfelves, but their Under-Tenants alfo : And 
 that even this was an Encioachment, appears by the Statute, De tallae,io nan 
 concedcndo, made 2 5ch 0*1 Edimril. whereby it is e^prefly forbid that any 
 Talliage or Suhfidy Ihoiild be laid upon the Kingdom fine vohmtate ^ affenfic 
 jircbwpifcorum, tpijcopontm^ Comitum, B.ironum, ]\lilitum, Burgcnjium^ ^ aliorum 
 liberorum homincm de Regno nojiro. Now pray read my Lord Cook\ Realbn in his 
 Fate ??2- -^ Inltit. why this Statute was made, ' The 2d Caufe (fays he) was. That the 
 ' King the Year before, had taken a Talliage of all Cities and Boroughs, with- 
 ' out Affent of Parliament, whereupon arole a great Murmuring and Dilcontent 
 
 * among the Commons : For pacifying which Difcord between the King and 
 ' his Nobles, and for the quieting of the Commons, and for a perpetual and 
 
 * conltant Law for ever after, both in this and other-like Cafes, this A£t was 
 
 * made, ilfc. being no other ( as the fame Author rells us in the Conclufion 
 ' of his Comment on this Statute , ) than a Reltitution General to the Subjefts, 
 ' ot all their Laws, Liberties, and tree Culloms, as freely and wholly as at any 
 ' time before, in berter and fuller manner than they ufed to have the lame. 
 But yet, that this was no general Scutage or Tax upon the whole Kingdom, but 
 upon the Tenants inCapite, and their Tenants by Knight's Service alone, ap- 
 pears by the Writ it felt. So that not only all the Peribns I have already men- 
 tioned, who being Tenants to Monafteries and Priories, did not hold by 
 Knight's Service, and all Tenants in Fetyt Sergeanty, and all Cities and Bor- 
 loughs, who did not hold m Capite (who it they had not then Reprefenta- 
 ti\es in the gieat Council, were wholly Free from this Tax,) and not only 
 thefe, but all Tenants in Fee Soccage, whether holding of the King, or of 
 other Mefne Lords, were wholly exempt from this Scutage. So that nothing 
 feems plainer to me, than that this Affembly that gave the King this Tax 
 for themfel\ es and their Tenants, was a Common Council only of Tenants in 
 Ccipile, charging themfelves and their Tenants only, and not the whole King- 
 dom ; and that done in a Ca(c of great necetfity, jine confuetudine : For if it 
 had included all the reft of the Kingdom, there would certainly have been tome 
 mention made, how all the relt of the Kingdom (which did not hold by Knight's 
 Service) (hould be Taxed. 
 
 And that this was a Council confiding of the Tenants in Capiie only, may ap- 
 pear by a Record of the 42d. of this King ; which 1 piay read. Rex Bur. &cc. 
 ^uia per Commune Concilium Comiium, Baronum, iSf aliorum Magnatum nobifcum in 
 Inter Cmmu- Wallia niiper exijhntium, provifum eft j ^uod nos , ^ ipji qui fervitium nobis fe- 
 n-ide Tom. cerunt, ibidem habeamus Scutagium noftrum, viz. De Scuto i^oSol. pro txercitu no- 
 A'nno^l^H.V-/^"' ^^'■^^^- -^""^ Regni 41. Vobis mandamus, quod de omnibus feodit Miliium qu£ te- 
 \\ijid,.di.s''.it. ncntur de J\'obis in Capite, vel de IVardis in manu noJh\i exiflenlibus, (exceptis 
 j^cvand. Feod. illorum qui brcvia noftra habuerunt de Scutag.fuo habendo) levari fac. Scurag. 
 
 noftrum. From which Writ it appears, that this was only a Common Council of 
 Tenants in Capite, who had attended on the King, and done their Service in this 
 
 2 Weljh
 
 Dialogue the Seventh. 321 
 
 Weljh Expedition •, and concerned none elfe but fuch Tenants by Knights Service, and 
 their Tenants who had fail'd to do their Service j and is fuch a Tax as is exprefly 
 referved by the laft Claufe of King John's Charter, which is before cited ; where- 
 by Scutage is to be afillfed by all the Tenants in Cipitc. 
 
 And that not only the Spiritual and Temporal Barons, and Tenants in Cipite 
 did thus meet, and hold diftin6\ Councils or Aflemblies for the granting of Scu- 
 tage •■> but alfo that the Spiritual Barons, and other Ecclefiaftical Tenants in Cipite, 
 did alfb fometimes hold ieparate Aflemblies, appears by the Patent-Roll of the 
 15th of this King, thus : Cum f'ctcrcmus a Pre/ark Ang/ix guod nobis Auxi/ium fa- Rot. Pat. 15. 
 cerenr, pro magna navljitate nojhd de qua eis conftabat ; viz. Epijcopis, Abbatibus, h. 3. a'. 5. 
 AbbatiJJis, Prioribus & PrioriJJis, qui de Aob/s tencnt in Capite, ipfi Koba Iiberali- 
 ter concejjerunt Auxi/ium tale j viz. De fmgulis Feodis AV/itum fuorum 40 s. de 
 tot Feodps, de quot ipfi tencnt ur nobis rrfponderc , quando nobis faciunt Servitium 
 Militare. Where you fee, not only the Bifliops and Abbots, but the Abbefles and 
 Prioreffes granted a Scutage of 40 s. upon every Knight's Fee, for which they 
 were anfwerable to the King. And tho' 1 do not fuppofe that thefe Women left 
 their Nfanneries , and appear'd in Perlbn at fuch Meetings -, yet they might very 
 well do it by their Oeconomi, or Stewards, as their Lawful Proxies for Aflemblies 
 of that Nature. 
 
 But when a General Tax or Aid was granted by the whole Kingdom, the Stile 
 of thefe Councils runs much otherwife ; as appears by the Clofe-Roll of the 4th 
 of this King, where it is recited in the Record, that Omnes Magnates tS' Fide/es Kot.a.,uf.^. 
 totius Regni nojiri, granted de qualibet carucatd duos folidos. Now it hence ap- ^- ?• '^- 5- 
 pears, that this was a Grant of Caruage \ which not being a Scutage-Service, nor 
 yet a Scutage- Tax , was therefore to be granted by the Common Council of the 
 whole Kingdom , afleflTed not only upon Tenants in Capite, and their Feudatory 
 Tenants , but upon each Plough-Land of the whole Kingdom , muft have been 
 granted ( as I have already proved out of BraBon, fpeaking of this Caruage) dc 
 Confenfu ^ communi Confilio totius Regni j for otherwife thefe Tenants in Capite 
 could never have charged all the other Lands of E/?^^/?^ which were not held by Mili- 
 tary Tenure. And to make it yet plainer by other Records, pray fee another of the 
 16th of this King, in thefe Words : Rex Vicecomiti Devon. Salutcm. Sciatis quod Rot. CLuif. x6. 
 Aj-chiepifcopi, Epifcopi, Abbates, Prions, t?' C/erici terras habentes , quis. ad Eccle- ■^•5. M.^. 
 fins fuas non pertinent, Comites, Barones, Alilites, Liberi Homines, i^ Villa ni de ^'"^''• 
 Regno noflro, concejjerunt nobis in auxilium, quadragefimam partem omnium Mobili- 
 ■ ttm fuorum. So that it is plain here who made the Cotnmune Comilium Regni, 
 and gave this Aid of a 4cth Part of their Goods -, viz. the Archbiliiops, Bifhops, 
 Abbots, Priors, Inferior Landed Clergymen, the Earls, Barons, Knights, Free- 
 men , i^c. which was a Subfidy granted upon Goods, or Perfonal Eftates, and not 
 laid upon Land, and could not he granted by the Tenants 7;7G;/'//f alone. And that it 
 may fully exprefs all the Parties to the Grant, the Record tells us, there were alfb 
 the Yillani , the Inhabitants of the Villages or Borough Towns. And to let you 
 iee that our Ancient Manufcript Chronicles of this Age give the fame Senfe to the 
 Expreifions of this Record, and that in the fame Terms •, nray read this Quotati- 
 on, which a Friend of mine took out of an Ancient M-:nufcript, called Chronica s^b Effiie 
 Alonaflerij de Hugeny, in the Cottcnian]J\hx^xy, as ancient as theTim'js are we are leffaijani, b. 
 now treating on. The Words are thefe -. Anno 17. henrici Regpi ^Aurti : (Where "• M^o. 
 note that the Year is miftaken for the i6th, but the King is the fame ; Henry the 
 Third being often in that Age called the Fourth, in refpeft to King Henry, Son to 
 henry the Second) Idem Rex accepit ab Archiepifcop. Epifcop. Abbatibus, Prio- 
 ribus, Clericis terras habentibus, qu£ ad Ecclef.fua non pertinent , ^ ab Comitibt/s, 
 Baronibus, Militibus, Liber k Ho minibus , i!f Villanis de I'cgno Anglix, in Auxilium 
 quadragefimam partem omnium Alohilium fuorum. And to let you fee that this Au- 
 thor makes a plain Diltinftion between the Tenants in Capite , and the reft of the 
 Kingdom , pray obferve what immediately follows in the fame place ;[///] (An- 
 no ejus oHavo ) tu quo communi Affenfu, i^ voluntate AXagnatum fuorum , quam 
 aliorum Latcorum totius Regni , qumtam decimam Catalorum fuorum univerfaliter 
 accepit. Where note, by accepit , is ftill to be underllood he received it, after 
 the Peoples Grant of it , as before in the Record of the i6th ; and that by Mag- 
 natum fuorum, is meant the Great Lords and Tenants in Capite ; and by aliorum 
 Laicarum, ( put here as diftin£\ from them ) all other Orders or Degrees of Men. 
 
 T t Now
 
 ^22 B I B I. 1 O T H E C A P O L 1 T I C A. 
 
 Now pray , how could thefe Taxes upon the Goods of the whole Kingdom have 
 ever been given, but by the General Reprefentatives thereof, (fince all could not 
 be there in Peribn) unlefs you can fhew me, that Men in thofe Days held their 
 very Goods and Chatels by Tenure in Cupite. 
 
 Al. I think you and I may fo far agree, that this Council I inftanced in, con- 
 fifted of Tenants ;/? Ciphe only •, and likewile that they impofed Scutage upon no 
 others than their Tenants by Knight-Service ; yet doth it not therefore follow, 
 that they were not the Common Council of the whole Kingdom, or might not ha\ e 
 Tax'd all others, tho' they were not their immediate Tenants , as well as they did 
 thofe that were : And tlierefore I am not convinced, but that thefe Perlbns menti- 
 oned in the Records you have cited, (which you grant conftituted a Common 
 Council of the Kingdom ) were no other than the lame Tenants in Capite already 
 mentioned : For as tor tlie Hdcks , mentioned in the Record of the 4th of Hemy 
 the Illd. I think the Doctor hath very well proved, both in his Aniwer to Mr. JP. 
 as alfo in his Gloffary , that they were no other than the King's Tenants in Opire : 
 And for this, pray confider the Authorities he there gives us. For tho' I agree 
 B.'J. p. 45. with you, that tlie Word Fideles doth Jometimes fignify {generally) all thoje xcho 
 Hotoman in are under the Poiver or SiibjeHion of iheir Prince •, yet Hotomm alfo tells us, 
 verbis Fiud. 'p^af, Vidcles interdum fpccidliter diciintur iidem qui Viiffuli : ^ui Feudo dccepto in 
 Col. ^2^. D. p^troni tide ^ iff Clicntelu funt , viaffimque fiiam ei certi objeqiiij nomine Fidcm 
 ajhinxerunt. And in this Seiile, I fuppole, this Word is to be taken in moft of 
 our Hiftories and Records. I fhall therefore give you one, which will fiifficiently 
 clear the true Signification not only of the Word Fidcks, but of hiberi Homines 
 Speakir^of ^^^^ jj. -^ j^ William Malmsbury , in thefe Words: WillielmoFilio fuo, cum vix 
 Sm 10 Hemy' 12. Annorum effct , cmnes Libcn Homines, &cc. cujufcunque Ordmii & 'Dignitatis^ 
 the Ifl. /. JO. cujufcunque Domini Fideles , Manibus iff Sacramento fe dedere coadi Junt. By 
 
 A. N. 30, which you may fee, that by the Words Liberi Homines iff Fideles, are here meant 
 
 only the Feudal, or Military Tenants, either of the King, or of any other Lord. 
 
 And to prove it farther by Records , pray fee here thofe that the Doftor hath gi- 
 
 Pat.i^.Joban. ^,^^ ^^ j^ ^j^e l^i^ne pl;jce_ 'j'hg f^j.{^ l^ tj,2j of the Patent-Rolls of the 15th of 
 
 iV o* '^' King John : Rex Baronibus, Alilitibus, ^ omnibus fidelibus totius Anglht, Salv.tem. 
 
 They were to hear what the Bifhop of IVinchefler was to fay to them about the 
 
 1?. c. 4$. Releafing the InterdiQ ; and that thefe Alilites and Fideles were only the 
 
 B. A. F. f.ej, King s Tenants in Capite, is clear from the latter Part of this Record : Vnicuique 
 ^^' vejirutn, fi fieri potefi, LiierM noflras fuper hoc tranfmifjem;:s, fed Kegotium ma- 
 
 jori Fejiinatione, iS'c Tcjle Aleipjo apud Rupel, iffc. 
 
 The King had writ to them all particularly, but that the Bufinefs required 
 greater Halle. It feems, before the Granting o^ A]agna Charta , this King fent 
 fpecial Summors, and particular Letters to his Barons, and other Tenants in Ca- 
 pite, to meet upon any Occafion. So likewife in thefe Writs there mentioned to 
 the Tenants in Capite of feveral Counties, as thev are found in the Cloft-RoU 
 «.G. ;. 45. there cited : Rex omnibus Ccmitibus, Barcnibus, Alilitibus, ^ a'iis fidelibiis fiis 
 CI, 42. H. 3. ^g f^ifi Ebor. Kon'humbr. Cumbr. iffc. Vobii mandamus quod Prompti fitis, iff Pa- 
 Af. 10. doYjO. ^.^^^ ^.^^^^ j^^^^ ^ Armis, ifc. Thefe were the Feudataries and Tenants in Mili- 
 tary Service. 
 
 But to fpeak fomewhat of the Clerici Terroi habcntes, (S'c. as alio of the Li- 
 be/ i Homines £> Villani, mentioned in the Records of j6. Henry \U. you have 
 now cited : i. I cannot allow your Verfion of thofe W^ords Clerici Terras ha- 
 B.A.P.p. 220, l^g^jgj^ quie ad Ecclefias fuM noh pertinent, by inferior Landed Clergy-men, fince 
 ^^'' 'tis more than you can make out; for I take them to be fuch Clerks, as had 
 
 Mannors and Military Fees not beloning to their Benefices, and that were held of 
 the King in Capite, the Fee whereof was in the Crown, and not in the Church, 
 and therefore did not belong to it. 
 
 But Alat. Paris, fol. 577, informs us better who they wete.that gave this Tax, 
 
 when he fpeaks concerning this very Council you mention : -* Ad Colloquium 
 
 coram Rege ccnvenerunt Fpifccpi, 6^ aliarum Fcclefiarum Prslati, cum Proceribus 
 Rcgni, ccnceffa eft Regi quadragefnia pars boncrum. 
 
 Now what the Liberi Homines were in this Record ycu have cited, we may 
 eafily guels from the other Records I have made ufe of^ in the 15th oi Hcrry 
 IIL viz. fuch of thofe, Omnes alij qui de J\cbis tenent in Capite ; which weie 
 x\oi AMlites in a Itrifi Senfe, as not having received the Older ol Knighthood. And 
 
 I (hall
 
 T>ialogue the Seventh, 023 
 
 I fhall make out this Senfe of the Words, as alfo of the true Meaning Cil^ot.pa.m.^. 
 thefe V'tllan'i, by another Record, dated but Two Years after this of yours/""-^ 
 VIZ. 2 1 Hen. III. Rex Vic. Cam. Sulut. Sciof, cum o&avii SnnBi h/Z/arii, &c! 
 ad mandatum noflrum convemrcnt afui IVeflm. Arch'icpifcopi, Epi/copi, Abbates, 
 friores^iComites 6?" Barones totim Regni noftri ut traBatumhabcrem mbifcum de fta- 
 tu noflro , 6^ Regtt'i noflri, iidem Archiepifcopi, Epifcopi, Abbates, Priores ilf 
 Clerici Terrof habentes, qux ad Ecclefias non pertinent., Comitcs, Barones, Mili- 
 tes 6^ Liberi Homines pro fe 'cj fuis VilLink nobis concejjeriint in Aiixilium 
 Triceffimdm partem bonorum. 
 
 From this Record we may obfer^'e, i. That the King's Writ was only iffii-g. ^. /. 
 ed to the Archbifhops, Bifltops, ^c. Earls, Barons of the whole Kingdom. ^''6- 221. 
 2. That in the Recital of this Tax, the Sheriff is told, firft, That the Arch- 
 bifliops, Bifhops, i^c. and the Clergy which had Land not belonging to their 
 Churches (a certain Sign that they granted by themlelves, and out of nothing 
 elfe but that) and then that the Earls, Barons, Knights and Freemen for them- 
 felves and their Villains granted a Thirtieth Part of their Moveables. 
 
 And from this Record it is alfo manifeft, thefe Liberi Homines had ViRa- 
 7I0S (if not Bondmen) Villagers or Rufticks, Colonos, or Husbandmen at leaft ; 
 ofwhofe Fftates by publick AfTent, and for the publick Benefit, they might 
 in part difpole ; which Liberi Homines, according to the Tenor of all our 
 Records and Hiltories, were Tenants in Capite •, and that the Villani mentioned 
 in the other Record of 16 Hen. III. to have given a Fortieth Pait of their 
 Moveables, did grant by their Lords ; that is , their Lords Paramount, that 
 were Tenants in Capite, did grant for them, tho' they held it not immediately 
 of them, but of other Tenants in Military Service, which immediately held. 
 of the Tenants in Capite who did charge theni by publick Taxes, hath been 
 Ihewn from divers Records : So that it was frequent in thofe Times to lay. 
 Such, and fuch, ccncejjeriint, granted fuch a Tax, that is, by thofe who had 
 Power and Authority to do it for them-, and without their Confent too, 
 when thofe for whom they granted were not capable of being Members of 
 Parliament themfelves. I could give you more Examples of the like Nature, 
 but I will not tire you. 
 
 I. I pray. Sir, give me leave to anfwer this long Speech, and to begin with 
 your Incerpretation of this Word Udeles. Firft then, we are ^o far agreed, 
 that the Word Fideles had two or three different Significations. Firft, it 
 fignified all the Subjects in general •, in the next place, all VafTals, or Feuda- 
 tory Tenants whatever, whether of the King, or any other Lord, as appears 
 by the Paffage you have cited out of WiUiam of Malmsbitry, as alfo divers 
 ancient Charters, particularly thofe of King Willhun \. and Maud the Emprefs, 
 zx\6.Yi\n% Stephen, which are divers of them directed, Eidelibtts fuk, Francis 
 iff Angln, which cannot mean Tenants in Capite, fince the Doctor and your 
 ielf will fcarce allow any EngHJJmcn to have then held Lands in Capite of the 
 Crown. Laltly I grant this Word lideles may fbmetimes fignify the Tenants 
 in Capite of the King •, all which being lb, I think you cannot deny, that it 
 is not the bare Word, but the Senfe it bears in the Place whete it is ufed, 
 that mult direQ us to its true Signification ; and that the tide/es there menti- 
 oned to have granted Caruage in the 4th o^ Hen. III. could not be the King's 
 Tenants in Capite only, I have given you a fuificient Realbn which you do 
 not think fit to anfwer, viz. That Caruage was a general Tax impofed upon 
 all the Lands of the Kingdom, as well what was held by Knight's Service, 
 as what was not ; and how yout Tenants in Capite could Tax thofe Lands 
 which were never held by Knight's Service, I defire you would refolve me. 
 And therefore by the Fideles here mentioned in this and many other Records, 
 are not to be underltood the Tenants in Capite only, but all other Subjects 
 who owed Fealty ; who, though they could not all apjjear in Perlbn in out 
 great Councils or Parliaments, yet were there by their Reprefentatives the 
 great Freeholders, Lords of Manners, or elfe by the Knights, Citizens and 
 BurgelTes. 
 
 But I mutt now make fome Remarks upon your Interpretation of the Writs 
 of the i6ch and 2ilt 0^ Hen. 111. wherein you have certainly very much 
 miltaken the Senfe of all the main Words. For in the firft Place, as for the 
 
 T t 2 Clerici
 
 324 
 
 BlBLlOTHECA PoLlTICA, 
 
 Oerici terras hahentes non ad Ecclcfias fertlnemes , which you' interpret to 
 have been Qerks having IWanmrs and Military Fees not belonging to their Bene- 
 fices, but held erf the King in Capite, fcems to be altogether forced. For who- 
 ever' jheard .of Clerks ( that is, inferior Clergymen ) Parfons , or Vicars cf 
 Churches, who held Benefices of the King in Capite, and not in Franc Almoigne ? 
 Or if they had any fuch, that therefore thole Lands fo held' fhould be cal- 
 led Lands not belonging to their Churches •, for at this Rate the Lands of 
 Bilhops, all Abbots, Priors, iS>c. which held of the King in Capite, would have 
 been in your Senle, Lands not belonging to the Church ; but who but you 
 and your Doftor ever gave fuch an unreafonable Comment on thofe Words? 
 
 Nor will that Paflage you cite out of Jilat. Paris, at all favour your Inter- 
 pretation -, for either thele Bifhops and Prelates there mentioned, gave this 
 fortieth Part of their Moveables in Parliament, with the reft of the Kingdom, 
 or elle as Clergyme;- in Convocation : If the former, then thefe Clerici could 
 have no Votes there in Perfon •, for I believe it would puzzle you to prove, 
 that at this Time any Ecclefiaftical Perfon, below the Degree of an Abbot or 
 Prior, had any Place in Parliament, by reafon of his Tenure by Knight's Ser- 
 vice in Capite, for thofe Lands he held in Right of his Church ; but if you'll 
 have this Tax to be granted by the whole Clergy in Convocation, then fuch Clerks 
 as you mention could not be there in Perlbn : Firft, becaufe they are faid to 
 be fuch as had Lands', qiae ad Ecdefias fuas non pertinent, and ^o could 
 nor have any Place there as Clergymen \ nor could they be included under 
 the Vrdati, fmce that Word takes in none beneath the Degree of a Dean. And 
 therefore if thefe Clerks gave any Thing in Parliament, they muft do it by 
 their lawful Reprefentatives in Convocation, the Clerks of the Lower Houfe, 
 then called Procuratcres Cleri ; So that take it which way you will, thofe 
 Clerks could not be prefent themfelves at thefe Parliaments, when thole Taxes 
 of the 30th and 40th Pan of their Moveables were given to the King 5 and 
 therefore either as Laymen or Clergymen, muft be Taxed by their .Repre- 
 fentatives : But indeed the Words Frocercs Regni, which immediately come 
 after Epifcopi ^ Fr.flati in Matt. Paris, fufficiently Ihews this Grant was made 
 in Parliament. That the Word Proccres often includes, not only the Knights 
 of Shires, but Citizens and Burgefles too, I have already proved, when I 
 fpoke of the various Significations of that Word. Nor is your Interpretati- 
 on of Liberi Homines, for Tenants in Capite, who Taxed their VilLmi, any other 
 than a meet wrefting of thefe Words •, for if they were only thole who gave 
 for themfelves and their Villains, whom you fuppofe were either their Bond- 
 men, or elfe their Rufticks or Husbandmen , it is abfolutely contrary both to 
 Law and Realbn ; for who ever heard that V^illains or Bondmen, who had no 
 Property either in Lands or Goods, ever paid Taxes ? And if you fuppole 
 that thefe Villani wete only the Ruftick Tenants in Soccage by Villain Service of 
 the Tenants in Capite, then it is plain that all the Military or Feudatory 
 Tenants of the Tenants in Capite, and all Tenants in Free Soccage by certain 
 Rent, were exempt from both ihefe Taxes-, fince they are not fo much as 
 once mentioned in thele Writs, neither can be comprehended under thefe Vil- 
 lani, as .your felf muft acknowledge : For if thefe ViUani were meer Rufticks, 
 pray tell me what Realbn there was to put them Cheek by Jole with their 
 Lords, as they are in the Record of the i6th of Hen. 111. as if they had given 
 by themfelves, as well as the reft of the Freemen of the Kingdom ? Or what 
 Realon is there why the Lords (as the Words are in your Record) gave profe 
 fuis Villanis, if the hiberi Homines there mentioned, had not reprefented them ? 
 Which could never have been laid with any Senfe, had they been only lb many 
 Mafters over their Villains -. Whereas it here appears, every one of thele Or- 
 ders or Degrees of Men here mentioned , had an equal independent Power 
 to give for themfelves, and not one for another. Or elfe this Word may be 
 meant in a larger Senfe, as in the Record of the 16th of Hen. III. where 
 they are put in the Nominative Cafe (as equal to the reft of the Orders of 
 Men there recited) and fo could not be Husbandmen, or meer Villagers, but 
 the Inhabitants of Cities and Boroughs. And which Senfe Sir Henry Spelman allows 
 in his Gloflary •, Villanr*s ejl qui in Villa habitat, ut Urbani/s ah Urbe, (Jfc. Villa au- 
 tem propria notat Viculum Rujiicamm, fed ex more Gallici idiomatii traducitur 
 I ai
 
 T>ialogue the Seventh. 02^ 
 
 ad infi^nia ifpida, ^ ad ipfat IJrbes ; but take it in what Senfe you pleafe, it is 
 plain it could never here mean meet Villagers -, nor could all your 'Uberi 
 Homines be only Tenants in dipite -^ for then the Record would have con- 
 cluded thus, 6" Liberi Homines, qui de nobis tcnent in Cipitc, as it is in the 
 Records you have cited of the loth of Hen. III. to the Sheriff o^SujJex, and 
 may be found in many other Records, which refpeft only Tenants in Capite. 
 And for further Proof of this Senfe of the Word Villanus, we need go no 
 farther than thefe very Records themfelves, of the i6th and 21ft oi Hen. III. 
 which you and I have now made ufe of-, in both which Writs there are cer- 
 tain Perlbns appointed to aflefs and coUeft the Aids in every County, and who, 
 by virtue of thefe Writs, did caule to be elected Four of the beft and moft 
 lawful Men, dc fmgulis Villis of each Hundred in the Counties there menti- 
 oned ^ and then the ViUani will fignify in thefe Writs, not Villains or meet 
 Rulticks who were not then reckoned inter Legates homines. And though 'tis 
 true you have brought fome Prefidents to prove, that the Tenants in Capite 
 gave Taxes for their feudatory Tenants ; yet that was only where the Tax 
 was railed upon Knight's Fees alone, and not upon all the Lands of the 
 Kingdom in general, much lefs upon Goods and Chattels. So that either the 
 hiberi Homines mentioned in thefe Records, mult mean all the Freemen of 
 England, who by their Reprefentatives gave thefe Taxes of a 40th or 30th 
 Part for themfelves, and all fuch of their Tenants, who held Eftates of Copy- 
 hold Leales, for Years, or at Will, or had Eftates in Stock, Money, or other 
 Chattels •, for otherwile the Taxes could never have been general, nor charged 
 upon moveable Goods of the whole Kingdom. 
 
 I have but one thing more to remark upon your Obfervations of this Writ, 
 which is, that whereas you take notice that the King's Summons was di« 
 refted to none of the Laity, but the Earls and Barons of the Kingdom ■, and 
 if fo, I defire you to prove to me, that your lefs Tenants in Capite were at all 
 prefent at thofe Parliaments ^ for you have already granted that they were no 
 Barons, and confequently could not be included under that Title ; fb that if 
 thefe Liberi Homines who granted this Tax for themfelves and their Tenants, 
 were noi only Tenants in Capite, but their Under-Tenants alfo by Military 
 Service i {\s the Doftor himfelf grants in his Anfwer xo Argument im Antinor- 
 man'mcum,) p. 7'). as alfo in his Gloflary, p. 51. then it will Ibllow by his 
 own Concelfion , that others befides Tenants in Capite were under the Title 
 of Liberi Homines were Parties to the granting this Tax in Parliament 5 
 which is that 1 contend for. So that unlefs you can prove that your 
 Liberi Homines »were all Tenants //.' Capite, you will never make out that 
 none but they had a Right under that Title to appear at our great Councils 
 or Parliaments J and to grant Aids, and joyn in the making of Laws for tliem- 
 felves, and the reft of the Nation, before the Times you allow. To conclude, 
 unlefs you can alfo pro\'e that there was a Tenure in Cipite of 
 Goods and Chattels, as well as of Lands, it will appear by thefe Aids granted 
 in Parliament of Perfonal Eftates, that all Freemen or Freeholders were alike 
 Free, and confequently had the ftme Right to appear in Parliament, either 
 by themfelves, or their Reprefentatives. 
 
 M. But pray make out if you can, by fome more evident Proofs, that any 
 other beiides Tenants in Capite, were admitted into our great Councils j and 
 that thefe Liberi Homines were not Tenants in Capite. 
 
 F. I think I need go no further than the firft VVords of the Agreement be- 
 tween King John and the Barons, which is ftill extant on the Clofe Rolls of the 
 17th of this King, (m. 2. dorfo,) beginning thus, H.£c cjl conventio inter Domi- 
 num Johannem Regem Ang/i.c ex una parte, & Robertum Fi/ii Walteri, Ma- 
 refcalli exercitus Dei, ^ fanlx Ecclefu Anglue, t!f Rich. Qmitem de Clare, ilfc. 
 and here follow the Names of divers of the reft of the Earls and Barons, GJ* 
 alios Comites i!f Barones, i^ Liber os Homines totiui Anglix ; lo that it is clear 
 this Charter was granted in a great Council of the whole Nation, in which 
 were alTembled, not only the Bifhops, Earls and Barons, with all your lets 
 Jenants in Capite, but alfo all the Clergy,* as well the Inferior as Superior, and 
 il the Freemen or conliderable Freeholders of the whole Kingdom by whjtlb- 
 ever Tenure i .'or, as Mr. Selden words it in his Titles of Honour, Fol. 586, 587. 
 it was made by the King and his Barons, and all the Freemen of the King- 
 dom ;
 
 26 BlBLlOTHECA PoLlTlCA.' 
 
 dom •, which Affembly Matt. Paris expreffes more fuccinftly by thsfe Words, 
 tota Kobi/itof AnglU in unum collcBa, quafi fuh numero non cadebat •, fo that 
 nothing can be plainer, than that many other, befides your Tenants inCapite, ap- 
 peared at this great Council. 
 
 M. In the 6rft Place, before I anfwer the main of your Argument, give 
 me leave to tell you. That I cannot allow this Affembly at Running Mead to have 
 been truly a Great Council of the Nation , but rather a Rebellious Armed 
 Rout met together without the King s Writs of Summons, and indeed, whether 
 he would or not ; and 1 fuppole you will not affert that any Reprefentatives had 
 Votes therein ■, nor can you Ihew me that any Knights, Citizens, or Burgeffes 
 were fummoned to it. 
 
 F; I grant indeed that that Affembly was not properly a Parliament, I mean 
 fuch as we have at this Day, as not being called by the King's Writs ^ yet 
 fince almolt all the Biihops, 'Earls, Barons, Tenants in Capite, and all the reft 
 of the Kingdom were then in Arms •, it may very well be reckon 'd a Common 
 Council or Solemn Convention of all the Freemen of the whole Nation, and 
 that after the moft ancient Manner •, fince all, or the greateft part of the Free- 
 holders of the Kingdom were there prelent in Parliament. And that this Coun- 
 cil is look'd upon as a Parliament in the Eye of the Law, appears by a Writ 
 to the Sheriff of J\ort}kimpionfiire, which is found in the Clole Rolls in the 28t'» 
 a. 28. //. 5. of Henry III. to this Efte£l^ That he Jhculd not permit any one in his Bai/i- 
 M. 1 2. dor jo. wick to 'life any Liberties belonging to the Crovcn, vnlefs they had! formerly 
 been icfed^ ad Tempus Parliamenti de Rune Mead 5 quod fuit inter Dominuin 
 Johannem Regem Patrem noftrum, cL Barones fuos Anglia\ 
 
 M. 1 fee that you are forced to confefs, that this Affembly was no Parlia- 
 ment in the Senfe we now take that Word , nor indeed could be any more 
 than a Rebellious Rout there met, whether the King would or no: And there- 
 fore the Word Parliament is not to be underftood in this Record in the Senie 
 
 B A r p 11 ^^ "°^ ^^^^ ^'•' ^"'■^ ^^'^'- ^^"^^ ^'^^^ "°^ ^'^ '^^ ^^""^ (inftead of Magnum 
 Concilium, i5> Commune Concilium ^ G.i/^.^/.ww, a Conference ) until about the 
 Middle of Henry Illd's Reign ; and doth no more point out the Conffituent 
 Members ot it, than that Word did at that Time. And lb the meaning of the 
 Word Parliamentmn is to be taken in this Record. 
 
 E I think I have a very good Reafon, notwithftanding what you have now 
 laid, to affirm, That this was a great Council of Parliament according to the 
 Mode of thofe Times: And tho' I grant it was not called by the Kings Writs, 
 fince it is certain he avoided calling any , becauie he utterly r^fufed to grant 
 this Charter at all •, yet that is not material •, fince they being a general and 
 full Aflembly, or Convention of all the Eftates of the whole Nation, had a 
 jult Right to meet, and vindicate their Liberties then outragioully oppreft, and 
 trodden under Foot by the King. And the King himlelf owned them as a 
 lawful Affembly, by fending to them, and appointing them to meet in Rune 
 
 Vid. Macr. Pa- Mead, between Staines and Windfor, on the 15"^ of June, which our Hiftorians 
 
 ris. tell us they ioyfully obeyed ; fo that he himlelf admitted them to be a Lawful 
 
 A.ffeml)ly of Eftates, and confequently for his Parliament, as appears by the 
 Agreement now cited. 
 
 B..4. G-.M5f- M. I (hall not much trouble my felf, whether this was properly the great 
 Council or not. But however, I cannot lee how Mr. Selden could make out, 
 that this Charter was made by, or to all the Freemen of England: for it feems 
 to me that there was not the leaft ground for it. For if under the Words 
 Uberi Homines, all the Freemen, or Free-Tenants of what Condition foever, 
 were comprehended ; yet here is nothing in this Record that any way proves 
 that they had any Hand in making this Charter ^ but the true Liberi Homines 
 here were only thofe whom the King calls Liberi Homines l\ofiri in his Charter, 
 and immediately grants them feveral Relaxations of their rigid Feudal Tenures ; 
 by which 'tis apparent, thefe Liberi Homines, were the Tenants in Capite, and yet 
 neither was the Charter made by them, as is before intimated : Tho' I con- 
 • •/'-'i-51- feCs thefe were the Freemen which made fuch a Cry for their Liberties (m off of 
 which were but an Abatement of the Rigor, and a Relaxation of the Feudal 
 Tenures, as appears by the Charter it felf) the reft were only Followers, and 
 helped to augment the Noife ; they were no Law-makers as you imagine •, For 
 
 'tis
 
 Dialogue th Seventh. 027 
 
 'tis not probable, that thofe Men that had the Force of the Nation in their 
 Hands, would permit Men of (b fmall Reputation to fhare with them in Law- 
 making. Thofe that had the Power of this and other Nations dc KiHo, always 
 did give Laws and Tax the People. 
 
 E Suppofing this, ( as I have already proved it,) to be a Lawful Commoh 
 Council, or Parliament of the whole Kingdom, I think I may ftill affirm that this 
 Charter was made, not only by the King, but by the Biiliops, Earls, Barons, and 
 all the Freemen of the Kingdom, who certainly gave their Alfent to it, by draw- 
 ing it up into Form, and by accepting it from the King when pafs'd under his 
 Seal, as truly as the ALigna Cbarta's oi' K'mg Henry III. and Ediv. L are called 
 Statutes, for the fame Reafon as I have already proved to you'; or as much as the 
 Petition of Right granted by King Charles \. was a Statute, tho' paft under no 
 other Form. 
 
 Nor were the Libert Homines totius Regni, to whom King John granted this 
 Charter, no other than the Tenants in Gipirc, as you fuppofe, fince in the Time 
 of Henry IL this King's Father, the Word Liher Homo was taken in a much 
 larger Senle, as appears by the AfTize of Arms ordained by this King (as it 
 is recited in HovenJcns Hiitory) where after it is appointed, what Corfelets; 
 Helmets, and other Arms every Tenant in Gipite Ihould find, it immedi- 
 ately follows thus : ^ticunque liber Laicus habuerit in CataUo vel in redditu ai 
 Vdlentiam 16 Mtrcarum habcat Loricnm, i!f GiJJidem, if Clypeum, ifLanceam -^ 
 ^licunque Liber haiciis hnbiierit in CataUo [ad Valenfiam 10 Marcarum habeat 
 Hirbergellum, if Capelet Ferri, if Lanceam : Et omnes Burgenfes, if tota Com- 
 tnunia liberonim hominum habeant Wambais^ if Capelet Jerri £?' Lanceam : 
 Where you may obferve, that every Freeman who was worth in Rent or Goods 
 to the V'alue of 16 Marks, was tohnd as much Arms for the Defence of the King- 
 dom, as he that poCTefled a whole Knight's Fee •, and the meanefl Townfman, 
 and the whole Commonalty of Freemen (for lb I tranllate the Words, Com- 
 munia Libcrorum hominum) were to find a Caplet or Head-piece of Iron, be- 
 fides other Weapons. And the 2d Article of King Johns Charter fays ex- 
 prefly, ConceJJimus ctiam if omnibus Liberis Hominibus A'oJJris Regni Angiia, 
 pro Aobii if Heredibus Nojir^ in perpetuum omnes Liberates fubfcriptas, haben- 
 dof if tenendof eis, if hxredibifs Juts de Kobts if Heredibr/s Nojirts : Which the 
 Do£lor himfelf renders thus: We have alfo granted to all our beemen of the 
 Kingdom of England, tfc. And fure then this Charter could not be made to none 
 but Tenants in Capite, unlefs you will fuppofe that none but they were Freemen, 
 and all the reft Slaves. 
 
 Nor was this Charter only made to relax the Severity of the Feudal Te- 
 nures, as you fuppofe; fince there are divers other Claufes in it which con- 
 cern all the reft of the Freemen, and Freeholders in England, as well as 
 they. For befides the Firft and Second Chapters of this Charter, which grants 
 and confirms to the Church of England, and to all the Freemen of the Na- 
 tion, their Rights and Liberties ; if you pleafe better to confider it, you 
 will find that there are feveral other Chapters in this Charter, by which all 
 other Freemen, as well as the Tenants in Capite, have an Interelt in the Liber- 
 ties there granted, as you may fee by the 10, it, 12, n, 15, i6, 22, 23, 24, 
 25. and above 30 other Chapters or Claufes therein exprefs'd, which are granted, 
 not to Tenants m Capite alone ; but either to Ecclefialticks, or other Lay Free- 
 men of the whole Kingdom. But to prove this a little further, I Ihall give 
 you but one or two Inltances out of this Magna Charta -, and that too in the 
 Doctor's ownTranflation: Article 48. ' No Freeman (hall be taken, or imprifbned, 
 ' or diffeifed of his Free Tenement, or Liberties, or Free Cultoms, or Out- 
 ' Lawed, or Banilhed, or any ways Deftroy'd, nor will we pafs upon him, or 
 
 commit him to Prifon, unlefs by the Legal Judgment of his Peers, or by the 
 
 Law of the Land (i.e. by Legal Procefs.) The other is the 49'*' Article of 
 ' this Charter, That we will not fell to any Man, we will not deny any Man, 
 ' or delay Right or Jultice -. Now judge your felf, whether thefe two Articles 
 were made to the Tenants in Capite alone, or to all Freemen of the whole 
 Kingdom. 
 
 And hence it alfo plainly appears , that the fame Body of Freemen to whom 
 this Charter was made , were likewifs prefent , and gave their Allcnts to the 
 
 making
 
 328 
 
 BiBLlOTHECA PoLlTICA.' 
 
 B. A. I. 
 
 making of it : Nor were Vavafors, or Feudatory Tenants of the Bifhops, Abbots, 
 Great Lords, and other Tenants in Capite, Perfons fo inconfiderable as you would 
 make them , that they only fhould come hither but as Followers, to augment 
 the Noife ; fince I have already proved from BraBon , that there were divers of 
 them Men of great Eftates and Power in their Countries ; befides the Tenants 
 of thofe Abbots and Priors , who (as I have already mentioned) did not hold 
 in Capite of the King at all , and yet made a great Part of the Kingdom -, be- 
 fides Tenants in Tetyt Serjeanty, and thofe that held of great Honours, or Ma- 
 nors, who could never be reprelented by the Tenants in Capite at all. And 
 therefore I muft ( notwithftanding what you affirm to the contrary ) look upon 
 all thefe Perfons for as good Law-makers, as the greateft Lords or Tenants in Ca- 
 pite of them all ; fince the main Force of the Nation did not lye in them, but in 
 their Feudatory Tenants, who would never have followed their Lords in this 
 Aflembly, if they had not look'd upon themfelves as having as good an Interelt 
 in the Rights and Liberties they demanded, (as appears by the like Salvo of all 
 their Liberties) as their Lords themfelves \ and alfo as good a Right as they, 
 in giving their Aflent to them, when they were to be pafs'd into a Law, as they 
 were by this Charter •, fince thefe Feudatory Tenants were not at all obliged by 
 their Tenure to obey their Lords Summons at any other Warlike Expeditions, but 
 where the King, or his Lieutenants, went out in Perfon. 
 
 M. 1 am very well latisfied that this could be no Parliament, for the Reafbns 
 already given : And tho' I grant that theft Charters were made to, and in the 
 Prefence of the greateft Part of the Clergy , Earls, Barons, and Freemen of the 
 Kingdom \ yet this proves not that they had any Vote, or Suffrage, in making of 
 
 Pau' i6i. them •, nor indeed could they ^ for the Great Charters were only the Petitions of 
 the People, drawn into the Form of a Charter, and paffed under the King's 
 Seal, as his mere voluntary Free Grants and Conceffions, without any Votes or 
 Authority from the People. And therefore the Great Charters of Henry \\\. re- 
 cites them to have been made of his mere Grace and Free Will ; as it is in 
 the Preface to it. But pray anfwer me a few plain Queftions , concerning King 
 Jobn\ Charter -, which if you can refolve , I may be inclined to believe there 
 might be fbme other Great Council, befides that of Tenants in Capite. The fiift 
 
 Pat vi'o 's» ^^ *^'^ Common Council of Tenants in Capite, were for Affefling of Aids and 
 Eftuage only , ( as you fuppole it is provided by the laft Claufe of this Charter ) 
 why was the Caule of the Meeting to be declared in every Writ of Summons, to 
 the Great Barons, and Tenants in Capite ? If they were only fummoned about Aids 
 and Efcuage, or other ordinary Bufinels of Courfe •, fure then the Caule of Sum- 
 mons need not to have been declared as it is here provided •, in omnibus Literis 
 Subntonitionis, caufam Subwonitionii illius exponemiis. 
 
 E I will give you an Anfwer to this Qiieftion immediately ^ but before I do 
 it, let me tell you that you are much miftaken , in faying , that the Great Char- 
 ters (becaufe they were the King's Free Conceffions) were therefore pafled with- 
 out any Votes, Suffrages , or Authority of the People of England ; fince I have 
 already proved , in our Difcourfe concerning the hegijlative Power , that the Mat- 
 ter of thofe Charters was no more than an Affirmative of the Common Law of 
 England ^ long before your Conqueft \ and that the Peoples Confent and Suf- 
 frage was Efficiently given, in their drawing them up, and offering them to the 
 King to be fealed , and accepting them from him when he had done it : And 
 therefore the Great Charters are always called Statutes, in our Ancient Records, 
 and Afts of Parliament, But to anfwer your Queftion ; I fuppofe that the King, 
 befides the ordinary Bufinefs of their Affeffing Efcuage , had often other Affairs of 
 Moment to be tranfafted with, and communicated to his Bifhops, Great Lords, 
 and Tenants in Capite , in which the reft of the Kingdom were not at all con- 
 cern'd ^ fuch as giving the King their Advice, as a Great Council, concerning di- 
 vers weighty Affairs, (as in the Bufinefs of Sicily , mentioned in the firft Record 
 I have cited ) as alio about undertaking Foreign Wars againft f ranee., Scotland^ 
 Wales, &c. in which they were bound to follow, and affift him , together with 
 their (jnder-Tenants, according to their refpeftive Tenures •, and therefore it was 
 but Reafon that they Ihould have timely Notice, that they might give their Ad- 
 vice in it ; as alfo that they might either come, or ftay away, according to the 
 Greatnefs or Urgency of the Occafion •■> and might alio give their Under-Tenants 
 
 I Notice,
 
 "Dialogue the Seventh. 
 
 32Q 
 
 Notice, to provide themrtlves with Horfes and y\rms, and all Things neceflary, 19 
 cale a War (hould he agreed on : Which , I rhiiik, are fuificient Reafons for thus 
 exprefTing the C^auies of" their Meeting in the Writs of Summons. 
 
 M. Admit this were fo, (which 1 Ihall yet take further Time to confider bf)' 
 pray tell me, in the next plJce, if all your Inferior Birons, Vavjfors, or Lords 
 of Nlanors, iS^c. fuppofing them either to have appeared in Perfbn, or elfe as cho- 
 fen tor Knights of Shires, who were the Members of the Great Council of the 
 Natiriri i I pray toll me , ivhy there (hould not have been the fanne Care nken, 
 that they miglii be alfo fummoned as well as the Tenants m Capttc ? Cerrdinly 
 they came not to them by Inftinct ; nor is it fcarce probable that they would 
 leave their Country-Bufinefs, to uavel from one remote Part of England ten ano- 
 ther, to thefc Great Councils, ( which feldom continued above three or tour Days) 
 if thev had not had a Right fo to do. 
 
 K i (hall anfvver you in few Words •, becaulc it was not at all necedary to ex- 
 prefs tiiat Claufe you mention for them all ^ hnce it was fufficient therein to fol- 
 low the old Courfe of Summoning the Common Council of the Kingdom •, for 
 doing which, it had always been the Cuftom to give llifficienr Notice by Writs 
 of Summons of their Meetings : Whereas in this Council of Tenants iii Capire, g ^ p . ^^ 
 fince there washy this Charter fbme Alteration in the Manner of their Summoning, 
 fo there was alfo for exprefTing the Caufe of their Meeting : For whereas before 
 that (as the Dotlor himfeif allows) all the Lefler Tenants in Gipite had particu- 
 lar Letters, or Writs of Summons , exprefling the Caufe of their Meeting ^ they 
 were for the future to be flimmoned by General-Writs directed to the Sheriffs ; 
 and therefore it was but Reafon , that there (hould be a parricular Claufe referved 
 for their General Summoning, which rhere was no need of in thofe Writs that 
 were iffued for the Summoning the reft of the People, or Commons, to the 
 Great CouiKil, or Parliament ^ as I doubt not but it would appear , in cafe we 
 had thofe Writs to produce : In which likewife there was anciently often ex- 
 prefs'd the patticular Caufe of their Meeting ^ as there was, for inftance, in 
 thofe famous Writs to the Lords and Commons of the 49th of Henry IIL which b.a. p. ij;, 
 the Dr. hath given us in his Anfwer to Mr. P. 
 
 M. But I have (till a greater Obje£lion behind than either of the former. You 
 cannot deny, but that by the firft Claufe of King John\ Charter, (which I have 
 made ufe of) all Aids, and Eicuages, were to be impofed by the Common Coun- 
 cil of the Kingdom : And Littleton himfclf tells us, in the Second Book of his 
 Tenures, Thiit Efcuage k always to be ajfejj'ed by Parliament, 7(pon thofe that failed 
 to do their Services^ after the Expedition was ended. 
 
 Now if this had not been a Right Inherent to the Great , or Common Council 
 of the Kingdom, but tint the Tenants in Capite alone afTelfed it in King Johns 
 Time ; how came they to lofe that Privilege, and the Great Council of the King- 
 dom (or Parliament) to get it, if the tbimer had not been the Only Great Coun- 
 cil at the firft ? 
 
 ¥. I hope to give you as fatisfaclorv an Anfwer to this, as I have to the reft 
 of your Demands. This Alrerarion might have fallen out two ways ^ either ac- 
 cording to Cambden\ old Manufcript Author, cited in his Introdu£tion to his ^•*^- 122. 
 Britannia ; the Sum of whicli is, That when King Henry III. after his great Wars 
 with Sim. Montford, and the Barons, had ruined many of them ; he, out of fb 
 great a Multitude, (which was before feditious and turbulent) ailed the beft and 
 chiefeft of them only by Writ to Parliament ; who, after that Time, -became Ba- 
 rons by Writ , and not by Tenure , as they were before. And as for the Leffer 
 Sort of them, cjWgkL Buroncs Mmorcs , they might be wholly refolv'd into the 
 Body of the Commons , or ordinary Sort of Freeholders : And the King being 
 fearful of any iarther Increafe of Power in thefe Barons and Tenants in Capite, 
 might no more defire their Company at the uf ual Fcatts of the Year , whither be- 
 fore they ultd to come ex more •, and fo their Power fell of courfe to the Council, 
 or Parliament, of which before rhey only made a Parr. 
 
 Or elfe it might happen from the Negligence of the Tenants in Capite them- 
 lelves i who growing weary of their Attendance, might negleft to come to thofe 
 Common Councils held of courfe , becaufc of the great Trouble and Charge of 
 thofe Journeys \ and the king being as willing to difpenfe with their Pretence, 
 thii Court was loft by Non-ufagc \ and fb the Judicial Part of it retiiained in 
 
 U u the
 
 330 
 
 B I E L 1 o T H E c A Politic a, 
 
 the Houfe of Peers, and that of affefling Efcuage, and advifing and giving Aids 
 in matters of War, fell wholly to the Great Council of the Kingdom •, of which 
 theie Tenants i/! Qpite, by their being capable of being Ele£led Knights of Shires, 
 loon became the Principal Members. 
 
 Kut that I may have my turn to ask Queftions ^ Pray tell me, if your Com- 
 mon Council of Tenants m Capire, were the Ible Council of rhe Kingdom, or Par- 
 liament as it is now called, why are rhere no other Rights or Privileges le- 
 ferved to this Council, bur this of aflefiing Efcuage? Were not the Powers of 
 granting orher Taxes (which could not be included under the Word Efcuage,) 
 and aUb of giving their Aflent to Laws, things of as great (nay greater) moment 
 than this of afleibng Efcuage i" 
 
 M I Iliall give you as fhort and fatis&^ory an Anfwer as I can to your 
 Queries. There was no need of inferring any Claule to this Charter, of refer- 
 ving or conferring any Power to this Common Council of granting Taxes, and 
 giving their Afleiu to Laws, becaule they were things which at rhat Time they 
 had no reafon ro complain of ^ fince we do not read that King John (as Arbitrary 
 as he was) ever took upon him to make any new Laws without their Confents; 
 and befides, it was implicitly referved ro them by the laft Claule of this Chatter, 
 viz. Saving to the Archbijhops, Bijhops, Sic. Ear/s, Barons, Knights, and a// others^ 
 &c. the Liberties and I'ree Cuftoms ichich they had bejore. So that there was no 
 need of any other Claufe than this, becaule it had been not only the Cuftom 
 but the Law of the Kingdom , for the King to lay Taxes and aflefs Elcuage upon 
 the Nation, without the Confent or Afliftance of this great Council ; which grew 
 row fo great a Grievance, that they would not be contented, until the King by 
 this Charter had renounced it. 
 
 I. I (hall not now trouble my felf or you, to confute this miftake of yours. 
 That the Kings of England could legally raife Taxes upon all their Subjefts 
 without Conlent of their great Council, or that they ever exercifed fuch a Pre- 
 rogative, unlefs it were in the violent Reigns ol the Two Williams •, and then 
 if it was ever done, it was only upon their Eng/ijh, and not their Korman 
 Subjefts ; the latter being exempt from it by the very Magna Qiarta of King 
 William \. by your own Confeffion. Nor would they, I believe, have born it at 
 his Hands i but I Ihall fpeak more particularly of this another Time. Only 
 pray give me leave to ask you this one Queftion ? If this Charter of King 
 John had been intended as a conftant (landing Rule or Form, not only for this, 
 but all fucceeding Common Councils or Parliaments •, what could be the realbn 
 that this Claufe you fo much infilt upon, of Summoning all Bifhops, Abbots, 
 Earls, Barons, and all rhe reft of the Tenants in Capite, Ihould be omitted in 
 the great Charter of Henry III. granted in the 2d Year of his Reign ^ and but 
 Three Years after the 17''' of King John ( when thefe Charters were firft granted ) 
 as alio when it was again confirmed in the 9''' 0^ Henry III.} For can any one 
 of Senfe imagine thatfo material a Claufe as this, and lo exprels for rhe Rights 
 and Privileges of the whole Body of Tenants in Capite, as the fole Reprefen- 
 tatives of the whole Nation, could have been omitted, had they alone in thofe 
 Times conftituted the Common Great Council of the whole Kingdom ? How 
 then comes it to pafs, that in all the Records of Henry Illd's Reign, wherein 
 this Charrer is mentioned, it is always recited Magna Charta KoJIra, viz. his 
 own Charter , without taking notice of his Father's ? I (liould be glad to 
 receive a latisfa£lory Anfwer to this Queftion from your felf or any other in- 
 telligent Perfon. 
 
 M. I hope I may give you a fatisfatlory Anfwer to this Scruple, which I 
 think may be thus fatisfied. I conceive that the firft Great Charrer we have, 
 which is commonly attributed to Henry III. and ttiled his Charter in our Sta- 
 tute-Books, was properly the Charter of EJtiard I. or perhaps, rather his Ex- 
 plication or Enlargement of thole Charters of King John and Henry III. 
 For we find not the Great Charter, either of that or King Johns, in any of 
 the Rolls, until the 25''' of Eduiardl. and he had a greater Sum of Money 
 for confirming this Charrer, than Henry III. had. Now in this Charter then 
 confirmed, there is no Provifion made for any Summons to Great Councils or 
 Parliaments -, and the Realbn may well be, becaufe the Conftitution of Great 
 Councils or Parliaments was lately changed from what it was in the beginning 
 
 of 
 2
 
 T>inlogue the Seuenth. 'loi 
 
 of King >/w'sTime, and till the 49''' of Uemy III.; nor perhaps was it lb 
 fixed, and perempcorily refolved on at this Time, what it fhould exaftly be for 
 the future, as to have it made an Article of the Charter. And to this Conjecture 
 the frequent Variations of Summons to Parliamejits in tliofe Times, do give a 
 probable Conlirtnation. 
 
 ¥. I am not at all fatished with thisSuppofition of yours, for I doubt not 
 but to prove that it is altogether vain, and grounded upon no good Authorities 
 either from Hillory or Records ; but I fhall Ihew you before I have dons, that 
 the Magriii Chart a which we have Itill upon Record, by Infpexhnus of Eivo. I. 
 is the \ery lime Word tor Word, in all the material Parts of it, with that of 
 Henry III. both of the 7.^ and 9'" Year of his Reign •, and that there was no 
 Alteration at all made as to the manner of it, as fummoning or chufing Mem- 
 bers of Parliaments from the beginning of this King's Reign to the very end of 
 it. Nor yet in the Time of Eiwari 1. as you fuppofe. 
 
 M. I fhould not be difpleafed to fee that proved, though I think I am able to 
 Ihew you the contrary. But before we proceed to that, I muft needs tell 
 you, I am not yet fatisfied that there ever were anciently Two Councils ^ one 
 of the Tenants m Cipite, and the other of the whole Kingdom ; tor methinks 
 not only your felfj but Mr. Petyt, and Mr. /kwood his Second, have fallen very 
 fliort of their Proofs they have brought in tliis Point : and there is ncrhing in 
 the DoQor's whole Anlvver to them, in whichf (in my Opinion) he hath ob- 
 tained a clearer Viftory-, therefore pray givemefome better Proofs of this Di- 
 ftinfticn, if you have any. 
 
 F. 1 did not imagine I (hould have needed to have fpoken any further up- 
 on that Head ; yet fince you now require it, 1 fhall obey your Commands. Since 
 therefore you tell me that the Times before your Conquelt are obfcure, and 
 the Authorities uncertain, I will give you a fhort Hiitory of thefe Councils , 
 beginning with King IVil/iam I. and fo going down as low as Henry III. So 
 far then we are agreed, that the Council of Tenants in Capitc, met ex more at 
 the great Fealts of the Year •, and that they alfo granted the King Aids, or Sub- 
 fidies, to be Levied upon themfelves alone ; as I grant, appears by the Writ 
 of 19''' of i/f/?r>'lll. which you have but now cited, directed to the Sheriff 
 of Sujjex. 
 
 But that this Council which was thus held ex more, was alfb often Summon- 
 ed to meet at other Times when the King's Occafions required it , is alfo as 
 certain ^ as appears by this Writ of the 26''' of the fame King, which I fhall read not. ciauf. 
 to you. Rex Vice-comti Northampton, tffc. Frxcipimus tibi ficut alias Pnedpi- m. 7. 'jorfo, 
 mus, quod Summoniri facias Archiepifcopos, Epifcopos, Comites, Barones, Abbates, 
 Triorcs, Mi/ires, i!f liberos homines qui de nobii Tenent in Capite, eodem modo 
 jcribitur omnibus Vice-cornitibus Anglix : Which Writ extending only to thofe 
 who held in Capite, could never be a Summons to the Common Council of 
 the whole Kingdom : for then this Reltriftion had been needlefs, qui de nobis 
 Tenent in Capites and it would l]ave been known who had a Right to come to this 
 Council, if thefe Words had not been inferred ; fo that this feems to make a 
 plain Diftinftion between thefe Liberos homines qui dc nobis Tenent in Capite 
 and the relt of the Freemen of the whole Kingdom. 
 
 But when Eadmerus and other Ancient Hiftorians mention the great or Com- 
 mon Council of the whole Kingdom (afterwards called the Parliament,) then 
 their Exprefhons are more general and comprehenfive j tor proof of which, p i,,-. . 
 pray confult tiie Old Englijh Saxon Annals, continued down to the Time of Oxford idV- 
 Henry I. vi\itnS\n Anno Dom. 1085. (being the lalt Year of William I.) there is »< .sjxon amf 
 a remarkable Paflage which I fhall here give you in Englijh. ' At Chrijlmat, the ^•'t'"- ^^8j. 
 ' King {viz. William I.) was at Gloucefier with his Nobles, and there held his 
 ' Curia or Court ( in Saxon his Hired) Five Days j (and immediately after it fol- 
 ' lows thus.-) Prcfently after this he held a Great Council I'm Saxon, Mycel 
 ' Getheat J where he had many great Dilcourfes with the Nobles, iUc. ' Now it 
 feems plain to me, that this ordinary Court ( here called his ////fc/) could not 
 be the Great Council of the Kingdom \ for to what purpole Ihuuld it meet again 
 fo quickly, if it had been the Cx^mmon Council of the whole Kingdom J* Or, why 
 are they here called by different Titles, the one his Hired, or Court, and the 
 
 U u 2 ' other
 
 ^^2 BiBLlOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 sKo/.F. 45 1, other the Aljcc/Gfthear, the Great Council •, which is alfo called commune Qon- 
 cilntm totius Regni, in Sir Henry Spelmins Councils in this very Year, 
 
 And to fhew you more plainly the Difference between this Great Council 
 ot" the whole Kingdom , and the Lefier Council of the King's Barons and Te- 
 lib.^.KiS. nants in Capites pray fee Eadmerus, who relating what was done in a Great 
 Council held at Eafter, immediately before the Invafion of Robert Duke oi ]\'or- 
 jmindy^ in tiie 2*' Year of Henry I. fays, there met tot.i Anglut Kobi/irat, cum Yo- 
 fufi mmercfitiite •, and then Archbilhop Anfclm engaged for the King, that he 
 Ihould Govern the Kingdom according to the juft Laws thereof! Where you iee, 
 that befides the Noblemen and Gentlemen, here called, Regm 'Kobilitas, there was 
 alio a great Number of the Commons, here termed in the Barbarous Latin of that 
 Age, Ropuli numernfitas. 
 
 But when the King held his Curia of the Great Lords and Tenants in Capite 
 alone, the ExpielTions are more particular ; as may appear by many Charters of 
 our firft Korman Kings to feveral Abbeys of their own Foundation, which are 
 fa id to be made Confilio ^ Ajfenfu Baronum nojlrorum tarn prcfulum quam 
 Laicorum •, as you will (for Example) find it in the Charter of Henry I. to 
 the Abbey of Abingtcn, as it is exemplified in the Ancient Manufcript Regilter of 
 that Abbey, now in the Ccttonian Library ; in which Book you will find more 
 of the like Nature ^ vv^hich plainly make out this Difference between this Lels 
 Council of the King's Barons and Tenants in Capite^ and the Great Council of 
 the Kingdom. 
 
 And tor further Proof of this, pray fee the Inftrument of King Johns Re- 
 fignation of his Crown to the Pope, as you will find it at the end of Do£lor 
 Bs compleat Hiftory ; which is recited to have been done Communi Conci/w Ba- 
 ronum l^ofirorum, that is, by the Common Council of the King's Barons and 
 Tenants//zG//'i/d',a great Number of whom were there prefent in Arms againit the 
 Landing of the French King, then expe£ted. And yet this was never looked upon 
 to have been done per Conmune Concilium Regni^ fince this Refignation was de- 
 clared void by the Biihops, Lords, and Commons in full Parliament, in the 40^^ 
 of Edivard III. becaufe done fanz /our AJfent, as it is in the Parliament Roll 
 of that Year. ^ 
 
 But whenever the whole Great Council or Parliament was fummoned to 
 affemble, then this Leffer Council of the Tenants in Capite, muft needs meet 
 alfb, as being a principal part of it. And then the ExprefTions were more 
 comprehenfive , as I have already noted ; and our Ancient Hiftorians do, in 
 my Opinion, by their Expreflions, plainly lignify an Union of both thefe 
 Councils to make up the Common Council of the Kingdom ^ as appears 
 by the Letters which the Prior of Canterbury wrote to the Pope, upon the 
 Ele£tion of Ra/ph Bifhop of Rcchefler, in the 14''' of Henry L to the See of 
 Canterbury, as you find them in Eadmcrus, {Lib. 5. fol. iii.) and which is 
 there Laid to have been made adunato conventu totim Anglia: •, that is, in the 
 united AlTembly of all England, viz. as it follows immediately, the Epifcopi, Ah- 
 hates 6" Principes Regni, ifj ingem Populi Miiltitudo. So likewife Hoveden in 
 his Hiflory, (i-t?/. 27?.) Anno ii2i,('being the 18='' o'lHenryl.) relates the King s 
 Marriage with the Lady Adeliza, Daughter to the Duke of Lovain, to have been 
 celebrated at Windfor, adunato Concilia totius Regni, i. e. in the United Council of 
 the whole Kingdom. 
 
 M. I am not yet fatisfied with your Ptoofs : And I doubt not but to fhew 
 you that this Diltinftion of your Friends Mr. P. and Mr. A. his Second, between 
 the Common Council of the Kingdom , and the Council of the Great Lotds 
 and Tenants in Capite , will prove but a meer Chimera of thofe Gentlemen, 
 from whom you have borrowed it ; for there was indeed but one Common Coun- 
 cil of the Kingdom in thofe Times, viz. that of the Bifhops, Earls, Barons, and 
 other Tenants in Capite. 
 
 And theiefore in anfwer to your firft Authority from the Saxon Chronicle, 
 I fhall fhew you another of the fame King's Reign, which will fhew the dif- 
 ferent ExprefTions of this gieat Council by Hned, and ill/V^ / Oa heat, to have • 
 been the particular Fancy of that Monkifh Writer, and it is from Gervat 
 -fit. 155 1. Dorobornenfis, de Adk Fontijicum Cantuaricnf. Ecclefis, where you may fee in 
 the LVuv/j Scriptores, this ^Mi.^, Anno a^. Regis Wilhelmil, Anno Dom. io~o. 
 
 2 LanfrancHs
 
 Dialogue the Stvenih. . 333 
 
 Larifrancus Cadomenfis Abba-y eleBus fiiit Archiepifccfus Camuarienjis a Senioribus 
 ejujdem EcclcjU cum Eptfcopii, iSf Prinapibus, C/ero, iSf Popu/o AngFia inCurui 
 Kegis in Alfumptione Sanda Miiix ; where you may fee that this Confirmation 
 of the Archbilhop was made in the great Council of the Kingdom, which 
 is here called colle£lively, or all together, (and not one Part of ic only) Cicr'ta 
 . Regis. As for the Words which make up the conftituent Parts of this Coun- 
 cil, we have fufRciently debated them ^ and therefore I need lay nothing more 
 concerning them. 
 
 But tho' the Dr. lias given us more Authorities to prove this, yet I fhall 
 make ufe of bur one more from Eaimerus ^ it is in the Reign oi' Hemy I. Fo'. 12^. 
 thus, in fubfcqucmi Kdtivitate Do?n. ■Chnjii Regmnn Anglu ad Qtriam Regis 
 Lundonix pro more convenit^ iff magnj Solemnitute habita eft, &c. This Inftance 
 is full in all Points ; here is tiie whole Kingdom, that is, the whole Baronage 
 or Univerfity of England, (for BrdBon tells us, the whole Kingdom confilted 
 of Earldoms and Baronies) who met according to Cullom, at the King's Court: 
 And hence it is manifeft, that at thole Times the Common Council of the 
 Kingdom was held •, and from this alio, as from the former Inltances, that the 
 Barones, Pnmipes, t~' Oprimates, iS> Majores Regni, did ac thofe great Feafts, 
 pro More, according totheCuitom, frequent the King's Court, and were the only 
 Perfons that conftituted that great Affembly. 
 
 ¥. But pray give me leave to interrupt you a little. Did I not tell you but P- ^- c. 
 now, that the King did oVten convene the Common Council of the wliole ^■'^- '5'"-'' 
 Kingdom to meet the Bidiops, great Lords, and Tenants in Capiic, at one of 
 thele Feafts ; and fo it might be an Aflembly ex More in refpeft of them, 
 but extraordinary to all the reft of the Kingdom ^ and this often happened at other 
 Times as well as at thefe Feafts, according as the King's Occafions required, when 
 all the others were fummoned on purpofe. 
 
 M. I have already anfwered. that Objeftion •, and granting it might be fo, 
 it does not prove it was fo : But 1 defire you to tell me what you can fay to 
 this Exprellion in the Authority I have now made ufe of from Eadmerus ; 
 Rcgnum pro more convenit, which is fpoken of the molt general Council when Fd, 53, 
 the Kingdom ot England then met at the King's Court. So that your fmall Chri- 
 ticiftn upon the Words adunato (Jonventu or Concilia, as if they fignified this 
 Union or Conjuncfion of two Councils into one, is but a meet Fancy of your 
 Anthors, thofe Words fignifying no more than a gathering or meeting toge- 
 ther of all the Perfons that conftituted that Aiiembly, as appears by thefb" Words 
 in Eadmerus, Adunatis (without either Prxcepto or Sanclione Regis) ad Curiam 
 ejus in pafcba Terr£ Principibus, i. e. the chief Men of the Nation being af- 
 lembled. at brs Court at Eajhr. 
 
 But as for your main Inftance of King Johns Refigning his Crown to the 
 Pope in a Common Council of the great Lords and Tenants in Capite, but nor 
 of the Common Council of the Kingdom, I confefs it were very confiderable 
 if it were true ■■, for tho' in all the Charters of this King's Refignation , the 
 Words you mention, viz. Communi Concilio Baronum noftrorum are inferred, 
 yet it could not be a great Council ; fince tho' I grant that all the Tenants' 
 inCapite were at that ^ Time fummoned to appear in Arms againit the King s. A. /< 
 of France ; yet it being a Military Summoils for the gathering together of 
 an Army, and not tor the Meeting of a great Council ^ for the five prolcri- 
 bed Bilhops were in France, and the Barons that fided with them, Hed be- 
 yond Sea , not daring to appear ; fo that this Refignation having been 
 Executed before fb fmall a Number of Barons as appeals by the Witneiles 
 to it, VIZ. but Two Bilhops, the chief Jufticiary, Seven Earls, and Three Barons, 
 without fubjoining t?" aliis Epifcopis, Comuibus, l!f Baronibas, or 6^ Communi- 
 tdte, or tota Communitate , it does not appear that there were any more pre- 
 fent i fo that this could not be luch a Council as was conltituted»by King 
 John\ Charter, that is, it was not a Parliamentary Council, or general Re- 
 prelentative of the whole Nation ; and therefore the Parliament in the 40th 
 of Edioard 111. might very well ihy, the Relignacion was made without their 
 Aflent 5 and fb I think this great Argument of yours comes to nothing. 
 
 F. Pray do not triumph before the Viftory. For 1 doubt not but to prove, 
 iiotwithltanding what you have laid, that this was a real Common Council of 
 
 the
 
 QQ4- B 1 B L 1 O T H E C A P O I. 1 T 1 C A. 
 
 J -> • 
 
 /'/. Matt. 
 
 the Barons and Tenants m Ctpite, in which King John refigned his Crown, 
 tho' not of the Kingdom •, which I prove thus. Firft, it appears by all our 
 pa^^l'^i. Hiftoiians, that King Jihn had pft fummoned all the Earls, Barons, Knights, 
 and Freemen of the Kingdom, whoever they were, and of whomfoever they 
 held, to appear in Arms-, which made lb valt an Army, that after all the 
 ordinary Rabble were fent home, M^.-ir. Pans tells us, that the Knights, Efquires, 
 and Freemen that ftay'd behind, made an Army of Sixty Thoufand Men, 
 who were encamped at Biirhum Down, not far from Dova\ where this Re- 
 fignation was executed : So that this being almolt as great a Meeting as that at 
 Rumc Aktid, the King might about the lame Time very well have fummoned at 
 leaita great Council of all his Tenants in Cipite, to countenance this Refignation ; 
 and that he did do ib, the Charter it lelf lays exprefly •, which had it been other- 
 wile, would have appeared a notorious Lye to the whole World. Nor are your 
 Objeflions to the contrary confiderable. For, you fay^ this was only a Military 
 Summons, and not to a Common Council, yet fuch a 'one as was conftituted by 
 this King's' Charter, which fure could not be at this Time, when that Charter was 
 not yet made till the Year after, before which, you grant, that the great Councils, 
 might have met without the 40 Days Summons, expreffing the Caule of their 
 Meeting :, and if they could meet ex More, as you grant this Council did at the great 
 Feafts ot the Year, without any Sumxiions at all, liire they might as well meet now 
 on fuch an Exigency : The King had, 'tis true, fummoned them at firft upon ano- 
 ther Occafion ; but lay you, there was fo fmall a NumT^er of Barons at this Meet- 
 ing, that it could not be a Common Council of the whole Kingdom"-, neither do I 
 fay it was, but the contrary j but how doth it appear it was not ? Why lay you. 
 Five of the Bii'hops were then tied into France, with a great many of the Barons 
 of their Party. The latter is not true in Fact -, few or none of the Barons fiding 
 with thele Bilhops ; but as for the Bifhops, what if Five were abfent? Were 
 there not enough left to have made a Common Council of the reft of the 
 Tenants in Capite > Well, but there were but Two Bifhops prelent, and Seven 
 Earls, and Three Barons, as appears by their Names at the End of this Char- 
 ter without any mention of m.ore, or of the whole Communiries being there. 
 A fpecial Realbn, as if no more could be prelent at this Aflembly than whole 
 Names are to it ; by this Rule, the great Charters of King J^ohn, and 9th 
 of Hen. Ill- were not made in a great Council of the whole Kingdom ; for 
 there are no Witneffes Names exprefled at the End of them ; 'tis true, at 
 the Beginning of thefe Charters it is laid they were done by the Council of 
 certain Bifhops, Earls, and Barons, which yet were but a very few more of all 
 Sc«:ts than there are mentioned at the End of this Charter of King John's Refigna- 
 tion ; So that this Appearance of the Bilhops, Earls, and Barons, and Tenants in Ca- 
 pite is meerly precarious -, for if more might very well have been there, it is moft 
 likely they were, notwithftanding the Paucity of the Witnefles to this Charter 5 
 fince thofe were added only for Form fake, and were commonly thole who were , 
 neareft the Throne when the Seal was put to it. 
 
 I contefs your firft Objeftion is more material from Eadmerus, of the whole 
 Kingdoms meeting the King at Cbrijimas ex more , without any Summons 
 mentioned ^ to which it may be reply'd, that there rpight be a Summons to 
 the whole Kingdom to meet, as well as to the Tenants in Cipite -., and this 
 happening at Chrijhnas, one of the ufual Times of their Meeting, this Author 
 might apply the Title of this Court to the Council of the whole Kingdom : 
 And that this was fo, will appear from an Anonymous Author who wrote in 
 H. I. his Time, publifhed by Mr. Sylas Taylor, in his Hiftory oi Gavel-Jdni, 
 ( V- 1 94) who relates this Eleftion of Archbifhop Lanfranc to have been made 
 Cotnmuni Confcnfu iS/ Confilio omnium Baronum fuorum, omniuynque Epifcoporum., 
 i^ Abbatiim, totiufque Popu/i -, which certainly muft mean Ibmewhat more than 
 your Codicil of Tenants in Capite alone. /■ 
 
 And this alfo is confirmed by Mu. Paris, who has been Ib careful, as to 
 mention a Summons to a great Council immediately after the holding of the 
 Curia of Tenants m Capite at Chnjlmas ^ the Words are thus : Anno Dom. 
 1257. '• ^- t^'^ 2ift of ii"/?/-^ Ill, tenuis Rex curiam fuum ad natale apud Win- 
 ton mijit, autem continuo per omnes fines Angtidt Scripta Regalia pracipient om- 
 nibus ad Regnum fpeBantibus, Archiepifcopis, Epifcopis, Mbatibus, Prioribus, 
 Comitibifs £^ BaromL'Ks, ur omnes in oUabis Ejpipbania LQndoniii convenirent. Now 
 
 pray
 
 Dialogue tie Sevemlh ooc 
 
 pray tell me, if this Curia held ex more at Cbriftmjs, had been the Great 
 Council ot the whole Kingdom, confiftirig of the Archhilhops, Bifhops, ^Ab- 
 bots, Earls and Barons, and other Tenants i/i Capitf, to what purpcle (hould 
 the King cominuo, (i.e. immediately after) ifilic out his Writs for Summoning the 
 vefy fame Perlbiis to meet him at London on the Ociuve of St. Ililhry^ when 
 they were then all with the King at IVincheJkr; and that he might then have 
 communiated what he had pleafed to them. 
 
 Of what have you to lay to the Curta or Council held before, in the Ninth 
 of this King, buf Eleven Years after King ^John's Magnd Chartii, when the 
 Great Charters were contirmed, and an Aid granted by the whole Kingdom? which 
 illj//. Paris, Anno Pom. 1225. relates thus: (which tho' I gave you at our 
 laft meeting, it will not be amifs to repeat again:) Rex Hcmicus poft 
 natale tcnuit curiam fuam apui Weftmcn. pr^fentibus Clcro t^ Fopu/o cum 
 Magnatibus Regionn -., \\\\v±. Words (as I have already urged j mult compre- 
 hend fome other Perfons than your Tenants in Opite alone ; otherwife the 
 Word Topulos had been altogether in vain. So that you ftc the Common 
 Council of the whole Kingdom was often held at the lam's Time with the 
 ordinary Curia , and is by way of Excellency called by the lame Name as 
 we at this Ehy Cill the Great Cou;icil of the Kingdom, the High Court of 
 Parliament : And Citriu and Court differ no more than a Laiin Name from an 
 Englijh •, which is likewiie very well confirmed and explained in the Chroni- 
 cle of Walter of Ccrventry (ro be found in divers Libraries) wha lived in the 
 Reigns of King John and Henry HI. and fpeaking of this very Council or Par- 
 liament (which though it might begin at Chriftmas with the Curia., yet it 
 feems held on till Candlemm) when the Commons were joined to ir ^ he fays 
 thuSi In ?urifi:atione beatie Marine convocantur apui London, Proceres An- 
 gli.f, ibiqs traclatu habito diffufwre, cum Clero, &" Populo ibidem convocato. Rex 
 conceffu Libertates tarn Ecclefu, quam Regni, (pmn lorejle, Jlcut carts fu£ funt 
 tnde confetU. Now 1 leave it to your felf to judge, whether by thele Words, 
 TraHatu diffufwrc habito cum Clero, t^ Popa/o, f^c. ( put after the calling of the 
 Vroceres, i.e. Great Lords and Tenants in Capite), any thing can be meant 
 but the inferior Clergy and Commons : All which being joined in one Body, 
 made up the Commune Concilium Regni. And that this was fb, appears by the 
 date of this Great Charter it felf, 1 1 I'ebruari; nono Henry III. But that the 
 whole Council or Parliament when thus joined, was likewiie called Curia Regis, 
 I an prove by feveral Examples ^ Among which fee the Stat, of Merton in 
 20 Henry IIL beginning thus i Provifum ejl in curia Domini Regis Henrico, &c. 
 coram Will. Cant. Archiepifcopo ^ Epifcopis fuffragancis fuk, iS' coram major e 
 parte Comitum iS Baronum Anglia ibidem exijlentium pro Coronatione ejujdern 
 Regis, pro qua omnes vocati Juerunt, it a provifum fuit, ^ conceljum tarn a 
 prediBts Archicpijc. Epif. Comiiibus , BaronibifS, quam ah ipfo Rege , iff Aliis. 
 Now who can thele Alij mean, coming thus after Barones, but the Commons 
 as now underttood ? 
 
 M. I confefs thele Authorities you have now brought carry fome Colour of 
 an Argument, but if they are look'd into will lignify little. To begin with 
 your firft Ciiiotation from Matt. Paris •, Suppofe I grant that there was a Curia 
 ex more held at Wejhninjhr, at which there then appear'd at Court only a 
 fmall number of the Bilhops, Lords, and great Tenants in Capite -. But the 
 King not finding them enough for the great Affairs he had then to commu- 
 nicate to them, immediately iffued out his Royal Writs to all the Orders of 
 Men there mentioned, to appear at London on ih^Oduves o^ S:. Hillary :, bat 
 how can yon affirm there were any Commons then fiimmoned in the Senfe in 
 which they a'e now taken , the Barons being the loweft Order here exprefly 
 mentioned ? But if you would but have read the Words that immediately follow 
 in thi:i place you have now cited, you would eafily lee that your Knights of 
 Shires, and Bui geffes could not then be there ^ the W^ords are thefe,^tvwr igi- 
 tur die Sandi Hillarij Londonias infinitum h'obilium muliitud.> : I low could thefe 
 Rcprdentaiiv-s of .he Commons have been eleflcd .and returned in lb fhort a 
 Time rs between Chnjhnas and Eight Days after Tvoclftide^ Sa that thete 
 could have been fcarce Three Weeks Time from the Date of the Writs pre- 
 fently after Chriflmasday., to the meeting of the Parliament. But tlie Truth is, 
 
 by
 
 33<^ B I L I. I O T H E C A P O I, 1 T I C A. 
 
 by this infinita Nobiii/m Muhitudo , who are here fa id to have cotne to LoMofi, 
 is to be underltood the great Number of the fmaller Tenants in Qipite , whoail 
 appeared at this Council according to King Jch/i'i Charter : Whereas yOiir 
 Knights of Shires, Citizens and Burgefles, if they had all come at that Time. 
 could not be called wfi/iiui Kobilium M'tltitudo, as not confilting at this Day of 
 ^co Perfbns -, and fure would have been tewer then. But as for your other 
 /\uthorities, if this be true 1 have now laid down, tFiey will be as eafily anlwer- 
 ed ; fince by the word Fopu/us , ( put before, and diitincf from the Mi^mnfs, in 
 the Paflage you have now quoted from Ahit. P</m ) thefe fmaller Tenants i/i Qi- 
 pile are to be underftood •, and by Magnaies, the Bidiops and Great Lords. And 
 this alio explains the like Phrafe you now cite from Wulter of Coventry ^ where 
 by Frocercs iy Fopi/his, are to be underltood the fame Orders of Men, as by Ahig- 
 ■nates is' Fopultis , in Mat. Fark : So that it was with the Smaller Tenants \n Ca- 
 piie, and the Inferior Clergy , with whom the King had this larger or more diffu- 
 live Treaty, as this Author words it. 
 
 F. I confefs, you have now pur a very fliir Glofs upon thefe Places I have now 
 made ufe of: But 'tis an Hundred Pities that fuch a fine Hypochefis Ihould have 
 no better Proofs , than bare Surmifes, to fupport it ; for that is all the Au- 
 thority that I can fee you bring tor your Senle of this Word Fopulm, for the 
 fmaller Tenants in Cap'ite, and not for the reft of the People :, but I lee no good 
 Authority as yet brought by you to prove it, except that Claufe in King Johns 
 Charter •, which if (as 1 have lately Oiewed you j it will bear a quite different 
 Interpretation, all that you have laid ypon that Head will fignity nothing. There- _ 
 fore, as for the main' Argument you raife from the Words , infinita Mu/tiruda' 
 Kobilium , in Mat. Fan's , that they could not be the Knights of Shires , to- 
 gether with the Citizens and Burgefles, becaufe they could not be fuch an infi- 
 nite Multitude as this Author here mentions to have nnet at London ; as alfo be- 
 caufe of the Shortnefs of the Time of the Summons : If thefe are material Objecti- 
 ons againit our Opinion , fo it will be likewife^ againlt yours : For how could 
 this be a Great Council, acccording to King 7(3/;y?'s Charter , which exprefly pro- 
 vides for Forty Days Summons, for the Tenants in Capite to come to this At 
 fembly ? And if fo be this Ufage was broken at this Time, upon fome ur- 
 gent Occafion , in refpeCt of them ; it might be fo alfo as to all the reft of the 
 Kingdom ; for the Knights of Shires might be chofen at the next County-Court, 
 and ^heir Names returned immediately before, or together with their Meeting 
 at London. And as to the Citizens and Burgeffes, it was yet more eafy for them 
 to be chofen and returned in Three Weeks Time ; fince every body knows, the 
 Cities might have called Common Councils ^ and the Towns and Boroughs, by 
 the Notice of their proper Officers , to whom the Writs were deliver 'd , might 
 have aflembled at their ufual Pbces of Electing , immediately upon the Receipt 
 of the Writs i and thefe, together with the Knights, Citizens and Burgeffes, 
 joined with the Great Lords and Tenants in Gipite, made up the infinita Nobilium 
 Midtitiido^ mention'd by Mat. Fark. 
 
 But your main Objeftion, I confefs, is behind ; how thefe Reprefentatives of 
 the Commons, here called infinita Kobilium Muhitudo, could be tlie Knights, Ci- 
 tizens and Burgeffes -, whole Number could not be, at that Time, above 500 
 Perfons '< As for this , pray confider , if the Difficulty will not bear as hard 
 upon you : For if your Tenants in Capite made fuch a vaft Multitude •, all thofe 
 Difficulties will arife, that you prefs me with upon my Hypothefis, of the Meet- 
 ing of all the chief Freeholders (or Lords of Manors in England) in Parlia- 
 ment , before Kniglits of Shires were introduced in the room of them •, viz. 
 How it was poffible tor fo great a Multitude to Debate, Vote, or do any Bufi- 
 nefs •, and what Room , or Ciiurch, was able to hold fo many ; and the like. 
 So that granting all your fmaller Tenants in Capite (fbme of whom had but one 
 Knie.ht's Fee apiece) to have met there, thefe might have made a Body of Five 
 or Six T^)uland Men ; which how they could have been managed any better than 
 Ten Thoufand, or Twenty Thoufand, (which would have more than taken in all 
 their Feudatory Tenants too) I defire you would refolve me, if you can. So that 
 at laft, upon your own Hyporhelis, this Fopult/s (the People) confifting of the Te- 
 nants in Capite, were as much Commoners, as the Knights of Shires at this Day. 
 For us for the Word Nobilim , I have already proved , ( and you muft needs here 
 
 grant
 
 T>ialoo^iie t/:e Seieuth. ' 537 
 
 ^rant it) that ir takes in the Inferior Nobility or Gentry, under the Degree of 
 Lords, as well as the Superior ^ and if fo , why not all the Confiderable Mefiie 
 Tenants of thofe Tenains niCapite ? So tliar you have hitherto brought no Proof) 
 but your bare ACTcrtion , that uinier this injinaa Mii/ritudo Nobiiium tP' Pop»/i/s, 
 mult be underftood only the Great Lords, and Tenants /« C/pire ^ fince either this 
 Author rpeaks hyptrbolically, or clfe all tlie Chiel' Gentry of EngLmd, of whatlb- 
 e\er Tenure, might have as well appear'd at this Great and Extraordinary Af^ 
 fembly. 
 
 So that you are under thi^ Di'emma ^ either this Curia (which you confefs 
 met ex viore ) was the Great Council of the Kingdom , or it was not : If it was 
 not, then there was Ibme other Greater Council befides that •, but if it ivas, then 
 it will plainly follow, (tho' you do all you can to mince rhe Matter) that this 
 Great Council of the Kingdom, or Parliament, met ofcourfe by ancient Cuifom 
 Three times in the Year, without any Summons at all from the King • Which 
 if I fhould have affirmed , you would have called ir a Commonwealth Notion j 
 fince nothing can be a greater Proof, that this Aflembly of the whole Nation in 
 Parliament, did not, upon your Hypotliefis, immediately depend on the King'3 
 Writs of Summons, for their Airembling and Afting when met. 
 
 M. Well, fince you can bring no dire6\ Proof, that theft were any other be- 
 fides the Tenants tn Cipitc , who met at this Great Council ; I have ftiil more 
 Reafon to fuppofe them to have been !<->, than you can have for the contrary Opini- 
 on i therefore pray give me ( if you can ) fome clearer and later Proofs, for this 
 Difference between the Two Councils. 
 
 F. I ihall comply with your Defires ; and, in order to it, (Irall conclude with 
 Two or Three of thofe very Authorities the Dn£lor has given us in his Anfwer to 
 Mr. P. Where he gives us this PafTage out of Mat. Parts, in the 28th of Hen- 
 ry 111. (which plainly proves the Tenants in Capite not to have been the common 
 Univerfity, or (ole Reprefentative of the whole Kingdom i) pray read it : Eodem B. A. Pi 
 Anno convencrunt rcgia fummcmitione, ccrivocati hoTidinum, Magnates totius Reg»i, ^'' ^i9' 
 Archiepifccpi Epifccfi, Abbates, Priores, Ccmites ilf Barones ; in quo Confilio pe- ^' ^" '^'^*' 
 tiit Rex ore propria , in prsjentia JIagnatum , (7. e. of all the Parties above men; 
 tioned ) in Re/e&orio Welbiwnajierienji^ AuxUi:(m fieri pecuniare ^ cut fuit rejpon- 
 fum quodfuper hoc traBarent : Recedentejqtie Magnates de Refi ffor/o , convcne- 
 runt Archicpifcopi, fjf Epifcopi, Abbates & Priorcs .^ feorfim per fe fuperque hoc 
 diligenter tracluturi, tandem requifiti finer unt ex parte eorum, Comiies & Barones^ 
 fit vellent illn unanimiter conj entire in rcfiprnfiione t?" provfiione fiuper his fiucienda -, 
 qui refiponderunt . {ficilicet Comites & Barones) quod fit ne Communi Univer- 
 litate nihil fiacerent ^ tunc de communi aJJ'enfu eleBi juerunt ex parte Ckri, E- 
 leBus Cant. iSc. 
 
 Now I think, here is as manifelt a DiftinQion as need to be between the Lords 
 and Commons, as Members of the Great Council , and the Common Univerfity j a a 
 of the whole Kingdom : For it is obvious, that when all the Lay-Lords, Earls ;>. io;, '208. 
 and Barons (to whom you may alio add your Tenants in Capite, if you pleafe) 
 being met together, were asked by the Bifhops, Abbots and Priors then pre- 
 fent. Whether they would agree with them, or not ? The Earls and Barons an- 
 fwered for themfelves, That they would do nothing without the Common Univer- 
 fity ; which could not pofTibly be only the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Te- 
 nants in Capite, fince they were now all here, and referred themfelves to ano* 
 ther dillinQ Order of Men, different from themfelves, (who were not there prefent) 
 as alfb from the Bifhops, Abbots and Priors, who demanded their Confents to 
 what rhcy had agreed upon. Now if the Temporal Lords, and Tenants in Ca- 
 pite , had concurred ; here had been the Confent of the Common IJniverfiity of 
 Lords, and Tenants in Capitc. But befides the Confent of all thefe , there was, 
 notwithltanding, (it feems) required the Confent of another Body of NJen, cal- 
 led here the Communis Vniverfiita* s by which mult be meant the Commons^ 
 or no body, fince otherwife they might have all agreed together without any 
 more ado. 
 
 7II. I confefs, this Story out of Mat. Park looks fomcvvhat plaufible at the firft 
 Ofi your fide ; but I doubt not, if it be better confider'd , it will do you lit- 
 tle Service : For what if by this Common Vniverjity , is to be underftood the 
 whole Body of Lefler Tenants in Capite -, who not fitting with the Lords at 
 
 X X that
 
 338 
 
 BlBLlOTHECA PoLlTlCA. 
 
 that Time ; they would do iwthing without their Confents, till it was propofed 
 to them. But that they did afterwards all agree •, Pray read the reft of this 
 Narration, and it will make it clear enough, that this Common Vmverfity of 
 Tenants in Capitc did alfo agree with the Lords, Bifliops, and Ahbots: The 
 Words immediately following in Mat.fdris, ^xathQ^n: Tunc de commun'i nffen- 
 fu eJeBi juerunt ex parte Qert, EleBiis Cammr'ienfis, Wintomenfis, Lmcolmenfis^ 
 C Wigprmcnfis Epi/copi ex parte hakoriim^ Richardus Comes J rater Domini Fegfs, 
 Corns Bigod, Comes Legr. S. de Monteforti, b" Comes MarefchjUiis ex parte vera 
 Baronum Richardm de Montjichet & Johannes de Baliol, iSf de San3o Edmiindo, 
 Vf Ramefeia Abbates ; ut quod ifti duodeam providerent in communi recitareiur, 
 nee ali qua forma Domino Regi o [lender etur Author it ate duodecim nifi omnium com- 
 munis ajjenfw interveniret. From which Lit Paflage it appears plain to me, 
 that in this Parliament the feveral Orders of Men that were the conftituenc 
 Farts of it, were only the BKhops, Abbots, Priors, Karls, and Barons : And 
 that all thele put together were termed the Common Univerfity, which is more 
 comprehenfive than Univerfity fimply taken. Now if the Commons, as at this 
 Day reprefented had been there, we mult have had fome Mention of them 
 one way or other •, as well as of the Committees of the other Orders which 
 made up the general Committe of Twelve ^ fo that it is plain beyond doubt, 
 that the Commons were not part of the Common Univerjity. 
 
 P. Then pray tell me who they were^ for the Hiftorian tells, that when all 
 thefe Bilhops, Abbots, Priors, had now met together, with the Eailsand Barons-, 
 yet thefe laft tell them, that without the Common Univerfity they could do no- 
 thing; which had been Nonfenfe, if, as your Doctor hjppofes, the whole Univer- 
 fity or Community of the Kingdom had been all prelent. 
 
 A\. I muft confefs this is a material Objetlion -, bur what if to help him 
 out, I fhould tell you, that by the Common Univerfity here mentioned, is to 
 be undetftood the Body of the Inferior Tenants in Capite, under the Degree of 
 Barons j and this Common Univerfity of Tenants in Capite might not have 
 been prefent, and fat with the Earls and Barons at that Time, when the BKhops 
 and Abbots made this Propofal : Therefore the Lords might very well a'n- 
 fwer. That till they had confulted the Common Univerfity, or Body of Tenants 
 in Capite, they could do nothing. And though this Body of Tenants in Capite 
 did not then actually fit with the Earls and Barons ^ yet doth it not follow 
 that they made a diftin£l Eltate by themfelves, difterent from that of the 
 Lords or greater Tenants in Capite : For then the Archbifhop';, Bilhops, Ab- 
 bots, ^c. (who are here exprelly faid to have confulted by themlelves,) muft 
 have done fo likewife; Therefore, hough our Author is not fo particular 
 as he might have been •, yet certainly this Common Univerlity were thereupon 
 confulted, and gave their Aflents to the Choice of this Committee of Twelve, 
 who were to draw up their Anfwer to the King : For the Words are. Tunc 
 ex communi ajjenju elelli fuerunt ■■, which feem to refer to the Common 
 Univerfity or Body of Tenants in Capites or elfe the Lords Excufc, as well 
 as the Eleftion of thefe Perfons by the Bifhops, Earls, £?V. had been very 
 infignificant. 
 
 F; This feems to me to be a precarious AfiTertion, and without any due 
 Proof i for tho' the Words are Tunc ex Communi AJfcnfit, yet I very much doubt 
 whether thefe Words do refer to the Cojnnwn Vmverfity of the whole Kingdom 
 or not. For you your felt confefs, that Mat. Paris isfJiort in ihk Tnint ; and that 
 it was not fo, feems more likely to me by this material Circumltaiice, that not 
 one Ferfon of the Twelve but was either a Bifhop, Earl, or Great Baron. 
 (For that Richard de Alontfchet, ani John de Baliol were lb. Sir IVilliam 
 Tom. I. Dugdale hath proved in his Baronage of England : ) Wliereas, if the Univerfity 
 or Body«'Of the Tenants in Capite had joined in this Election -, ic is not likely 
 but they would have Chofen fome of their own Body to reprefenr them in this 
 Committee, who were not Earls or Barons. Since your felt muft contefs, that 
 there then were a great Body of Men who were not Lords, nor did at this Time 
 Sit or Aft jointly with the Lords, or greater Barons in rhis Afiemblv. And 
 likewife it farther feems highly probable, that this Common Univerfity of Tenants 
 in Capite (take it in your Senft) did not give any Relblution in tiiis Mjtcet; lince 
 we do not find any Money given in Anfwer to the King's Requeit , but only 
 
 Complaiius 
 
 2
 
 Diahgiie tr:e Seve;nh, oag 
 
 Complaints of' and Orders about Redrefllng of Grievances •, which was in thofe 
 Days ofk-n done in a Great Council ot theBilhops, Lords, and Tenants;/? 
 (Hpire. 
 
 But I (hall fhew you now by feme other Records which the Doclor him B. /. p. 
 ielf hath muie ufe of, that there often was a diltin£l Aflembly or Cjuncil oi P'^- 197. 
 the Lords and Tenants in Gipitc, difterent from that of the Commons or Com- 
 monalty of the whole Kingdom. The Hr it Record is to be found amon;^ the hi.iz. 
 Patent Rolls" of the 42 Henry III. beginning thus-. Rex omnibus, &:c. cum 
 ncgoiiii nui^ris ariuii, nos ifj Kcgnum noftnim contingcntibiis, Proceres, ^ lide- 
 les Regni nojhi ad nos London In ^dnJen.i Yafchte froximx prxterita facere- 
 tttus convocari, ^ cum de l^egotiii fupra di3is, t^ maxime dc profecutione Negotij 
 Sicilit diligent er cum iijdem traUuremus, ac ipfi nobis rejponicrunt quodfiftutum 
 Regni noP.ri^ per Cimcibum Yidc'ium J^ojirorum ratificandum duxerimus, ^ Do- 
 minus Piipa Conditwnes circa fjcticm Sici/ia uppofuat melioraverit ^ per quod A'rge- 
 tium illud profcqui poffctni/s cum efeffu, ipjft diligentiam fiielher opponent erga 
 CommunitJtem Regni noftri quod nobis Commune Auxi/ium ad hoc prxftctur, &c. 
 The reft 1 (hall not 'trouble you with , becaufe it is not to our prelent 
 purpofe. , 
 
 But you may here lee, that taking the Words Proceres and Fidcks in your 
 own Senfe, the former for the Bilhops and Lords, t>c. and the 1 icter for' the 
 Tenants in Qipire , who were called to confult about the Bufinels of Sici/y 
 (which Kingdom the King had before too rafhly accepted of from the Popi :) 
 Yet tho' they were all met, they could do nothing but give him Advice, and 
 could give him no Commune Auxilium, i. e. common Aids or Subfidies, without 
 the Conlent of the Commonalty of the Kingdom. Now what ran this Com- 
 munity fignify but the Comimns ^ for your Lords and Ten-jnts in C.ipite were 
 all met already, and if they alone made up the Common Univerjity or Body 
 of the Kingdom (as you fuppole,) why could they not have immediately- 
 granted the King the Afliftance he defired (if they had a fufiicient Power lo 
 to do, ) without putting him oft" with a Proniife, that they v.ould ule their en- 
 deavour with the Community of the Kingdom, (as a diftinft Order or Body of 
 Men,) that this Aid or Sublidy Ihould be given him : And upon this Con- 
 dition it is, that at the end of this Record, the King promiles them, that be- 
 fore Chrifimas, he would mend the State of the Kingdom, per Confilium Pro- 
 borum &' Ude/ium Hominum n-'ftrorum, which can mean nothing Icfs than a 
 Parliament. Which the next Record in the fame Roll recites, was to meet at 
 Oxford after the Featt of Pentecojf. Wiiich Record, fince it not only recites 
 the King's Oath, whereby he had bound himfelf to obferve the Direction of a 
 Committee of 24 fide/cs, i. e. faithful or Loy^l Men, Twelve of wliich were to 
 be chofen out of the King's Council , and the other Twelve by the Proceres 
 or Mugnatcs Regni, as I have already proved, may take in the Com- 
 mons as well as the Lords, But whether by thefe Words were meant the Lords 
 or Commons, the Conclufion of this Record fufficiently conlirms my Argument 
 from the precedent Record, that the Lords and Tenants in Ctpite, could not 
 then Tax the whole Kingdom at their Pleafure , without the Confent of the 
 Commons : Or elle to what purpofe are thele Words in the Conclufion of this 
 lalt Record ; Promiferunt etiam nobis Comites, tv Burones Memorati, quod ex- 
 pletis Kegotiii fuperius tattis, bona fide laborabunt ad hoc quod Auxi/ium nobis 
 Commune pr.ffictur a Communitate Regni noftri in cujus rei, See. Dat. 2 die 
 Maij. And it appears by the Date, as aifo by the Entry on the Roll, that both 
 theie Records were perfefted at once, and concerning the fame Bufinefs. And 
 further, to prove that the Parties appointed in the Record to be chofen ex parte 
 Procerum , were not chofen by the Great Lords, or Peers only, may be leen 
 from a Patent Roll of the larhe 42 Henry III. whereby Henry de IVengham, jn^^^ 
 Dean of St. yiL//7/« le Grand, and then Reaper of the (ireat Seal; and John 
 Manfel, Yio\o]X o{ Bevcr lay, were two of the faid Commiilionersi tho' they 
 were neither Barons nor Tenants in Capue (as I know of) but only Eminent 
 Lawyers, and Men of Great Abilities (and fo meet Commoners.) Yet Aiat. ^''-i^'- 
 Weftminlh'r calls thefe Men Proceres, as you may fee by this P.ifljge, fpeakiiig 
 of this whole Committee, Videntes ergo Proceres antedi^fi v/ginti quatuor, ad Rcgfs 
 t5' Regni regimen fic EkHi, &.c. 
 
 X X 2 I Hiali
 
 QAO B I B L I O T H E C A P O L 1 T I C A. 
 
 
 FJ.109- I fhall now only conclude with a Frcmh Record, which the Dc£tor himfelf 
 
 hath alfo given us at large, and which refers to the laid Committee oi 24. 
 
 above-mentioned : It begins thus, Hcmy pur la Grace de Dieu Roy d Englctcrre^ 
 
 gf c. a touz ecus, 8cc. Sachiez ce pur le profit de noflrc Reaume e a la Kequefic 
 
 de nos hauz Homes e Prodes Horn's, e du Commun de nofire Reaume, Otreyames 
 
 ec Vint quatre Hones euifent per, perquc lout ce qml ordene'irent dc' Ejlat de 
 
 'nofire Reaume fufl fenn ejlablc ^ the relt being very long, you may read at 
 
 your Leifure ; only I fliall take Notice of the date of this Letter, to which 
 
 jl,y_ ■ the King alio put to his Seal : The Condufion being thus-, Cefte chofe feu Jeite a 
 
 Lurtdre landemaigne procheln apres la Gaule haut I' an de nvflrc ccrronernent 
 
 quarente fecunde. And tho' tlie Do^or can make nothing of the Words Gaule 
 
 baut; this happened, Ifuppole, either from the bad Writing of the Record, 
 
 or from the Ignorance or Miftake of the Tranfcriber ^ for it (hould be Gaule 
 
 y. t; I c' ' ^^ ^"^■> ^^^3"^ is > ^^^ ^^^'' ^^ J^iipifi\ which is a great Holiday in the 
 
 riA.GdaAu-' Church of Rome upon the Firft of Augufi, (called alfo St. Fetri ad Vincula) 
 
 guiii. in the Memory of St. Feters Chains curing of a Roman Virgin by her 
 
 Kifling them. 
 
 I Ihall farther obferve from this Record, that the Hauz or Frodes Homes 
 mentioned in this Record, being taken in the Doftor's own Senle for High and 
 Wife Men, that is, the Earls, and Barons ; yet the Words e du Comm,,ne that 
 immediately follow them, muft needs fignify fome Body of Men different from 
 the former ; or elie it had been a notorious piece of Nonfenle -, fince if rhe 
 former Words had taken in all the Lords and Tenants in Capite, rhat is '^in 
 vour Senfe ) the whole Community of the Kingdom ; to what purpofe are theie 
 Words e du Commune, that are immediately fubjoined ? fince the hauz ^ Prodes 
 Homes would have ferved to exprefs all the Lords and Tenants in Capite, whe- 
 ther taken as Great or as Wife Men. 
 
 M. I confefs what you have now faid would carry fbme weight with it, were 
 I not very well fatisfied, that you impole upon your felf, by taking (as I told 
 you at our laft Meeting) thefe Words Communitai, le Commune, ^ Communalti 
 in a wrong Senfe, for the Commons as they are now :, when indeed thefe 
 Words before the 49"^*^ o{ Henry VA. nay the 18''' oi" Edward L (as the Learned 
 Doctor (hews us in his 2'' Edition againlt Mr. P.) are always to be underltood, 
 either of the whole Reprefentative Body of the Kingdom in general, confifting of 
 the Bifliops, Abbots, Earls, and Barons, together with all the Tenants in Capite, 
 called by Mat. Paris and other Hiftorians, Community Baronagij; or elfe for the 
 Community of the Tenants in Capite alone, ftiled Communitof Regni in our 
 Ancient Records. And this I think I can prove to you by undoubted Tefti- 
 monies ^ but fince you are now upon the proving Part, pray (hew me that thefe 
 Words I now mentioned did ever fignify the Commons of England in the Senfe 
 they are now taken, before the Times we infilt on. And I have the more Rea- 
 fon to defire this from you , becaufe it is chiefly from the miftaken Applica- 
 tion of thefe Words, that the Gentlemen of your Opinion have impofed their 
 falfe Notions upon the World. 
 
 E I (hall undertake what you defire -, and I hope if I cannot fatisfy you,- 
 the Fault will not lie in my Authorities, but your Prejudices againft them. 
 In the firft Place, therefore, let me mind you, how fir you and I agreed at 
 our laft Meeting, when I granted you that thefe Words Communitoi, la Commune, 
 iSf la Communalte-i now in Difpute, were very Equivocal, and were often taken in 
 difterent Senfes ; as Ibmetimes, you fay true, for the whole Reprefentative Body 
 of the Kingdom \ fometimes lor the Community of the Barons , at'd Ibme- 
 times for the Community of the Bi(hops and Clergy -, but never as I know of 
 for the Community of the Bidrops, Lords, and Tenants in Capite, much lets tor 
 the Body of Tenants in Capite alone ; nor were you then able to prove to me, 
 that thele Words muft neceilarily be underttood in your Senfe, F^r the Community 
 of the Tenants in Capite. And tho' you (hould prove them fometimes to be taken 
 in that Senfe, yet would it rather make againft, than for your Opinion; fince 
 they mult ftill fignify a difterent Body of Men from your great Lords, and con- 
 fequently as meet Commoners as your Knights of Shires at this Day •, which is 
 againft your firft general Aflertion, that by thefe Words are always underltood 
 the Community of the Baronage only. 
 
 Bat
 
 ^Dialogue the Seventh. ci/^^i 
 
 But to come to my Proofs (which I fhall divide in Two Parts ,) Firft, I will 
 prove tliac chefe XNori-i Communitus, k Commune, and Qvmmundhy, when coming 
 immediately after Canutes ©' Baroncs, or Counts and Barons, or Pnxercs, in our 
 old Statutes and ivccords, do always fignify the Commons in the ftme Senfe 
 in which they are now taken : And tor Proof of this, 1 will begin with the 
 Reign of Henry III. when thefc Words came firft to be generally in Ufe, and fa 
 defcend to his Succeffors as low as Richard II. And if 1 can Ihew you, that rhele 
 Words ( fo put) always fignify the Commons, as well before, as after that Time-, 
 I think you have Realbn to be latisfied, that there was never once upon a Tivm 
 llich a Ihange Alteration in the conftituent Parts of our gr-at Councils, as you 
 furpofcJ ; and yet none of our Ancient Hiltorians or Statute^ jhould ever take any 
 Notic - of it, till thele modern Antiquaries took upon them to difperfe thefe 
 Qouds. 
 
 To begin firft with the Words le Commune-, pray Temembe*- the Paten*- ''. R. c y^jr. 
 Roll of the 48th 01 Henry Hi. which I mcucioied at our laft Mcerii.g, vi^ ''^f-48/^. ?. 
 the Form of the Peace between this King, the Prince his Son, and the whole g^'.'^j 
 Body of the Kingdom Alfembled in Parliament j the Title of whxh i ■ thus : " ' ' 
 Ufr cjf forma pacts a Dom. Rege, t!f Dom. Fdw. f'tlio fuo^ F/'.flatis, Froceribus 
 omnibus cum Communitate tota Rcgni nnglite communiter, £7' concorditer cipfirobata. 
 Now pray wnat can thefe Words Comtnunitate tota here fignify, bur ' liiother 
 Body of Men diftinft from the Earls and Barons, or elfe it would be a grofs 
 Tautology. 
 
 And pray compare this Form of the Peace now mentioned, with the Writs 
 of Summons of the 49th of this King (when your Doftor grants the Com- 
 mon i were Summoned to Parliament after the fame Manner as they are now) 
 and fee if there be any Change in the Terms ^ and for Proof of this, we need 
 go no further than the very Writ of Fxpences (for the Wages of the Knights 
 of Shires, which the Doftor hinifelf has given us at large in his Anfwer to 
 Mr. P. ) it is the 49th of Hen. III. to the Sheriff of Torkjhire, wherein, after Rot. C. 45. h. 
 other Recitals, it follows thus, Cumque Communitates Comitatuum di&orum va- ^"'^'.}-°' ^^''f'^' 
 riot hoc Anno, fccer'int prxjiationcs ad defenjionem Rcgni wjhi, SCc. He there- 
 fore commands the faid Sherift, quod duobus mi/itibus qui pro Communitate 
 dim Comitatus prafato Farliamento interfuerunt, Kc. Ihould he paid their reafon- 
 able Fxpences, LV Communitate Comitatus pr^diffi: For going to, and flaying 
 at, and returning from the laid Parliament, i!fc. From whence it appears, that 
 the Word Communttas and Communitates in this Writ, cannot fignify the Com- 
 munity of Tenants in Cipite alone, but the Commons of the County in ge- 
 neral i unlefs you can prove to me that none but Tenants in Capite had per- 
 formed thefe varias prxflationes in the Writ, and that none but they then con- 
 tributed to thefe Fxpences of the Knights of Shires ; otherwife thefe Words 
 muft plainly fignify the Commons in general, as they did in the like Writ of 
 the 28th of King Edward I. which I (hall give you by and by. But I (hall 
 firft (hew you a few other Records of this Kings Reign, concerning the Word p.r.c. Rot. 
 la Commune (which Mr. P. has given us); they ate in the Patent Roll of the ^■■'- 5'- H. ?. 
 %ift of this King, wherein by the Counfel and AfTent of the King of the '^•'^* 
 Romans, f des Counts, Hj dcs Baroncs , & la Commune de la Terre, He par- 
 dons the Earl of Gloucelter, and all his Company : So likewife in the hme Rollj 
 the King, by the Counfel and AfFent of the /aid Counts, and Barons, iff de la. 
 Commune de la Terre, Pardons the City of 'London, all manner of Rancor and 
 ill Will. 
 
 Now pray tell me a Reafbn, why fhould not the Word la Commune in thefe 
 Afts of Pardon, fignify the fame Thing as the Word Communitas in the Form 
 of the Peace, and in the Writ of Fxpences of the 49ih now cited? Since they 
 come immediately after the Counts and Barons, and fo muft needs fignify a 
 Body of Men diftinft fiom them. For tliere is the fame Rcafon, why the Words 
 la Commune de la Terre, (hould here fignify the Commons of the Land ; as that 
 the \No:d Communitates Comitatus, (hould lighify the Community or Commons of 
 the whole County. 
 
 yVI. Will you give me leave to anfwer this Queftion prclently, hecaule I 
 confefs it is very matetial, before you proceed farther f" Theie may (in my 
 Opinion) very good Realbns be given, 1. Why th-; Words Communitas iff U . 
 
 2 Commune. ,
 
 5^5-2 B I B L 1 O T H E C A P O L I f I C A.' 
 
 Commune^ may fignify the Community of the Tenants m Caplte, in the Form of 
 the Peace, and Arts of Pardon •■> and yet fignify the Commons of the County 
 in general, in the Writ for Expences you have now mentioned ; As Firtt, Be- 
 caule the Subjeft Matter is different in the Form of the Peace, and AQs of Par- 
 don, from that in the Writs of Expences ^ the one being the Ccnimunna* Rcgni^ 
 and the other Comtvunitas Comhatus only, called alfo in the Plural Number, Com- 
 numtates Qomnatuum ; and then 1 grant when thus uled, it always fignifies the 
 Commons in general. And there may be likewife a fufficient Realbn given, why 
 this great Change might have been made in the conlHtuent Parts of our great 
 Councils, and yet no change ot Phrafes or Expreflions might be made in our 
 Records and Statutes, nor any Notice taken ot it by our Hiftorians-, which 
 is, becaufe the firft Knights of Shhes, being chofen out of, and by the Te- 
 nants in Cipitc. only ; the Change was imperceiveable at firft, there being ftill 
 Men of the fame Order, appearing in Parliament, for the whole Body of tliofe 
 Tenants -, the Diftaence being only in the Number, viz. Two, for a whole 
 County ; whereas before, all the Chief Tenants in Capite came in Perfon. And 
 I am the more inclined to be ot" this Opinion, becaufe in this Writ of Expences 
 of the 49th of Henry IlL (which you have now cited) there is no fuch 
 Claufe as is in the following Writs of like Nature, prout in cafu confimili fieri 
 confuevit -, which (hews it to have been a new Thing for the Knights of Shires 
 to have their Expences allowed them, that being the firft Time of their Meeting in 
 Parliament. 
 
 E I confefs what you fay is very plaufible, were there any Colour of a 
 Proof brought by you for it -, but I ihall ihew you further, that your Diftinftion 
 between the Comnmnitiis Eegni^ and the Communitas Comuitus, fignifies nothing, 
 unlefs you can prove that this ConmnniTds Rcgni was not the Rep;efentative of 
 the Comm imitates Coinitatiium mentioned in this Writ, and did not confift of Per- 
 ibnsof the lame Degree or Order ^ for the Writ of Summons of the 49th of 
 Henry IIL fays no more than that thefe Knights ihould be ic kgalioribus £? pe- 
 ritioribifs militibus comitatus, without limiting them to Tenants in Capite. But 
 as for your Reafon, why thefe great Alterations might be made in our great Coun- 
 cils or Parliaments, without any Notice taken of it, it is altogether precarious -, 
 for you have not yet, nor can, I believe, give me any fufficient Authority (befiides 
 the Dortor's bare Alfertion ) that ever none but Tenants in Capite were capable of 
 being Elerted Knights of Shires, or that none but fuch Tenants by Military Service 
 were the EleQors. 
 Vid. Dial. 6ti: And I think I have fufficiently confuted the Vanity of that Aftertion at our 
 laft Meeting, when I fhewed you the falfe Interpretations you gave of thole 
 Statutes of the 7''' of Henry W. and 10th of Henry VI. whereby you would have 
 proved, that there was fome Alteration thereby made, as to the Eleftors of the 
 Knights of Shires at the County Court: Whereas, indeed, before thofe Statutes, 
 all Perfons of whatfbever Tenure, and of howfoever fmall an Eftate of Freehold, 
 who owed Suit and Service to the County Court, were capable of being Eleffors-, 
 and confequently of chufing whom they pleafed, as well Tenants in Capite, as 
 others, to be Knights of the Shire ^ and that thole who were not fuch Tenants 
 were frequently chofen, in the Reigns of Edward the Third, and Richard the 
 Second , I could bring fufRcient Proofs, were it worth while to iniitt upon a 
 Thing io certain. 
 
 But I (hall go on to prove that the lame W^ords, viz. Communitas k Com- 
 Ttiune^ ox laCommunalte, were u fed in moft of our Statutes and Records, to fig- 
 nify the Commons. I come therefore to the Reign of Edwr.rd the Firft, and I 
 pray, in the firft Place, remember, what I took Notice of at our laft Meeting 
 concerning the Statute of Weflminfier the Firft, made in the Third Year of 
 See the Old this King, beginning thus in bench, per V afjentement des Archefques, Evef- 
 French sta- ques. Abbes, Priors, Counts, Barons, &" tout la Communalty de la Terre, lllonquer 
 
 Now every one knows that Communalty is but French for the Latin Com- 
 munitas, as appears by the firft Writs we have left us (except that of the 49ch 
 of Henry the Third, now mentioned ) de expenfis Mi/itum, being of rhe 28th of 
 Rot. clau. this King, direfled to the Sher'ff of SomerfetJIiire, to levy the Expences of the 
 :8//j 0/ Ed. I. jjnightg tor that County "(who had lerved in the laft Parliament) de Ccm- 
 
 r>i. 12. dor 0. ° ^ ' ■ 
 
 ' nmmtatc 
 
 iOKfl
 
 T>}ulogue tie Seventh. q^^ 
 
 mumtate Comhaius frgdiBts i. e. of the Commons of the fiid County in 
 general. The lame Claufe is alfo in the Writs which were then ifTued for the Ex- ''■''• ¥^^Mt 
 pences of the Citizens and Burgefles who ferved in this Parliament ^ which were ^ '*"'• ''n'""^ 
 alio to be levied de Comntunhatc Civ'itaus vel Biirgi, which lure mult mean the Jlia'"p'T^' 
 Commonalty, or Commons of all thole Cities and Boroughs there mentioned ; for 
 the Record is, Eodem tnodo fmbitur Majorihits^ iff BMvk pro Burgenfibus Sub- 
 fcrtfiH : And which is alfo more remarkable , thefe Wrirs contain this Claufe, 
 that the faid Knights and Burgefles Should have their Expences allowed, pro 
 venkrJo, manendo^ £r' redeundo a Yarimmenio frjidiBo frout alias in Cafu confi- 
 mift fieri confitevit ; which Words relating to a former Cuftom, not then new- 
 ly began (as this Word confuevit in a legal Senfe ftill imports) mutt needs relate to 
 Ibme Time much more ancient than the 49th of //(?;7?j the Third, or the 1 8th of 
 this King •, the former of which was but 26, and the latter but 10 Years before this 
 28th ofE^avr^the Firft; in which Time there was not above Thirty Parliaments 
 called, if lo many. 
 
 And further, that the Word Commnulty fignified the Body of the Commons, 
 and not Tenants in Capitc in the Reign of this King, appears by the Statute 
 or Ordinance (tho' the Year is uncertain) entituled, Corifuetudines Cantue^ which 
 you may lee in French in TotrA's Colleftion; the Title of them is thus, Ceu.'v 
 font les ufages les queax la Communally de Kent Vhiyment avoir en Tenements de 
 Giivel-Kind. Now every body who knows any tiling oi'Gavel-Kintr, knows alfo 
 it was generally a Soccage Tenure, there being but little of it held by Knight's 
 Service, and confequenrly the Owners of fuch Lands who were then the great- 
 ett Part of that County, are here ciUed la Communally de Kent. 
 
 So likewife in the Reign of Edward the Second, the fame Words are ufed in 
 the fame Senle; as in the Statute of Pardon for the Death oi' Pierce Gave- ^^'^^Ja^'^l^^' 
 fton made in the Seventh of this King •, which is granted per nous (i. e. the " '' 
 "King himfelf) per A)xhicjques, Evefques^ Abbes, Triors, Counts, Barones^ £5* la. 
 Cummonahe de nojire Roiaume lUonques afjembles. 
 
 So alfo in the L/itin Records, as appears by an Aft of Pardon granted by Parlia- Pfpyi 
 ment, in the 12th Year of this King : Confentientibus Prglatis^ iS Troceribus, i^ Ed. 2" m^.^i-i. 
 C^mmunitatc'Regni. So likewife the Statute of Tw/* of the lame Year, writ in fhT/tr/b 
 is recited to have been mddQ per AJfent des Prelates, Counts, Barons, &f la Com- T^o^^f^'f ■Staf. 
 ■mune du Royalme illonqucs ajjemblez. Where you lee that the Latin Word Com- ^' 9^- 
 munitas, and the Ercnch le Commune fignify the lame Order of Men. 
 
 In the Reign of Edtvard the Third, I can give you many remarkable Exam- 
 ples of the lame Words in the Parliament Roll. In the firtt of this King, 
 Andrew de Hartford, a principal Citizen of London, was de Afjenfu Praiito- '^^- ^' 
 rum, Comitum, iff totius Communitatis Regni, pardoned all Homicides ; which was 
 a Pardon by Act of Parliament. The very like Words are alfo uled in the m. 29. 
 lame Roll in the Aft of Pardon granted to the City of London. 
 
 I could Inlbnce in many more, but I (hall only trouble you with one more 
 in this King's Reign (it is fo remarkable I cannot omit it) of the 34th of this 
 King, and is to be found in the old Edition of Statutes printed in French; 
 the Title begins thus, Ceux font les Chofes, queux noflre Seigneur le Roy, Pre- 
 lats, Signeurs & la Commune ount ordeines iff eftables. 
 
 To conclude with the Reign of King K/ffcW the Second, the like Expreflion 
 is found in the Parliament Roll of the 5th of Richard the Second, where- the ^''^' 
 Statute begins thus : Per Commune profit du Royalme d' Angleterrc eient faitcs 
 per nope Seigneur le Roy, Prelats , Seigneurs, tsr la Commune de le Royalme 
 ffleantes en cejf Parliament. From the Titles to which Two lad Statutes, 1 pn*y 
 oblerve that the Word la Commune, is not only uied for the Commons 
 in the fame Senfe as it was in the fornier King's Reigns ; but alfo tliat thefe 
 Statutes were made by the joint Aflents of the King, Lords and Commons. 
 So likewife in the fame Roll are recited, Concordi.t\ five Ordinationcs fails de 
 Cx}tnmuni Afjenfu Regis Proccrum, & Magnatum, & Communitatis Regni Anglix j 
 which I give you, to (hew that the Words Cammunita* iff le Commune, always 
 fignify the lame Thing in our Statutes and Records, viz. The Comtrions as 
 now underltood, diftlrent from your great Lords and Tenants -, and if they are 
 to be taken in this Senfe afi;er the 18th of Edvoard the birft, I would be glad 
 if you could Ihew me any fuflicient Reafon , why they ihould not be (0 un- 
 derltood
 
 944- B I B L I O T IJ EGA P O L 1 T I C A. 
 
 derftood all along before tliat Time, as well as in the 49CI1 ofHemy the Third 
 
 onlv. 
 
 M. Tho' I grant that thefe Words you mention are to be underftood for the 
 Commons, as now taken, in many Records and Afts of Parliament, after the i8th 
 of Edvcdfd the Firft •, ( ar,d therefore you need not to have taken the Pains to 
 have gone beyond that Time) yet notwithftanding, I think I can prove to 
 you by very good Authorities, that the Word Communitoi' , (which I grant is 
 the fame Thing with ie Commune in French) when put after the Words G?- 
 mites i^ Barones , does not fignify the Commons of England in general , but 
 the Community of the Tenants in Capite alone, or at leaft the Community of all 
 Tenants by Military Service ; and that as low as the Reign of Edward the 
 Hid. But for Proof of this, I pray perufe this Writ, which the Do£>or hath 
 B. G. p.32,95. given us in his Anfwer to Mr. P. Rex Archiepifcopis , Eptfcoph , Abbiuibus^ 
 R^t. Pat. 30. 'Priorihiis, Comltibiis, B.ironibus , Mi/itibus, i!f omnibus aim de Comhatu Cmux^ 
 Ed. I. m. I, Saint em. Scidtk quod cum fr'uno die Junij , Anno Regni nofir't dec'imo oBavo^ 
 Vrdat'i, Comites, Barones, & c. a eri Magnates de Regno nojho concorditer , pro 
 fe, & pro tot a Communitate ejujdem Regni, in plena Rarliamento noftro ., nobis 
 concefferunt quadraginta Solidos , de fmgulii Feadpi Militum, in diffo Regno in 
 Auxiliu?n. ad primogemtam liliam nofra/n Maritandam. ijfc. Cujus quidem Au- 
 xilij levationi faaendae , pro dicl.t Commumtatis aifimento hiijufque fuperfeimus 
 gratwse , i^C. By this Record it is clear, that fuch as paid Scutage , that is, For- 
 ty Shillings for a Knight's Fee, were then the tota Regni Communita^ , and no 
 others : And of thele the Tenants in Capite granted and paid it firft for tiiem- 
 felves and Tenants -, and then their Tenants in Military Service, by virtue of the 
 King's Precept, paid it to them again for lb many Fees as they held of them -, fb 
 that this Tax being raifed wholly upon Knights Fees, mutt be granted only by- 
 thole that held by Knights-Service. 
 
 But further : That the Communalte de Royaume , the Community of the King- 
 dom, as reprefented by the Tenants in Capite , did ibll lo continue as above-men- 
 Rot Fin -c tion'd, till almoft the Middle of King Edcvard the Third's^ Reign, is as clearly 
 El'ui'm'-j. proved by another Record of that King : Rex diledn C^ fidelibus fuis Vice- 
 See it at large, comiti Wigomi.e , Thom.e Bottiler de Upton Jiiper Sabrmam , Militi ; t?" Thom.c 
 B.O. p. 37. Qijjy Jg IVych, Saint em : Sciatis quod cum m plena Parliament nofiro ap:id Wefi- 
 tnonajlerium, ad diem Lunx proximo pofi Feflum Kativitatis Beat.f jMari/e V/rgi- 
 nis proximo prxterituin tento , Rrxlati, Comites, Barones, & c.eteri A'lagnates de 
 Regno nafiro Anglix, i^c. pro fe, i3' tota Communitate ejujdem Regni , nohii con- 
 cejj'erunt quadraginta Solidos, de fingula Feodis Mlitum, in di[Io Regno Anglic, &V. 
 So that the whole Community of England , in this Record, were Military Men, 
 fuch as held Knights Fees, or Parts of Knights Fees, and fuch as paid Scutage ; 
 and rhey were neither the ordinary Freemen or Freeholders , nor the Multitude 
 or Rabble. 
 
 jF. I pray. Sir, give me Leave to anfwer your Arguments from thele Records 
 as you put them , left I forget what you have faid. In the firft place, as to 
 this Record of the ?oth of Edzvard the Firft, which relates to a Tax given in 
 the 18th Year of his Reign •, and recites an Aid of 40 j. upon every Knight's 
 Fee through the whole Kingdom, to have been given by the Bilhops, Earls, 
 Barons, and other Magnates, ( or Great Men of the Kingdom ) in full Parlia- 
 ment, for themfelves and the whole Community, to Marry the Kings Daugh- 
 ter j and which Subfidy he had deferred to Levy till now : And therefore, be- 
 caufe this was a Tax granted only upon Knights Fees, that thofe only who pay'd 
 this Scutage, were then the Communitat, or whole Body of the Kingdom -., 
 which is no Argument at all , fince from this we may plainly colleQ the clean 
 contrary. For if none had been to pay to this Tax , but thofe that held by 
 Knights-Service in Capite, then the King would have had no need to have had 
 it granted in Parliament-, fince by the 14th Article of King Johns Charter, 
 he might have Taxed his Tenants in Capite for the Knighting of his Eldeft 
 Son , and the Marriage of his Eldeft I3aughter , without the Aflent of the 
 Common Council of the Kingdom : And according to your Hypothefis, and the 
 Authorities you have brought to prove it, thefe Tenants in Capite might alfb, 
 by the like Reafon, have made their Tenants by Knight-Service have contri- 
 buted to this Tax •, which yet you fee they could not do without the Content of 
 
 Parlia-
 
 Dialogue the Seventh. o^\iy 
 
 t'arliament : And therefore this Aid <or Subfidy) being granted in Parliament, 
 muft needs extend to all the Lands in the whole Kingdom, as well thofe that 
 held by Knight's-Service, as well as thole that did not ; for it is not here laid, as in 
 the Wrir to theSherifFof 5;(/7«'-v, qui de nobis tenent in Capite ; and then the Words 
 frofe , i^ tola Communitate Kegni , cannot mean ( as you would have them ) vtz. 
 That the Lords, and Tenants /« G//)/"/^, had granted it for themfelves, and the 
 Community of their Tenants by Military Service only, who (fay you) repre- 
 lented the whole Community of the Kingdom •, for then fas I have already 
 obferved ) this needed not to have been granted in Parliament at all. For at this 
 rate , no Tenants of thofe Abbeys and Monafteries , (which were a great many) 
 who did not hold in Capite , would have paid any thing to this Tax 5 nor yet the 
 King's Tenants , who did not hold in Capite , but of fbme Caftle, or Honour : 
 Nor laftly, any Tenants in Soccage, who were very numerous in Kent, as well as in 
 other Counties ^ (as Mr. Taylor proves in his Hiftory of Gavel-Kind.) So that if 
 your Tenants in Cupite , and other Under-Tenants by Military Service , had been 
 then the Community of the whole Kingdom •, this Community had not confifted 
 of above one Half, or at moft a Third Part of the Kingdom. 
 
 But in my Senfe of this Word Communitoi, here will be no Difficulty at all ; 
 for iht^Q ^hinates , rnention'd in this Record, being taken (as I have proved 
 they often are) for Knights of Shires, then theft Words are thus to be under- 
 ftood j viz. That all the Parties mention 'd in this Record , gave for themfelves, 
 and the whole Community of the .Kingdom, confiding of all the Freehold- 
 ers of England , who all contributed to the Marriage of the King's Daughter, 
 according to their refpeftive Eltates. And tho' the Senfe of this Word had been 
 otherwife in this place, yet it would not have contradifted my Senfe of the Word 
 Communitaf , which I do not fay always fignifies the Co7Kmons, only when it 
 comes immediately after the Words Comites & Barones 5 as it does not in this 
 Record you have now cited. 
 
 M. But pray tell me how this could be ; fince the Record fays expreJly , that 
 this Aid was to be Raifed by 40 s. upon every Knight's Fee -, which could only 
 extend to Tenants by Knights-Service : Nor could this Word Commiinitas here fig- 
 nify the Commons, as now underllood -, fince the Citizens and Burgeffes are not at 
 all mention 'd, who ('you know) do at this Day make up the greateft Part of the 
 Reprefentatives of the Commons of England. 
 
 F. This proceeds from your not knowing, or elfe not confidering, the Anci- 
 ent Manner of reckoning F.If ates , ( and confequently of Taxing by Knights Fees) 
 not only Lands held by Military , but Soccage-Tenure alfo ; as appears by =4- h. hi. 
 thoft Writs of the 24th and 26th oi' Henry the Third , as they are ftill up- '"■^- '^"'^f'- 
 on the Qofe-Rolls ; being both almoft the fame , word for word , which I ^^'^^^^ "'^ 
 gave you at our fall Meeting ; yet fince you may have forgot them , pray (ior/o. 
 read them again. Rex Vicecotniti Northampton. Salutem : Frxcipimus tibi, qu(,d Tit.de M'dlti- 
 per tot am Ballivam tuam , in fingitlis honk VilHs , iSI fmiliter in pleno Comi- *"■' foc''^"'^'*- 
 tatu tuo , clamari fades , ^tod omnes illi dc Comitatu tuo, qui tenent Feodum 
 Militis integrum , vel etiam minus, quam Feodum integrum , diim tamen de Te- 
 nemento fuo, tarn Militari quam de Soccagio , pojftnt Jujientari ; &" Milites non 
 funt , fuut Tenement a fua diligunt citra Feftum omnium SanBorum , Anno Regni 
 Noftr. XXV. Arma capiant, ^ fe Milites fieri Jaciant. 
 
 Where you may note, that all Men, who held the Value of a Knight's Fee, 
 either by Military, or Soccage-Tenure , were liable to be made Knights, provi- 
 ded they could maintain themfelves of their Fltates ; which could never have 
 been, had not the Cuftom of Reckoning and Taxing Eftates of all forts , as well 
 by Knights Service, as otherwift, according to the Value of fo many Knights Fees, 
 fthat is, at 20 /. per Annum) been then commonly ufed. But as for your next Ob- 
 jeftion, that the Citizens and Burgeffes arc not mention'd in this Record, and lb 
 could not be comprehended under the Words Ccmmunitas Regni -, this proves no 
 more than that which will cafily lie granted you •, that this Word Communitoi, ufed 
 in your Record, is there to be underlfood relhiclively, and according to the 
 SubjeQ-Matter ; viz. the Community of Freeholders , or Land-Holders of the 
 whole Kingdom only: fince this Tax being wholly upon Lands, the Com- 
 mons of Cities and Boroughs,' then called Communitatcs Civitatum, C Burgo- 
 rum, whofe Eltates lay in Money or Goods, could not be Taxed by Knights 
 
 Y y Fees 5
 
 34^ 
 
 BlBLlOTHECA PoLlTlCA. 
 
 Fees-, nor do I doubt but that if the Records of that Paliament of the 
 iSth oi' Edwiird \. were now extant (which are loft) it would appear, that 
 they alfo contributed to this Tax, according to rheir Eftates, as they, did in the 
 ?4th Year of this King, to make the King's Eldeft Son a Knight. And as for your 
 other Record of the 20th oi'Edahird the Third, fince it is but the fame in Effeft 
 with this of the ;oth of Edward the Firft, the lame Anfwer will ferve for both; 
 only I cannot but obferve, that whereas you have often aflerted that this Word 
 Co'tnmumtas, did only fignify the Community of Tenants in Capite, novv you 
 fall a Peg lower, and ir mult at laft take in the whole Community of Tenants 
 by Knights Service, whether in Opite, or not, who muft certainly grant this Tax, 
 by their Reprefentatives, the Knights of Shires, who were prefent at this 
 Parliament, as appears by the Writs of Summons ^ now if you grant (as indeed 
 you muft) that the Word Communitas now fignifies fuch inferior Military Tenants, 
 as then ferved for Knights of Shires, why muft not the fame Word fignify the 
 like Perfons before ihe 18th o£ Edward the Firft. 
 
 Al. Well then, however, you grant that this Word Co7}miinitas does not always 
 fignify all the Commons of England^ as you fuppofed ; but give me leave to 
 urge further, that it muft mean the Community of the Tenants in Military Ser- 
 vice only : Pray fee this very Record of the 34th of Edward I. which Mr. P. has 
 F^j^.iyj, 173. given at Xzxgt'inhAS Appendix-, which being long, 1 fiiail trouble you with no 
 more than what makes to our prefent Purpofe, viz. That rhe King intending to 
 make his Son, Prince Edward, 3 Knight, Sumnnoned the Archbiiliops, Bifhops, 
 Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, and other great Men of the whole King- 
 dom, to appoint what Aid they would grant the King towards it ; and then 
 it follows thus, " That the Prelates, Earls, Barons, and others, as alfo the 
 " Knights of Shires, being met, treating together with Deliberation upon this 
 " Matter, confidering that an Aid was due to make his Son a Knight, be- 
 " fides the Burthen that lay upon the King, by reafon of the Scotch War, at 
 " length they unanimoufly Domino Regni concejfcnint , pro fe Vj tota Com- 
 Ttiunitate Regni tricejjimam partem omnium Bonorum fuoriim temporaliicm mohilium^ 
 for making his Son a Knight, and towards his Expences of his War in Scotland. 
 And then the Cwcs & Burgenfes Civitatum, ac Burger um, ac cxtcri de Dominic is 
 Regis Congftgati, treating about the Premifes, and confidering the Burthens lying 
 upon the King (not mentioning any Aid for making his Son Knighr, as not hold-, 
 ing of the King by Knights-Fee, or Service, and therefore none, of the Comrpu- 
 munity of the Kingdom ) Domino Regi unanimiter ob caufas fufra diBas ccncej- 
 ferunt Vicefimam partem bonorum fuorum mohilium. Here the Prelates, Earls, Ba- 
 rons, and great Men, with the Knights of Shire.s, confiilted together and gave 
 for themfelves, and the Community of the Kingdom, a Thirtierh Part of their 
 Goods, and the Citizens, BurgefTes, and Tenants of the 'K\x\%'iDemefncs (which 
 were likewife none of the Community of the Kingdom) gdve, a Twentieth Part ; 
 for if they had been of the Community, they had paid a Thirtieth Paft.3S well as 
 the reft ; and therefore 'tis moft certain that even at this Tlme,^'j/'s. the ';4th 
 o'i Edward I. they were not taken to be part of the Community of the Kingdom, 
 and that the Tenants in Capite, Serjeahty, or at lealt the Military Men, and Te- 
 nants in Military Service were only iuch. This I have cited, to fhew you that 
 Anciently the Citizens and BurgefJes were not then reckoned as Part of ftie Com- 
 munity of the Kingdom, and therefore the Words Communitas, and /e Commune^ 
 though put after, and diftinft fiom Comites and Baroncs, did not then include 
 all the Commons oi' England, as you have very confidendy atferted. 
 
 F. As to this hit Record you have cited, ,1 need give you no other Anfwer 
 to it, than a like Writ of the ^^tb of this King, which the DoHor himfelf hath 
 Page 37. alfo given us in his Glojjary ; which I fhall here read you at Large, together with 
 
 his Learned Comment upon it ; it is for the Colle8:ing of this Twentieth 
 and Thirtieth Part granted in the Thirty Fourth you have now mentioned i 
 the ^Vrit n:i}S thus, J\li/itibus, /ibcris hominibus, (v toti Communitati Comi- 
 tatus Middleiex turn infra Libcrtates, qua/zt extra , falutem : cum Archiepifcopi^ 
 Epifcppi, Abbates, Triores, Comites, Baroncs, Miiites, Liberi Homines, ac 
 Colnmunitatcs Comitatuum Regni nopi Tricefimam omnium Bonorutn fuorum 
 temporalium iiiotiHium, Civefque &" Burgenfes, ac- C/mmunitates omnium Ci- 
 vitatum £?■ Burgor;:m ejufdem Regni, nccnon Tenentes de Domimcis nofr/s 
 Vicejfimum Bcncrum fuorum mohilium, cnrialiier ccnceljcrunt, ^ gratantur. Sec' 
 
 And
 
 'Dialogue the Seventh, 34.7 
 
 And left we fhould happen to miftake the Meaning of thefe Words, the Do- 
 ftor himlelf has furnilh'd us with this Learned Comment upon them, as 
 follows in the fame Place. " It is faid in this Record, that the Archbifliops, ^- ^- P- 34° 
 " Biihops, Earls, Barons, Abbots, Priors, Knights and Freemen, and Com- 
 " munities of Counties, gave a Thirtieth Part of theii Goods, as if they had 
 " been all Members, and fat in this Parliament. And fc it is faid of the Cities 
 " and Burghs, that the Citizens, Burgeffes, and the Communities of the Cities 
 " and Burghs gave a Twentieth Part of their Moveables, as if they had been all 
 " there. But thefe Words fignify no more, than that the Knights and Freemen 
 "gave by their Reprefentatives, and that the Communities of Counties, c/^((/.?4£</.i, 
 *' and the Citizens and Burgeffes, and Communities of Cities and Burghs, 
 " gave by their Reprefentatives , as is moft clear from the Writ of 
 " Expences for the Knights of Lincoln/hire, aind fo confequently for the relt. 
 Now 1 defire you would tell me, whether there can be a plainer Record againft 
 the Doftor's Opinion than this ; for in the firft place, who were thefe Knights, 
 Freemen, and Commons, who granted this 26th and 30th Part of their Moveables 
 in the 34th Year of this King ^ but the Knights, Citizens and Burgeffes, the 
 Lawful Reprefentatives of the whole Kingdom in General, as well thofe who 
 held in Capite, or elfe by inferior Military Service, as thofe that held by any 
 other Tenure ? Or who were thefe Reprefentatives, but Men cholen out of all 
 Sorts, as well thofe that held by Knights Service, as thofe that did not •, unlels 
 you can prove (as you have not done hitherto) that all the Cities and Boroughs 
 in England held of the King in Capite 5 and that none but Tenants in Capite^ 
 or Military Service at leaft, were chofen either for Counties or Cities : And 
 though I find your Do8:or has an utter Averfion to the Word Commons, and 
 therefore will needs tranflate the Word Commitnitaies, by Communities, and 
 not Commons ; yet if you were to render thefe Words, the Commons of the 
 Counties, Cities and Boroughs, into our Liw-Lafin, I defire to know what other 
 Words you could make ule of, but thefe in this Record, viz. Communitutes Comi- 
 tatuum, Civitatumif Burgorum? So that to conclude, if in the 28th, 34th and 
 ^5th 0^ Edtcard the Firit, all the Commons gave by the fame Reprefentatives as 
 they do now, I can fee no Reafbn why they might not do fo too, Thirty or 
 Forty (nay Threefcore) Years before that Timci and pray cake Notice alfo, 
 that here the Tenants in Ancient Demefne gave likewile by themfelves, and 
 could not be charged by the Knights of Shires. And therefore, as Mr. Lambard 
 in his Archeon very well obferves, this Prefcription of not being chargeable with 
 the relt of the County, muft be very Ancient, fince there was no Land at that 
 Time reckon'd as Ancient D^wf//^^, which had not belong'd to the Crown before 
 the making of Doomfday-Bodk. And if granting an Aid to the King feparately 
 from the reft of the Kingdom, were fufficient to conftitute the Grantors a di- 
 ftinft Eltate, then the Tenants in Ancient Demefne were no Part of the Com- 
 mons of the Kingdom by the fame Rule. 
 
 M. I mult confefs, what you have now faid concerning the conftant U(e of the 
 W oris Communitas, zwile Co7Jimune (coming di^icx Comites and Barones) to ex- 
 prefs the Commons in Parliament in our Statutes and Records, would weigh 
 much with me, had I not good Reafbn to believe there were no fuch Thing as 
 Commons in Parliament, in the Senfe now taken, before the 49ch of Henry the 
 Third; and from which Time I fuppofe it was difcontinued till the i8th of 
 Edward the Firft ^ for which I can give you very good Proofs : But in the mean 
 time pray fliew me by any Record, or Statute, that there were any Knights, 
 Citizens and Burgeffes Summoned to Parliament till the Times I allow. For in 
 the firft Place, you cannot Ihew me any Mention of Commons in the Plural 
 Number, in any old Statute before Edward the Firft s Time ; and as for the 
 Words Communitas and le Commune, which I grant was often ufed to exprefs the 
 Commons after that Time, your lelf own they are equivocal j and therefore 
 when put after the Farls and Barons in the Inftances you have given, miy 
 fignify the Community of the fmaller Tenants in Cipite , which were 
 the only Reprefentatives of the Commons that appeared in Parliament 
 in thofe Days ; and I am the more inclined to be of this Opinion, becaufe i 
 have fearched the old Statutes very exacflly, and cannot find any Mention of 
 the Word Commons in the Plural, much lefs of Knights, Citizens, or Bur- 
 gefles, till the Statute of the 34th of Edward the Firft, de Tallagio non conceden- 
 
 Yy 2 <fo.
 
 Q^B BlBLIOTHECA Poi-lTICA. 
 
 io, (made in the 94th of Edward I.) wherein 1 grant they are exprefly men- 
 tioned; And as for Writs of Summons, you can produce none till the 23d 
 of this King, to Summon them to Parliament •, though I fhall (liew by 
 and by, that the DoQor has found out one of the i8th of Edward the Firft-, 
 whereby he proves they were then Summoned, after about Twenty fix Years 
 Difcontinuance : Therefore, pray (hew me if you can by any fufficienc Proof^ 
 that they were there in Henry the Third's Reign, or in Edward the Firfl's, till 
 the 18/^. 
 
 F. I confefs, your Doflor has not only exceeded all other Men, but him- 
 lelf too in this rare Diicovery : For whereas in his Firft Edition of his An- 
 fwer to Mr. Petyt's Book, he was content to follow Sir William Dugdale, and 
 make the Commons to have been Firft Summoned to Parliament in the 49th 
 of Henry the Third \ and to have commenced with Montford's Rebellion^ and 
 lb to have ftill continued on. Now the Doftor, upon Second Thoughts, in his 
 Edition in yolio, will have them never to be Summoned any more than that 
 once ; becaule, forfooth, he cannot find them mentioned in fuch exprefs Words, 
 as that he cannot evade them, by faying the Senle is Equivocal. And if the 
 Commons not being exprefly mentioned in our Statutes, were a fufficient 
 Realbn to prove them not to have been there-, were the Writs of Summons 
 loft, as well after as they are before the 23d oi Edward the Firft; you might 
 as well have faced us down, that there were none in all that Time, till the 
 Statute de Tallagio non concedendo^ you now mentioned. And for Proof of this, 
 pray fee the Statute called Articuli fuper Oynrtoi, made in the 28th of this 
 King-, which is faid to be made and granted by the King, at the Requeft of 
 the Prelates, Earls, and Barons, who are only mentioned in this Statute ^ and 
 yet certainly the Commons were then at this Parliament, as appears by the 
 Writs of Summons and Expences but now mentioned •, and fure their Affents 
 were given to it, as well as the Bifhops, and Lords. I could fhew you 
 the like in many other Statutes of this King •, nor are the Words Communi- 
 ty^, or Commonalty ever mentioned above Twice in all the Statutes of this 
 King's Reign, viz. in that of Wrjlminjier the Firft, and that againft bearing 
 of Arms : neither is the Word Commons to be found above once or twice in 
 all the Statutes of Edward the Second. For in the Statutes made at Lincoln^ 
 in the 9th of this King, 'tis faid to be done by the King, the Counts, Barons, 
 and other Grands of the Kingdom. Now if thefe general Words did compre- 
 hend the Commons in thoie Times, you grant they weie conftanly Sum- 
 moned to Pailiament : I defire you would give me any good Realon why the 
 fame general Words may not as well comprehend them long before ? And if 
 the bare Omifiion of the diftinft Orders or States of Men that gave tlieir Alfents 
 to the making of any Statute , and the different penning of Afts of Parlia- 
 ment, were a fufficient Reafon to prove they had no Hand in it ^ 1 doubt two 
 Parts in Three of the old Statutes of Henry the Third, and Edward the Firft, 
 would have been made without the Confents, either of the Bidiops or 
 Lords i fince in moft of them there is no mention made of either: And that 
 what I fay is true, pray at your leifure perule thefe Statutes following, vie. 
 de DifiriBione Scacarij of the 51ft of Henry the Third, with other Statutes 
 made in the latter End of that King's Reign , as alfo that of A&on Burnel 
 made in the nth of f^toW the Firft ^ thdX oi' Winchefler made in the 13th 
 of this Kingi that of Merchants in the fame Year: As alfo thofe d[ Circum- 
 fpeBc agatU, znd ^uo Warranto -, and fee if you can find any mention, either of 
 the Lords or Commons in them. 
 
 But to come to direft Proofs : Tho' I grant the Words Knights, Citizens, and 
 Burgefles were not exprefly mentioned in our old Statutes -, yet I fliall prove 
 to you by othei Words of a much more Comprehenfive Signification, that they 
 appeared in Parliament in the very Beginning of Henry the Third's Reign. 
 For this we need go no farther than the Old Manufciipts, as well as Printed 
 Copies of Magna Charta •, which was firft Granted in the Second Year, and a- 
 ^in confirmed in the 9th of Henry the Third, both which conclude thus: 
 rro hdc autem Donatione iff ConceJJione, Archiepifcopi, Epifcopi, Abbates, Frio- 
 res^ Comites, Barones^ jMilites, libere Tencntes, & omnes de Regno noftro dede- 
 runt quintem decimam partem omniujn mobilium fuorum. Now can any 
 thing be mote expiefs than this Claufe, z;/£,That the Archbifhops, Biihops, 
 
 3 Abbots,
 
 Dialogue the Seventh. 34.9 
 
 Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, for themrelves and the inferior Orders, viz. 
 the Knights and Freeholders, and all others of the Kingdom hy their Law- 
 ful Reprefentatives, give this 15th of their Moveables, at botli thofe Par- 
 liaments , in which this Charter was firft made , and afterwards con- 
 firmed. 
 
 M. I confefs this Authority looks very plaufible at firft; but if it be ftriflly 
 looked into, I MieA'e it will prove norhing at all : for as to your Interpreta- 
 tion of thefe Words, I do not allow it, for Reafons I fliall fhew you by and 
 by. But in the firft place give me leave to difpute the Antiquity of this Charter, 
 which I do not take to be fo Ancient as you make it-, for tho' I grant there 
 was fuch a Charter made in the 2d, and again confirmed in the 9th of Henry 
 the Third ; yet you have already had my Thoughts of this Charter, which you 
 fiippole ro be Henry the Third's, viz. that this which we now have is not 
 properly his, but his Son Edioard the Firft's ; fince it concludes thus : His tcjli- 
 bfts Bonif.ido Cantuarienfis Archiepifcopo, E. hondtnenji Epijcopo, Sfc. Anno Regni. 
 nnflri ( fal. Henrici ?. ) nono •, whereas this Boniface here mentioned, was not 
 Archbilh )p of Canterbury before the 27 Henry the Third, nor was there any 
 one whofe Name began with E. Bifhop of London, during the Time that Boni- 
 face held the See of Canterbury. 
 
 F. I am very glad you have made thele Objections againft the Validity of 
 this Charter : For if I can prove to you, that what you have now urged ftom 
 your Friend the Doftor, is a meer Cavil againft the Charter it felf, I think you 
 have Reafon to be my Convert. In the firft place, I therefore freely grant that 
 the Original of this Charter is not to be found among the Statute Rolls in 
 the Tower, where there is norhing left of it on Record, except a Confirma- 
 tion of it by a Charter of Infpeximtts of Edward the Firft, (the Conclufion of 
 which is as you have now given) and I think there cannot be a greater Proof 
 of the carelefs keeping, or Embezzlement of the Ancient Statutes and Records 
 of the Kingdom, than the Lofs of this great Charter, which certainly muft 
 have been enrolled at the Time when it was made ^ as well as every common 
 Grant made by. the King to ordinary Perfbns of Markets and Fairs ; fince we 
 find Copies of it ftill Extant in the Ancient Annals of divers Monafteries, 
 where rhe Originals of it were formerly kept-, as in particular, in the Annals of 
 the Abbey of Burton, publilhed in the firft Volume of Ancient En^lijh Writers, AnmhBur:. 
 lately Printed at Oxford, which fully anfwers your Obje6tion ; for inltead of ^'^• 271' ^t 
 Boniface, it is there Witnedei by S. Archcpif. Cant. i.e. Stephen Langt on, who '^''""'" 
 was then Arciibiftiop of Canterbury near 20 Years before Boniface : there is 
 alfo an, tS'c after rhe Name of this Archbifhop. And the fame Charter is like- 
 wife recited Word for Word with the former ; and hath the fame Conclufion 
 concerning rhe granting of this i^th, by all the Parties above-mentioned, in 
 the Chronicle of IVa/ter Hcmingjord, publifhed by rhe Learned Dr. Gale, in his 
 2d Volume of Engjifh Hiftorians, only it hath no Witnefles Names at the end, ^'■''"<"'' ■*' 
 but the King himleli; l\fle meipfo. And farther, both agree in all Things mate- ^^°^' *^^''* 
 rial with four Ancient Manufcript Copies of this Cliarter, of the 2d of Henry 
 the Third, when he was in Minority, one of which is in the Cottonian Library ; 
 a 2d was lately in PoftelTion of Sam. Baldwin, Serjeant at Law ; a Third is in 
 the Hands of John Cooke, Efq-, chief Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleof; 
 and a 4th is at this prefenr with Mr. ?etyt of the Inner-Temple, which I my 
 felf have feen. 
 
 But to put this out of all doubt, there is ftill Extant a fair Original of this 
 Charter of Confirmation of the 9th of Henry the Third, (when he was of full 
 Age) under the Great Seal of this King (which is fuppofed to have belonged to 
 Bi'ttail Abbey) and is now to be feen in the Hands of Sir Nathaniel Powel^ 
 Bencher of rhe Inner-Temple, who is fo civil as to communicate it to all who 
 have the Curiofity to Ice lo great a Rariry -, ib that, tho' it is not to be denied, 
 but that the Charter publifhed by Sir Edward Cooke in his 2d Inftitutes, is* 
 properly the Charter of Confirmation of Edward the Firft -, fince Boniface was at 
 that Time Archbifhop of Canterbury, and hu/k Bifliop of London, (E. being by 
 miftake put fo. K) yet I think no Man has any Caule to doubt whether that 
 Claufe we dilpute about, be not in the Copies of this Charter, as well as in 
 this of Edward the Firft. 
 
 Al Well,
 
 35 
 
 O 
 
 BiBi. lOTHECA Politic A. 
 
 M. Well, admitting this Charter to be as ancient as you pleafe, yet let 
 me tell you, if your Senfe be, that the Words at the End of this Charter, 
 B. A. P. viz. omnes de Regno^ thole who gave or granted this Subfidy, were Mem- 
 
 F.i2'y,i26. j^j,j5 Q^ jjj2j Parliament ; if you will underftand it fo, and according to the 
 - literal Meaning of the Words, then cmnes de Regno, as well thofe that had 
 Eftates in Land, as thofe that had not, all Copy-holders, all Trddefmen, all Bnnd- 
 Ttieri and Vilhins (of which there were great Store in thofe Days) and all Ser- 
 vants were there prelent as Members of Parliamenc. And fo then I would 
 willingly underftand where all thefe People (hould meet, how their Councils 
 fhould be managed, and how it is poifible in fuch Meetings (if any fuch there 
 can be) to prevent the greatell Confufion imaginable. The Meaning then of 
 the Words muft be, that the Archbifhops, BKhops, Abbots, Earls, Barons, 
 Knights, Free Tenants, and all of the Kingdom, or all the King's Sub- 
 lefts, Sederunt, that is, paid a Fifteenth Part of their Moveables to the King, 
 tor his granting thefe Charters j not that they themielves gave or granted this 
 Subfidy. And 'tis reafonable to conclude, that all the King's Subjefts paid the 
 Fifteenth Part ; becaufe one way or other, little or much, they enjoyed the Be- 
 nefit of them. I take this to be the Genuine Senfe of the Words, but Mat. 
 Tarii, whom you now quoted, makes it very apparent, who were the confti- 
 tuent Parts of this Parliament ; for if you pleafe to obferve, the Men to whom 
 the Chief Juftice propofed this Fifteenth, and thofe who confulted about the 
 King's Demands, and thofe that returned an Anfwer to them \ and alio grant- 
 ed the Fifteenth Part of the Moveables, as well of the Ecclefiafticks, as Laicks 
 of the whole Kingdom, were only the Archbifhops, Bifhops, Earls, Barons, Ab- 
 bots, Priors ; and therefore they were the only conftituent Parts of this' Par- 
 liament, as they were alfo of the Parliament, or great Council held z\. Mer- 
 ton, in the Twentieth Year of this King's Reign; Whither fays Mat.^aris^ 
 Confummato cum gaudio Nuptiuli convlv'io Rex recede/is a Londonijs vcnit Me- 
 retonam, ut ihi revocati Magnates una cum Rcge de Regni Negotijs con- 
 iraBarent. 
 
 F. I think I can as eafily anfwer this fmall Objeftion againft our meaning 
 of thefe Words at the End of this Charter. Do I affirm that thefe Words 
 ' ate to be taken literally, or the contrary ? Therefore you do ill to put a Senfe 
 
 upon me, which I do not allow of But pray tell who ever was fo mad as to 
 believe that thefe Words are to be underftood literally ? Or that all thofe Per- 
 fons who you here give us a Bed-Roll of, could all appear in Parliament in 
 Perfon, or had all Votes at the Election of Parliament Men ; and yet for all 
 that, this Caufe is true in a legal, tho' not in a literal Senfe, that all the 
 Freemen of the Kingdom granted this 15 th, vis. That the Prelates and Tem- 
 poral Lords in their proper Peilons, and all the relt of the Kingdom by their 
 refpeftive Reprefentatives, granted this Fifteenth. 1 hope it is a good Rule in 
 your Civil, as well as our Common Law, that_ he who gives, or grants any 
 Thing by his fufUcient Troxy or Reprefcntative^^ is faid to perform it by him- 
 elf i and in this Senfe, all the Men in the Kingdom gave, or granted a Fih 
 teenth for the Confirmation of this Charter ; and fb at this Day, it may be 
 faid in a legal Senfe, that all the Men of the Kingdom do join in granting 
 the King a Tax by their Reprefentatives in Parliament, tho' none but fiich as 
 are Freeholders of 40 s. a Year, can have Votes at the Eleftion of Knights 
 of the Shire, nor any but the Aldermen of divers Cities and Towns, and the 
 Freemen of Corporations, and the Scot and Lot Men of Boroughs, who have 
 any Votes at the Ele£lion of Citizens or BurgefTes. 
 
 And that your Doftor himfelf, tho' he hath milled you in the Senfe of 
 this Word Dederunt, yet can grant this to be a reafonable Interpretation of 
 this Claufe, when he .is in a good Humour -, pray remember his Comment 
 upon the Record of the 94th of Edward the Firlt, which I gave you but 
 now ; wherein , after the Bar ones it follows , that Milites Libert Homines ff 
 Communitates Commit at uu7n dederunt , granted a 30th Part of their Mo\'eables, 
 and the Comunitaies Civitatum iS' Burgoruma 20th'; " Whereupon he tells you' 
 " thff^ Words are fo exprefled as it they had been there all in Perfon -, but 
 " i;.efe Words fignity no more, than that the Knights and Freemen gave by 
 " their Reprefentatives, and that the Communities of Counties, and thefe C.'i- 
 
 tizens 
 
 ijH
 
 T>ialogue the Seventh. o^ c^ i 
 
 ** tizens and Boroughs gave by their Reprerentatives". And why thefe Muites 
 Libert Honilnes, Hf omncs dc Regno, might not do it as well in the fame 
 Senre, in the beginning of the Reign of Henry the Third, when this Char- 
 ter was granted and confirmed, I fhould be glad if you could give me a fuf- 
 ficient Reafon. So that I fhall refer it to your own Ingenuity, to confider, when 
 the Charter fays expreily, that all the Perfons therein mentioned gave a Fif- 
 teenth, whether it be not a manifeft wrefting of the Gi\immiitical Significa- 
 tion of this Word Dederunt , to render it they paid •, for at this rate a Man 
 may make Words fignify juft what he pleales. But our ancient Englijf) 
 Hiltorians are the beft Judges in this Cafe. For the Annals of Wavcrly-Abbey 
 publinied in the lame Volume I laft mentioned, under the Year 1225, having 
 given us a Ihort Account of the granting thele Charters, 9th of Henry the Third, 
 recite the Condufion of the great Charter in the fame Words as they are in 
 the Charter it felf •, only before Dederunt there is alfo added the Word Con- 
 cejferunr, which (hews that the Author of this Part of thofe Annals, who might 
 very well write at the (ame Time, or prelently after the Charter was granted, 
 by his Paraphrafe of Concejjcrunt , feemed to intend to prevent any fuch Mi- 
 ftake in the Signification of the Word Dederunt. And that this was the con- 
 ftant Opinion of all Hiltorians and Antiquaries to this Day, I will fliew 
 you from Henry de Knighton, who lived within 100 Years after this Charter vid. Smptarei 
 wasjranted, and in his Hiltory hath thisPaflage in this Year, viz. 9th 0^ Henry Coc. 2429. 
 the Third ; foft hae Rex Hcnricus concejfn Magnatibus terrx duas Churtas unam 
 de Forefid, ilf aliam de Libert at ibus ob quant cuufam Communes Regni concef- 
 ferunt 15 Partem mobilium, 6? in mobi/ium. From whence it appears plainly 
 that at the Time when this Author writ, it was generally believed that the 
 Commons (called JWi/ites tT LiberiTcnentes in this Charter) granted this 15 th 
 of all their Goods. 
 
 I (hall conclude with a modern Authority of a Perfon, who you will own 
 to be a Man of great Judgment and Learning, viz. Sir Henry Spe/man, who 
 in his Difcourfe of Migna Chjrta, inferred in his Glolfafy, hath this remark- 
 able Palfage, Demum Anno 9. Regis Henrici concedente Clero, ©' Prpu/o cum „ 
 Magnatibus ^intodecimajn partem omnium rerum mobilium totius Regni Anglic j '^^' ^^ ' 
 renffvantur O^artx Libertatum, prout Jub Rege Johanne prius erunt condit.e^ 
 where it is plain, that by Fopu/us he meant the Commons as diftinft from 
 the Lords and Clergy. As for what you fay farther, whereby you would fet 
 up the Authority of Mat. Paris againlt the exprels Words of the Charter it 
 felfl I fuppofe you or the Doftor from whom you borrowed this Notion, are 
 the firft who interpret ancient Statutes and Records, according to the general 
 Words of Hiltorians : Whereas I always thought till now, that the Senfe of 
 the Hiltorians ought to have been underitood by Records, and not vice verfa j 
 lince the former differ one from another in the Manner of Expreffion of the 
 conftituent Parts of our great Councils or Parliament, and for brevity fake, 
 expref-> them(elves in as tew Words as they can. 
 
 But notwithltanding the Concifenefs of thofe Expredions which we find 
 in Mat. Par^, and other ancient Authors ^ yet I think even in this Place now 
 cited, there are Words enough to prove there were other Lay-Perfons at this 
 Council, befides Earls and Barons there mentioned ; or elfe, what is the mean- 
 ing of thele Words a/iis Univer/is immediately after Baronibus , to whom 
 Hubert de Burgh propofed the King's Demands, and who alfo gave their An- 
 fwer to them? And if thefe Gentlemen were not Barons, as certainly they 
 were not (or elfe to what Purpofe was this Di(tiii£tion made) then they were 
 meer Commoners; and fo we find there were Commons in Parliament, from 
 the Authority of Mat. Parts, that before the 49th of Henry the Third; which is 
 likewife proved by the Statute of Merton (which I have lately cited) in the 
 Conclufion of its Preface, which runs thus, It a frcvifumfuit, iS> conccjjumtam a pre- 
 diOk Archicpifcopk, Epifcopls, Comitibus, Baronibus, <juam ab ipfo Rege, i^ Alijs. 
 Now pray tell me who thefe ifj Alij were, if not the Commons, for you 
 did not anfwer this Qutftion when 1 lalt mentioned this Statute. 
 
 ill. I (hall tell you my Thoughts of thefe AJij by and by, when I come 
 to thefe Words omnes^ de Regno ; but in the mean Time, give me leave to 
 give you the Doctor's Interpretation of this Word Mtlites put here after 
 
 BaroncSj 
 %
 
 3^2 
 
 B I B L 1 O T H E C A P O I, 1 T I C A. 
 
 Barones, which Mtlites were not Knights of Shires (as you fuppofe) but 
 Tenants in Capite by Military Service •, as appears by the Aflize or Stature oF 
 F«/.445. Richard the Firft, quoted by JR. Hovenden in his Hiftory, whij:h is fjid to 
 
 have been made, fcr Affenfirm £?" Confilium Archkpifcoporum, & Ep/fcoporum, 
 Abhatiitn., Conihum & haroninn, ^ Militum. Now thefe Milucs were often 
 ^\\e^ Barons, and i\\q Barons, MUites. ]\am Miles (faith Sir Henry Spebnan) 
 cjuem Baronem vocabant non a Aii/itari Ongulo {quo Equites creahantur) fed a Mi- 
 litari Feodo, quo aliof poffejfor iSi libere Tenons, nuncupatus eji, nomcn fiitnpfit^ 
 that is, fuch as had Lands given them for, or fuch as held Lands by Military 
 Service, and did Homage and Fealty to thofe of whom they held their Lands ; 
 and in this Senfe, Mat. ?ark calls all the Temporal Nobility Mi/ires, when in the 
 Parliament 37 of Henry the Thiid, he fays, a Militibr'a Coricejfum eji Scutaghim 
 illo Anno ad Scutum tres Mar cue. 
 
 ¥. I think your Interpretation of the Word MUites is forced, and quite con- 
 trary to the true meaning of this Charter: Now pray (hew me the Conftquence, 
 -that becaufe the Barons were anciently Itiled MUites, that therefore your 
 Tenants in Cipite were then ftiled Barones too •, which is not true, and quite 
 contrary to this Charter it felf, where thefe MUites (whoever they were) 
 are put after the Barones, as a diftinft Order of Men from them •, whereas if 
 the Terms had been then reciprocal , the Words Barones , or MUites ( chufe 
 which you pleafe) would have comprehended both; but indeed this Titk of 
 Miles was then of a much larger Signification, and took in all Knights of what- 
 foever Tenancy, whether by Military Service or Soccage -, as appears by thofe 
 Writs of the 25 th and 26th o^ Henry the Third, which I have already cited; 
 whereby thofe that held Eftates fufficient to maintain themfelves de Tcnemento 
 fuo tarn militari, quam Soccagio, were alike Summoned in to take the Order of 
 Knighthood j and when Knighted, were certainly as good M.ilites as the bt;ft of 
 your Tenants in Capite ; and fo might very well be reckoned amongft the Mi- 
 lites in this Charter. But pray tell me what fay you to thefe following Words, 
 "Liberi Tenentes t^ omnes de Regno ? 
 
 M. Thefe will likewile bear a like Interpretation; for by thefe liberi Te- 
 nentes, that immediately follow in this Charter after jMilUes, I fuppofe were meant 
 t.C. f.64. no other than the leffer Tenants in Caphe, who having fcanry Knighf; Fees, or 
 part of Knights Fees, defired not Knighthood, or had compounded, or fined for ir, 
 that they might not be made Knights, and who not being aftual Knights, are 
 here called Free Tenants or Freeholders, as I have already told you at our laft 
 Meeting; 
 
 F. Pray give me leave to anfwer this Interpretation of the Word Libert 
 Tenentes, before we proceed farther. You may remember that I have an- 
 fwered ail your Authorities, whereby you would prove that the Tenants 
 in Capite were at this Time the only proper Freeholders of the Kingdom ; 
 iince I then proved to you from Sir Henry Spelwans Glojfary, that any Free- 
 man having an Eftate of Inheritance, was as much the Liberi Tenens, a Freeholder, 
 as the heft Tenant in Capite in England. Indeed if the Words had been 
 Alilites £5' liberi Tenentes, qui de Rege tenuerunt in Capite, you had faid Ibme- 
 what •, but orherwile it is all meer Suppofition, without any Ground. But pray go 
 on to the lalt Words in this Charter, ^ omnes de Regno nofiro ; what can they 
 mean, but that all the Freemen of the Kingdom gave this Fifteenth by their Lawful 
 Reprefentatives? 
 
 M. If you do not like our Senfe of thefe Words, Mifites and Liberi Tenentes-., 
 I cannot help it, nor (hall I difpute them longer with you j but as for this 
 Ibid. p. 6 i. ^''ft Claule in the Charter, i5> omnes de Regno, it only means, all thole who 
 were Tenants in Capite in general in the lame Senfe ; as when our Ancient 
 Hiftorians mention Regnum iSi Sacerdotium, by Regnum is to be underltood 
 both the Temporal and Spiritual Barons, great and fmall •, the King's Juftices, 
 or any other that exercifed any (hare or Minifterial part of tlie Go\'ernment -, 
 as perhaps all thofe did one way or other, by coming to our Great Councils 
 or Parliaments, i^c. all which is evident from the Words of the Quadripartite 
 Hiftory, concerning Thoma* Becket, thus. Rex apud Clarendu7n, Regnum convo- 
 cat univerfum. ^uo cum venijfent Rrsfules, & Prcceres, Sac. i. e. the whole 
 Baronage called together by the King's Writ, or a full Meeting of the Spi-- 
 
 ritual
 
 T>icil(jgue the Seventh. 55^ 
 
 ritual and Temporal Barons, both great and fmall. I pray alio remetnber that 
 PaiBge you your felt" made ufe of but row, out of Matt. Paris, whereby you 
 would prove that the Comnnon Council of the whole Kingdom was diftinfl from 
 that of the Tenants inCipite-^ becaufe that afier the Cmhh held ziChnftmji^ the 
 King immediately iffued out his Writs, commanding omnibus nd Rcgnujn fpe- 
 nuntibM, to appear at London -, and yet you iee there are no more mentioned 
 to be Summoned than the Archbifliops, Bifliops, Abbots, Priors, Earls and 
 Barons. So that we may hence learn the true Meaning of thefe Words, omncs dv n. G. p. dj. 
 Regno fpe^anies, in Mntt. Fans, the Rfgnum, or Governmenr, the Communitas 
 Reini, the totalis Regni univcrjitas, the injinita nobi/ium muliitudo ; and alfo 
 gives us the Meaning of thofe Words, omncs alii de Regno, in theClofe Roll of 
 the 1 9th of Henry the Third, to the Sheriff of Somerfctjhire, Scias quod Comites m. 6. Dor. 
 tf Barones, ilf omnes alij de toto Regno nojiro, &c. Concejjerunt, &c. Which are 
 further explained by a Writ in the fame Roll about the fame Bulinefs, direfted 
 to ihc Sheu^' oi' Suffex (which you have likewife cited) beginning thus, Sciatis ^^'•^■^•^^ 
 quod Archiepi/copi Epifcopi, Abhates, Priores, Comites, Barones, t> omnes Alij de 
 Regno nojlro Anglic, qui de nolmTenent in Capite nobis conccfjerunt, &;c. Here 
 xhe omn.s alij de Regno, were the omnes qui de nobis Tenent in Capite; which 
 were then all the Regnum, or Communitas Regni. So likewife it may be farther 
 proved from a Record of the 48ch of Henry the Third, Rex omnibus, &c. am Kot. Pat. N. 5. 
 vcnerabiles Patres, G. E Eborum Archiepifcopus, &c. t?' alij Pralati, Magnates^ 
 Milites, hberi Tenent cs, £?" omnes alij de Regno nobis nuper in Artie ulo necejjitatii 
 fervitium jeetrunt, iffjuhfidium, 8cc. And I mav alfo put you in mind of the 
 Writ 1 cited but now, direiled Arehiepifafis, Epifeopis, &c. Comitibus, B.ironi- 
 bus, Ahliiibus, tSf omnibus aliis de Comitatu Kancix, &c. for the Levying of Forty 
 Shillings upon every Knights Fee in that County. Now this Writ could not be 
 direfled to all the Men in Kent, but to all luch as paid Scutage •, for not a For- 
 tietli Part of them were Tenants in Capite, or Military Service. So that thele 
 omnes alij de Regno, and omnes alij Comitatus, were the lame one with the other 
 and otherwife it could not be: For by omnes de Regno, or omnes alij de Regno, 
 the Inliabitants in general could not be underltood, for they never were Sum- 
 moned, no not the Hundredth Part of them, to meet in Great Councils ^ for 'twas 
 impodible they flionld ^ and perhaps not above a Fourth Part of the King- 
 dom paid to this Fifteenth, if we confider how many Servants, Villains, 
 Bondmen, and many luch People there were then in the Nation that paid 
 nothing. 
 
 F. You ha\e taken a great deal of Pains to perplex and darken Words in 
 themfelves very clear and perfpicuous ; for methinks it is a Itrange piece of 
 Cc'ntidence in your Doftor, when the Charter fays exprefsly, That Omnes de 
 Regno, all the Freemen of the Kingdom gave this 15th, to rellrain this A£t 
 only to the Tenants in Cipite, who were but a few in Comparifon to the 
 whole Kingdom •, this is indeed to make Words fignify any Thing he 
 fancies. 
 
 But to anfwer your Authorities, which are founded all upon falfe Suppo- 
 fitions, without any Proof As to your Authority from the ^uadrilogus Hiftory 
 o^Thomoi Becket ; it is true, that the Prxjules and Proceres are there called 
 Regnum, the Kingdom ; but I have already proved at our lalt Meeting, that this 
 Word Proceres was of fo comprehenfive a Signification, that it took in all the 
 Principal Men of the Kingdom, as well thofe that were Lords, as thofe that were 
 not V lb that the chief Citizens and Magiltrates of our Cities and great Towns, 
 are often Itiled Proceres & Magnates Civitatum, in our Ancient Hiftorians and 
 Records ; and certainly the great Freeholders, or Knights of Shires did much more 
 jultly delerve that Title. 
 
 As for the other PaQage out of Mat. Paris, where the Bifliops, Abbots, 
 Earls and B.irons, are called omnes ad Regnum fpeil antes ; this is but a general 
 way of Expttffion in this Author, and proves nothing : For either the Word 
 Barones, takes in all the fmaller Tenants //z G//vrf, or it does not; if the latter, 
 then this Author does not exaftly recite all the Orders of Men, whom your fel^ 
 mutt acknowledge to have appeared there •, fince the great Barons alone could 
 never make this infinita Kobilium multitudo mentioned in this Author 5 if the for- 
 mer, then it is plain, that he thereby comprehended more than thofe who were 
 
 Z z really
 
 354 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTICA^ 
 
 tealiy Barons. Since it is certain that the fmaller Tenants w Ophe were not 
 leally fo, and confequently were meer Cctrimoners, as I have told you more than 
 once. And then make the moll of this Word Bivcres, it may in a large 
 and common Acceptation, take in all the chief Freeholders , or Lords of Man- 
 nors, which (as I have already proved) were often called Barons in our Ancient 
 Hiftorians, and Laws of the firft Korman Kings •, and Mr. Camhien tells us, 
 that under the Word Baronagmn, o»:ncs Regm crdmes com war em ur. This I 
 fiy, fuppofing that by this infinite Kobi/iiim multitudo, is to be underftood, 
 all the chief Gentry, or Freeholders of England, called often Kobilita-s Angltx^ 
 as I have already made out, and which may alio take in the Reprelentatives 
 of Cities and Towns •, but if we fhould fuppofe, that by t^ie harones here 
 mentioned, are to be underftood only the Tenants in Capire 5 yet, fince they, 
 together with the great Lords, made the chiefelt Figure in the Government -, 
 it was eafy for this Author to overflip the particular Mention of others, it 
 being enough to comprehend them with the Reprelentatives of the reft of 
 the Kingdom, under the general Phrale of Injinha KobUium multitudo: As I 
 have already faid, the Concifenefs of Hiftorians, was to be explained by our 
 Statutes and Records, and not that their exprefs Words Ihould be interpreted 
 by the obfcure or general Phrafes and Exprefiions of Hiftorians 5 and if 
 by omnes de Regno, are to be underftood all the Tenants ;'« Capire in ge- 
 neral •, how could this be without a notorious Tautology ? Since if it be 
 as you fay, that the Bifhops, Abbots, Earls and Barons, comprehended all the 
 greater Nobility, and the Mi/ites £5' liberi Tenentes, all the lefler, or Tenants 
 in Capitc, (who made then the whole Kingdom) if lb, what can thefe Words 
 offines de Regno here fignify, but fo many idle Words without any Senle or 
 Meaning ? 
 
 But it will be now more eafy to anfwer your falfe Interpretation of thefe 
 Words, omnes Alij de Regno, which you will needs have to fignify only the 
 Tenants in Capite -, and it will be no hard Matter to (hew you the Doftor's 
 Prevarications on thefe Words -, for as to the firft Writ directed to the Sheriff of 
 Somcrfetjhire, though I confefs the Words at the beginning of the VVrit, 
 are omnes aiij de toto Regno nofro •, yet the Doftor has in his Gkjjary par- 
 pofely concealed the Words that follow, which plainly reftrain them to 
 Tenants in Capite , and their Under-Tenants by Military Service. Bur if 
 you pleafe but to turn to the Writ which he has given us at large in his Appendix, 
 Numb. 14. you will find, firft, that this Writ recites, that the Earls, Barons, and 
 omnes AIij de Regno, had granted the King an Aid of" Two Marks on every 
 Knights- Fee, qud de nobis Tencnt in Capite. Secondly, That at the Command of 
 the Earls, Barons, and all others that held in Capite, the Sheriff ftiould diftrain 
 enincs milites ^ liberi tenentes qui de eis tenent per fervitium militare, who were 
 likewife to pay the King the like Sum of Two Marks for every Knights-Fee ; 
 lb that you may here plainly fee, that this could be no general Tax granted by the 
 whole Kingdom, fince none but Tenants in Capite, and their Under-Tenants by 
 Knights Service, were chargeable with it -, which, if given with their Confents, muft 
 have been done in full Parliament, and in which they had Reprelentatives of their 
 own chufing; and if without their Confents, was direQIy contrary to Law. 
 
 But you need go no farther than this Writ you have now cited, to prove 
 that the Milites & liberi tenentes, were not at this Time only Tenants in 
 Capite, as you fuppole, but their Feudatory Tenants alfo ; as appears by the ex- 
 prefs Words of this Writ, which orders and dire£fs the Sheriff to diftrain omnes 
 Milites, i!^ liberi Tenentes qui de eis tenent per fervitium Militare. But as for 
 the other Writ to the Sheriff of Suffex, which ( as you fiy truly ) relates to the 
 former, to the Sheriff of Somerfetjhire-, it fufficiently interprets thofe general 
 Words, annes alij de Regno, and expreily reftrains them to omnes alij qui de nobis 
 tenent in Capite, who in a Council of themfelves alone, granted this Tax for them- 
 felves only, as I have already proved ; which, whether it was according to Law or 
 not, we fhall enquire by and by. 
 
 But in the mean Time, give me leave to anfwer your next Record, of the 
 48th of Henry IIL which recites an extraordinary Service and Aid done by the 
 Frelati, Magnates, liberi Tenentes, tSf omnes alij de Regno : Now that this was 
 not a Service performed, or an Aid given by the Tenants in Capite only for 
 
 the
 
 T>iaJogue tJ e Seventh. 555 
 
 the whole Kingdom, the Word Subfidium in the Writ may teach you, which was 
 never granted otherwife than by the whole Kingdom in Parliament. But let us 
 firft conhder the Subftance of this Record, which is indeed but the King's Decla- 
 ration of" a Right to all his Subjects in general, or the Freemen of" the whole 
 Kingdom, that what they had lately performed in ArticuJo mceffitatk p/\eji^je, 
 nonjibi ccidt in prxjudicium, nee ad poflerum trahutur in confueindinem, vcl conje- 
 queniiam nee ad hujus modi fervhiujn eompellcntur ^ which being the Effect of this 
 Record, now fee the Caule why it was granted, which you may find in another ^'^' ^' '^'^'''' 
 Record of the lame Year, and on the Roll, and to which this Record you cited 
 relates, which is a general Summons dire£Ved, Arehiepifeopis, Epifcopii^ Abbati- 
 bus, Comitibus, Burombus, Mee eomitibiis. Mi/it ibus, libera Uominibus, tff uni- 
 verf£ Communitati Ccmitatus Linec/nix, commanding them all, even the Citizens 
 ar^ Townfmeii, immediately to appear with fuch Arms as are there exprelTed ( and 
 were proper for each Man's Ellate and Condition) for the common Defence of the 
 Kingdom, againft Strangers then ready to invade it ; and this Record alio lays, 
 eodem m.'do fenbitur exterii llce-comitibus Angl'u-e. Now fince it appears by 
 this Writ ot Summons, by which this Service and Aid was performed, that not 
 only the Tenants in Cipitc, but all the Subje£ls of the whole Kingdom, were 
 engaged in the Performance of it ; can any body, but one who will take Things by 
 halves, fuppolethat by thck o^nnes alij dc Regno there mentioned, (and who mult 
 certainly be the lame Parties intended in the Doclor's own Record, viz. all the 
 Freemen of the Kingdom) could be meant no more than the Leffer Tenants 
 In Cipite, taken altogether, when they had been ( according to our Senfe ) all par- 
 ticularly named before ? 
 
 But that by thefe cmnes de Regno, cannot be here meant only the Tenants f^'>t-Cl.2. 
 i;2 G2p/>f, but all the Freemen of the whole Kingdom, I Ihall prove by another ''^^'"" '''"'^''• 
 Record of the i6th of Henry III. and is the vety Writ I gave you before, wherein 
 it is recited, that the Villani, together with the relt of the Liberi Homines, hadi 
 given aThittieth Part of their Moveables ^ in Confideration of which, this Writ 
 concludes thus. Coneeffimus etuim Archiepijcopk, Epifeopis, Abb.itibus, Rrioribi^^ 
 ComitibM, Baronibus, ^ vobis omnibus Aliis de Regno noftro^ quod tam Charta. 
 nojlrj, de Fcreftd, quam alia Charta nojlra de Libert at thus, quas ek, C vobh 
 fieri feamus de cxtero in omnibus teneantur ; fo that it plainly appears, that by 
 thele Words in this Record, omnibus Mm dc Regno, muft be underftood all the 
 Freemen of the Kingdom in general, unlefs you will allow none to have had any 
 (hare in thefe Charters, or to have received any Benefit by them, but the Doftor's 
 Tenants in Capite alone ^ which fuie you will not affirm. 
 
 But lelt I tire you as well as my felf, in dwelling fo long upon Things fb 
 plain and obvious, were not they by too much Artifice rendred obfcure, I 
 come at lalt to tlie Conclufion of your Dlfcourfe, which is no more than a Repeti- 
 tion of what you had faid at firlt ; that becaule all the Kingdom could not 
 be fummoned to appear in Parliament, and that Villains and Servants, ^c. 
 never paid to this Tax j that therefore the Words omnes de Regno are not 
 to be underltood literally-, (a doughty Difcovery ) and therefore you have 
 found an Expedient to help this Contradiftion by your Tenants in Capites :xn6. 
 I by Knights, Citizens and BurgelTes for the Laity, and by the Rrocuratores 
 Qeri for the Inferior Clergy. Whofe Interpretation is moft agreeable to Truth, 
 I durft leave to any indifferent Judge ; for I muft needs tell you once again, 
 I cannot fee any manner of Realon, either from Authorities, or from the Nature 
 of the Thing, that ever your Tenants in Capite could be the omncs de Regno in 
 a legal Senfe, and as fuch did reprefent all the Freemen of Elfates in the whole 
 Kingdom •, therefore if you can prove this, it may go far to convince me, 
 othetwife not. 
 
 M. Since you will not reft fatisfied with thole Authorities I have already pro- B. a. p. 
 duced to piove it 5 pray let me Difcourfe with you a little more particularly of n ?.£.</?«. 
 the Nature of Tfw;ri- by Knights Service. I therefore fuppofe that the DoQor "'''I-'-'- 
 hath very well proved by leveral Records, as alfo the Two Wtics of the i9ch 
 of Henry the Third, to the Sheriffs of Somerfct and Sulfex, that the King 
 arxiently by his Prerogative, and his original Power and Right referved 
 upon Knights Fees, did Tax the Military Tenants of his Tenants in Capite, 
 and their other ordinary Free Tenants, and by his Writs caufel th^m to pay 
 
 Zz 2 bocfi
 
 o 
 
 ^6 B I B L I O T H E C A P O L 1 T I C A. 
 
 both Scutage Tax, and Scutage Service, and other realbnable Aids, as often as 
 Neceflity required. 
 
 K I grant indeed the Matter of Fa£V to have been fometimes as you lay, 
 fince there is no averring againft exprefs Records •, but I fay likewife, that as 
 for thole Writs the Dr. has given us, concerning the King's Ordering the She- 
 rift's to diltrain the Mefie Tenants of rhe Tenants in Capite for Scutage-Ser- 
 vice, as to Marry their Daughters, or for the finding of Men in any War- 
 fike Expedition •, it was no more than what thofe Mefne Tenants were bound 
 to do by the Tenures of their Eftates •, if they had failed to lerve their Lords 
 in Perfon, or by fufficient Deputies : And therefore the King might legally 
 grant them Scutage upon fuch Tenants ^ and perhaps might alfo change their 
 Service in Perfon into a pecuniary Aid, as appears by fome of thofe Writs the Dr. 
 has given us ; and this not by his extraordinary Prerogative, but by Law. So 
 likewife , tho' your Tenants in Capite could Tax themfelves in their diftin£l 
 Council, or elfe in -the Common Council of the whole Kingdom, at what rate 
 they plealed , for the Knights Fees they held of the King ^ and tho' the King 
 might fometimes undertake, by this Pretence, to Levy a Scutage of Two Marks 
 on their Under-Tenants alio •, yet does it not appear by eith.r of thole Re- 
 cords you have now cited, that they gave for more than themfelves alone ; the 
 Words in the Writs being only, that they had given the King Efficax Auxi- 
 lium of Two Marks upon every Knight's Fee (as well Wards as others) who 
 held of him in Capite, without any mention of their Mefne Tenants. So that 
 if the Sheriff" was afterwards ordered to diftrain thele Mefne Tenants alio , for 
 Two Marks for each Knight's Fee they held of their Lords •, this was ftrain- 
 ing a Point of Prerogative •, for by the fame Rule the King might ( by the 
 like Prerogative) have Taxed all the Bifhops, Abbots, Grefat Lords, and all 
 other Tenants in Capite , without their Confents , as well as their Mefne Te- 
 nants , tho' it was contrary to the exprefs Words of the Charters of King 
 William \. and King John ^ which you your lelf cited at our former Meet- 
 ing : So that granting the Matter of Faft to have been pra£fifed fometimes, 
 as your Records make out •, this is no Proof that this was a conftant Law, 
 or fettled Cuftom ; much lefs that the King had a Right lb to do. 
 
 M. I do not doubt but that I can prove to you, that what this King then 
 did in charging thefe Mefne Tenants, was according to his Ancient Preroga- 
 tive, and what himfelf and his Predeceffors had fi;equently done, both be- 
 fore and after that Claufe in King John's Charter of JNuUutn Scutagium, vel 
 Auxilium ponam in Regno meo, 8z:c. was granted •, nay after it was granted by 
 Henry III. and Edward I. that they taxed their Demefnes thro' England, (tho* 
 not the whole Kingdom) by the Advice of their Privy-Council, until the Sta- 
 tute de Tallagio nan concedendo was made, in the 34th of Edward L And. 
 both Richard \. and King /o/;/?, had taxed the whole Kingdom, without com- 
 mon Aflent, before the Grant of Magna Charta : As alfo in the Reign of Ri- 
 
 Foi. 442. chard L as you may find in Hovcden , who lived at that Time ; ( the Paflage 
 is long, and therefore I fliall only give you the Beginning of it •,) viz. that 
 this King, Anno 1198. (Regno 9.) acceptt de unaquaque Carucata Terr.t totius 
 Anglic, V. Solidos de Auxilio, Sfc. And then goes on to (hew us the Manner 
 how it was raifed and collefted ; and 'tis obfervable, that he ufes thefe Words, 
 
 i". 209. A. D. Auxilium and Tallagium , for the fame Tax. So we find in Mat. Paris, That 
 
 1205,1207. King John took a Seventh Part of all Moveables, without common AfTent, 
 and another time a Thirtieth -, the Great Men and Clergy grumbling at it. 
 King Henry IIL alfo taxed all his Demefnes, in the 55d Year of his Reign, 
 
 v. I. as appears by a Writ in the Clofe-RoU of this Year •, whereby he alfo com- 
 
 mands the Shetiff' of Bucks, that he make Philip BaJJet a Rationabile Tallagi- 
 um , dc hominibus fuk de eo tencntibus in Manerio de Wycumh, quod diquando 
 fuit Dominicum Prtedecejforum Regis, Sec. 
 
 B.A.y. 178. In the ?9th Year, this King (as the DoQor fliews us at large, by a Re- 
 cord in the keeping of the Remembrancer of the Exchequer) taxed all his 
 Demefnes -, and, among the reft, the City of London at 3000 Marks ; which, 
 tho' with Ibme Conteft, (mention'd in this Record) they were at laft forced 
 to pay ; becaufe it was found upon Record , that this King , and his Father, 
 had leveral times Talliated (or Taxed) the fiid City in like manner, at the 
 
 Sums 
 
 B.I. A 
 
 179,18 
 
 
 Rot. 1 1. 
 
 . Hen. 
 9-
 
 Dialogue the Seventh, 257 
 
 Sums therein mentioned •, fo that at laft the Mayor and Citizens were fain to ac- 
 knowledge themfelves thus Talljjble by the King. 
 
 So in the 5 2d Year of his Reign, he Taxed all his Demefne-Lands beyond ^^o^-cl- 52. 
 Trent, by his Efcheators : And this Right was acknowledged by all the Bi- '''• ^ '*'■ '°* 
 (hops, Earls and Barons, in the 3?d Year of Edward I. as appears by their R^yky'/ « «' 
 Petition to him in Parliament , in thele Words : Ad Petitionem Arch'icpifcopo- Pari. 
 rum, Epifcoporum, Frxlatorum, Com'itum £?' Biiromim, ^ aliorj7n proborum hom'i- 
 num dc Terra petentium quod Rex concedcre veftt quod ipji pojjint tuUiare antiqua 
 dommicj, unde funt in Tenantia, ficut Rex Dominica fua taliavit ^ ita refponjum 
 eji, fiat ut petit ur. 
 
 From all which you may plainly fee, that the Kings of England had ancient- 
 ly a Prerogative of laying Taxes, not only upon their own Tenants and their 
 Mefne Tenants who held under them, but upon the whole Kingdom too j 
 and if their Succelfors have acled otherwile, it has proceeded from their meer 
 Grace and Favour, who have tyed up their own Hands from exercifing this 
 Prerogative. 
 
 F. Pray, Sir, obferve, that you have now quitted the main Qiieftion, Whether 
 others befides the Tenants in Capite appeared in Parliament before the 49th of 
 Henry the Third ; and after that, till the iSth of JE'^crc/r^^ theFirlt'' And nowliirt 
 a new Point, Whether the King, with the Confent ot his Tenants in Capite would 
 not Tax the whole Kingdom ? And to make out this, you have tfiultet d up a 
 great many Authorities :; but for what End I know not, unlefs it be to prove 
 that fome former Kings Itretch'd their Prerogative to a£t diredly againft Law, 
 and their own Charters to the conttary \ and to jultify them in it when they 
 have done \ as if all Things were done according to their Lawtijl Prerogati\'e, 
 becaufe they did it. If this be Law or Reafon either, much good may do 
 you with it : For at this rate the King, notwithltanding all Laws made and 
 fworn to by him to the contrary, may rake what he pleafes out of our Ettates 
 without our Confents, becaule his Predecedbrs broke the Laws, and their Coro- 
 nation Oath into the Bargain. But you might have remembred, that a de jaUo 
 ad jus, non datur confequentia \ but I doubt the Precedents you have now 
 brought, will not come up to the Proof of the Aifertion you have laid 
 down : For it is plain, as well from King Johns Charter, as by that Paflage 
 in Bra&on I but now cited , whereby it appears, that extraordinary Taxes, 
 fuch d&Hidage, Corage, and Carvage, iSf alia (under which I fuppofe was 
 included your Scutage- Tax alfo) could not be impofed without the Confent of 
 the Common Council of the whole Kingdom, when the King met his Peo- 
 ple in Parliament. If then this were Law, whatever King jfohn or Henry 
 the Third, or any other King afled conttary to this Rule, was illegal, and 
 produced among other Mifchiefs the general Revolt of all the Baronage, /. e. 
 as well the Inferior as Superior Nobility of the whole Kingdom ; till fijch 
 Time as our Kings finding they could do no good by Force, were fain, at 
 laft to content themfelves with the Legal Prerogatives of the Crown, and ' 
 by new Laws and frefli Declarations of the Ancient Law, to declare it un- 
 lawful for them to impole any Taxes upon their Subjefts, without their Con- 
 fents in Parliament. 
 
 But let me tell you, that by thus fetting up the King's Illegal Prerogative of 
 taxing the Mefne Tenants of their Tenants in Capite, you quit the Q.ueftion; 
 Fori asked you by what Right the T^nimi in Capite (whom you fuppofe) 
 could grant by this great Charter a Fifteenth of the Moveables of the whole 
 Kingdom, as well of thofe who did not hold of them by Military Ser- 
 vice, as of thole that did ; nay of thofe who never held of them at all ? 
 And you then tiy ptefently to I know not what unknown Royal Preroga- 
 tive of Taxing the Mefiie Tenants of the Tenants in Capite ac pleafure ; 
 which you mult allow, either was according to Law, or it was not : If the for- 
 mer, I have already proved he could not do it by Law at all •, but if a- 
 gainlt Law, there was the like Reafon why he fhould have had the like Pre- 
 rogitive over his Tenants in Capite too ^ even ^ over the very Billiops, Ab- 
 bots, and Temporal Lords: And then I defire to know whether the great 
 Council of the Kingdom had not been long (ince deltroyed and given 
 up. 
 
 2 But
 
 353 
 
 r.ig. 441. b. 
 
 Vld. Chron. 
 Thoni. Vv ike 
 Cir Annalis de 
 W.iverly in 
 Anno 1207. 
 FMiflied at 
 Oxford. 
 
 B I E I. 1 O T H E C A P O L 1 T I C A, 
 
 Rut to examine 3'Dur Authorities. It is true, Hoveden fays of Richard the 
 Firft, that accepit de un.iquaq-^ Hida Tarx V. Jolidos ^ yet does it not therefore 
 follow, that he took this Tax without confent of his great Council. It was the 
 ordinary Phrafe of Writers in thofe times, to fay, Rex accepit, i. e. re- 
 ceived fuch a Tax, when indeed he took nothing but what was given him 
 by his Parliament. And therefore, tho' we find this Tax not mentioned in 
 any other Writer , but only Hovcdcn , and lb cannot give you an exprefs 
 Proof that this Tax was granted in a Great Council; yet it is moft likely 
 ( nay, certain it was ) for the Word acceptt does not in its own nature import 
 any violent or illegal Exaftion : And therefore ccnfidering the nature of the 
 Thing it is greater Realbn to fuppofe, that this Aid was granted by Con- 
 lent 5 fince this fame Author tells us, in the Relation of this Affair, that this 
 Money was received by the Hands of two lawful Knights of each Hundred, 
 and that they did Anfwer this Money to the Exchequer^ Coram Epi/cop/s, Ab- 
 batibifs, ^ Baron'tbm ad hoc ajftgnatis, who would never have undertaken if, 
 had not this Tax been granted by the Common Council of the Kingdom; 
 but that this King could not Tax the whole Kingdom at his pleafure, may ap- 
 pear by a Relation out of this very Author , in the very lame Year , but a lit- 
 tle before, viz. That when the King demanded by lf«i^r/,.Archbi(hop of Cw- 
 tcrbury, that Homines Angliit, the Men of England (hould find him 500 Mli- 
 tes, i. e. Knights to ftay one whole Year in his Service, or elfe would give 
 him lo much Money, as that he might therewith maintain thofe ?oo Knights 
 in conftant Pay, viz. " to every Knight Three Shillings of Eng/ijh Money 
 " Wages a Day ; and that to grant this, all the reft were willing, as not da- 
 " ring to refift the King's Will •, only Hugh, Bifliop of Lincoln, as a true Ser- 
 " vant of God, abftaining from all evil, aniwered. That he would by no means 
 " agree to the King's Defire, becaufe it would redound to the detriment of 
 " his Church, 6"r. '' And ^0 it feems the Bufinefs fell and came to nothing. 
 Now it is plain, that this Requeft muft have been made in the great Coun- 
 cil of the Kingdom, or at leaft in that of the Tenants in Capite ; and if he 
 could not charge his Subjefts with the keeping but of 300 Horfemen for one 
 Year, without their Affents, can any Body believe that he Ihould prefently after 
 extort a much greater Sum, viz. Five Shillings out of every Plowland in Eng- 
 land > But as for all your Precedents for King Johns Reign ; he was fuch a 
 Notorious Tyrant, and Breaker of his Coronation Oath, arid common Faith both 
 to God and Man, that I hoped that. neither your felf nor any good Englijh- 
 Man would have fetch d Precedents for Prerogative, from fo profligate a Reign 
 as his •, and in which I grant there were more than once Illegal Exaftions of this 
 Nature ; which yet are branded by thofe very Hittorians that relate them, for 
 , great OpprelTions and unjuft Exaftions; as particularly in this firft Inftance 
 out of Mat. Parii, of King John's taking away by Force the Seventh of the 
 Moveable Goods of the whole Kingdom •, which is by this Author called by no 
 better than Rapinian, Rapine or Robbery. 
 
 The lame I may fay to the like Exaftions of his Son Henry the Third, 
 which are branded by all Writers, as horrible and illegal OppreHions ; nay, are 
 owned to be fo by this King's frequent Confirmations of Magna Charta, and 
 Acknowledgments of his Breach of them, and Promifes to oblerve them bet- 
 ter for the future. But I am forry to find your Doftor, whom you follow, 
 both in his Anfwers to Mr. P. and Mr. A. as alfb in his compleat Hiftory, ftill to 
 cite the moft violent and illegal Adions, nay the very Perjuries, for Flowers of 
 the Crown, and Royal Prerogatives. 
 
 But as tor the Authorites you urge for this King's Talliating his Demefhes 
 without Confent of Parliament; you your felf grant that this Tall iage was not 
 general upon the whole Kingdom ; and if lo, could only concern his own 
 Tei ants in Ancient Demefne, and none elfe ; who were always exempted from 
 being taxed with the reft of the Nation, becaufe they were liable to yield the 
 King a reafonable Talliage, ratione Tenure, whentbever he needed it ; yet this 
 was counted rather a Privilege than otherwife ; fince they were not only free 
 from all other Burthens and Parliamentary Attendance; but were allb Taxed 
 much lefs than the reft of the Nation, in regard of their Tilling the King's Lands 
 for the Maintenance of his Houlhold : But when this reafonable Prerogative 
 
 grew
 
 Dialozue the Seventh 
 
 ''tb 
 
 7. 
 
 grew to be abufed , and the Exactions levied upon them became into- 
 lerable, then they would no longer fufter it ^ but got it taken away by the 
 Statute de Talldgio non ccncedendo. After which we find the Tenants in Ancient 
 Demcfne frequently giving their Shares of Aids and Subhdies in Parliament 
 by Delegates of their own, as in the Record of the ^jrh of Edujrd the 
 Firft, which you have now cited •, till at laft they came to be relblved into 
 the common Body of the Kingdom ^ but as for the City of London, it wai 
 never taken for part of the Rings Demeans ; and fo is not to be tbund in 
 Doomefday-Book ; but as appears by Record, held of the King in Cnpite ; and 
 theretore could be no otherwife Taxed than as the relt of the Tenants vi Ctt- 
 fite, that is, by the Common Council of the Kingdom. And this made the 
 Londoners deny to be otherwife Talliated , as appears by this Record of Henry 
 the Third, which you have now cited. But the truth is, they had this Exaction 
 firit laid upon them in the exorbitant Reign of King John-^ and this was after- 
 wards trum])ed again upon them in all the ill part of his Son's Government, 
 becaufe his Fadier had done it before •, and I doubt not but if Ship-Money 
 had paffed unqutftioned, and been as often paid in the Reign of King Charles 
 the Firft, but th.ip it would have been urged as a Precedent in the Reign of 
 Charles the Second. 
 
 But as for your laft Authority of the gi^d o^ Elmrd the Firft, pray take 
 Notice, that it is before the Statute de lallngio non conccdcndo, and extends only 
 to fuch Eftates in Ancient Demelne, as were held of the King by Noblemen or 
 Gentlemen, either by Gift, or Purchafe •, and which, tor all that, ftill kept the 
 Ancient Cullom of being Talliated by the King , as their Und'er-Tenants 
 were by them, to enable the Lords to pay the^ King's Talliage; and in this 
 Senfe I underttand thefe Words in this Record, unde funt in Tcnaniia ; /. e. 
 of which they are in Tenancy to the King. Nor does the Record call them Do- 
 minica fiu, as it does the King's Demeihes that follow : So that this could 
 rot be a Tax upon all Under-Tenants by Knights Service, as you fuppole ; fince 
 their Eftates were never called Antique Dominica, and therefore I think after all, 
 you cannot (hew me any legal Precedent that our Kings claimed a Right under 
 Colour of their Prerogative, of Taxing the whole Nation de Alto ij' Bajfo, at 
 their pleafure. 
 
 M. 1 (hall not now difpute it longer with you, whether the Kings of Eng^ 
 land had not aiiciently a Power of Taxing the Lands held of them, without 
 the Conlent of their Great Council ; but thus much I think I may fafely aver, 
 That when this Great Charter was made, the Tenants in Capitc, as the Common 
 Council of the Kingdom, gave Taxes and made Laws, iwt only for themlelves 
 bur their Meliie Tenants, and the whole Nation alfo. Nor was this at all un- 
 reafonable, that thole who thus held Eftates by Mefne Tenure under the Te- 
 nants in Opite, fhould be bound by the Afts of thofe of whom they held them j 
 fince we lee in Scot/and, that at this Day none fit there, either as Commiflioners f "^^ ^' ^"^^ 
 of Shires, or Burgefles for the Royal Boroughs, but liich as hold in Capite of '' 
 the King ; tor anciently, before the Law tor excufing the fmaller Barons or 
 Tenants in Capite from coming to Parliament, and fending Commiflioners of 
 Shire^ in their ftead, was intoduced by a Statute made in the Seventh Parlia- 
 ment of King James the Firft, Anno Dom. 1420, it confilted all of Tenants in 
 Capite, \i7. of tlie Bifhops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons , O^" LHuri Tenenti- 
 bus qui dc B.ege Te/ienr in Capite •, as appears by the very Words in the Latin 
 Titles to divers of thole Statutes, as you may find them in SAencs Colledion 
 of Scotch Laws. Now if this Law did anciently , and does Itill prevail in 
 Scotland, that the Tenants in Capite fhould be the fble Reprefentatives of that 
 whole Kingdom, I cannot lie any Reafon why it might not have been fo 
 anciently in England alio, efpecially fince I can gi\'e you fo good Reafbns to 
 back this Opinion. 
 
 F. I will Anfvver your Argument from Scotland by and by j but in the 
 mean Time give me leave to tell you why I think it could never have been 
 the Cuftom in England-^ and that for rwo Reafons, Firft, becaufe k was againft 
 Reaton ; and 2dl)', becaufe it was againft the known Law of the Kingdom. 
 That it was againft Reafon, is apparent ; fince what Realbn was there, that if 
 a Man in thofe Times purchafed an Eltate for u valuable ConficTeration, of 2 
 
 Lotd,
 
 g6< 
 
 BlBLlOTHECA Po Li TIC A. 
 
 Lord, or any other Tenant jnCapite (as certainly Thouftr.ds did) to he held either 
 by Knight's Service, or in Socca^e, that fuch a Tenant fliould lye at the Mercy 
 of his Lord, to difpofe of his Fflate in Taxes, and make Laws for him at his 
 Pleaiure •, hcvrever exoibitant thofe Taxes weie, or inconvenient thofe Laws might 
 prove-, the Lord being no Reprefentative, of his own Choice cr Appointment? 
 
 In the next Place, that this was contraiy to the received Law and Cuftom 
 of the Kingdom in thcfe Times, I can prove by Two very fifficient Authori- 
 ties, the one of the Earl of Chcfer, the other of the Bilhop of Durham. Now 
 it is certain that both this Farl and Bifhop held their County Palatines in Ca- 
 p'lte immediately of the King, nor had thofe Counties any Repreientatives 
 in Parliament, till long after that they had Knights of Shires and Burgefles 
 granted them by particular Statutes made for that Purpofe ; now according 
 to your Hypothefis , all the Fiteholdeis ar.d Irf aVitants of thofe County 
 Palatines (hould have been bound by all A8s of Parliament, and Taxed with- 
 the reft of the Kingdom as olten as there were Laws made, and Taxes given 
 when their Bifhop or Earl was prefcnt, which was not fo •, for in the firft 
 Place as for the County of Chejler, if the Earl had been the Reprelentatixe in 
 Parliament of his Tenants by Knight's Service or otherwifs, as alfo of all the 
 Abbeys, and the City of Chefler it felf, and all other great Towns in that 
 County, his Vote in Parliament would have obliged all of them ; and there 
 would have been no need of a Common Council or Parliament of the Scates 
 of the whole County, in which they then made Laws, and taxed themfelves 
 as a leparate Body from the reft of the Kingdom ; as may appear fiom thele 
 following Records which Mi. A. hath given us; the fiift of which is a Writ 
 of King Edward the Firft, direfted Archiepifcopis, Epifcopii, Abbatibus, Prio- 
 R t^p't '^' ^'^"^^ Baronibus, Mi/it ibus., Cf omnibus aliis fide/ibus Juis in Comitdt.Cefirix-., re- 
 £.* i. M.' 5. citing, That whereas the Prelates, Counts, Barons, ^ alii de Regno, had gi- 
 ven him a 15th of their Moveables, he defires that they alio would of 
 their Benevolence and Courtely ( in Latin Curialitats ) grant him the like 
 Subfidy \ which. Note, could not be done out of a Common Council. 
 . ^ So likewife in another Writ of the 20th of this King, reciting. That whereas 
 
 E!i.m.6. ^°' the Frobi Homines, tif Communitai Cefiri£ ficut ctcteri de Regno noftro ^'^mam 
 partem omnium mobilium fuorum ncbk concefjerunt gratioje. Now fuppofing (as the 
 Dc£tor always does) that thefe Yrobt Homines were the Earls Tenants in 
 Capite, what can this Word Communitoi here fignify, but another Sort of Men 
 diftinft from them, viz. the Commonalty or Commons of that County ? 
 And which is alio remarkable, this County was now fallen to the Crown for 
 want of Heirs Male of the laft Earl -, and fo according to the Doftor's Notion, 
 the King being their fole Reprefentative needed not to have been beholden 
 to them for thele Subfidies ; fince tho' not as King, yet as Earl 'ofCheJIer, he 
 might have taxed them himfelf ^ which yet he thought not fit to do, becaule 
 he knew it was contrary to the Rights and Privileges of that County, which 
 had ever fince the Grant of it to Hugh Lupus by William the Firft, always 
 been taxed by themfelves. 
 
 ' Which Privileges are alio exprelly let forth in a Supplication of all the 
 Lftates of this County Palatine to King Henry the Sixth, which Mr. P. has 
 given us from an ancient Copy of it then in the Hands of Sir Thomas Mainvoaring 
 of that County, Baronet : Wherein the " Abbots, Priors, and Clergy, Barons, 
 /". R. c.j>45, " Knights, Etquires, and Commonalty, fet forth, that they with the Content of 
 4(j. " ' " the Earl, did make and admit Laws within the lame, Cr. and that no In- 
 
 ♦' heritors, or Pofleffbrs within the laid County were chargeable or liable, or were 
 " bounden, charged, or hurt of their Bodies, Liberties, Franchifes, Lands, Goods, 
 " or PofTeflions, unlefs the laid County had agreed unto it. Now what can here 
 be meant by County but the Common Council, or Parliament thereof, fince 
 othetwile they could make no Laws, nor do any other publick Aft ? 
 
 The like I may fay for the County Palatine of Durham, which from the 
 
 Grant thereof by William Rufus to the then Bifhop, had always been taxed 
 
 by themlelves, and not by the Bifhop in Parliament, and that as low as the 
 
 Reign of Edward the Third j as appears by this Record of the 14th of that 
 
 Rot. Aleman ^'"S ' containing a Letter or Commiflion to R. Bilhop of Durham ; reciting, 
 
 i4£rf. 3. m.5. " That whereas the Prelates, Earls, Barons and the Commons of Counties, 
 
 " had given him a 9th of their Goods there mentioned, that therefore the 
 
 1 Bifliops
 
 ^Dialogue the Seventh, 561 
 
 " Bifliops fllould convene the Magnates ^ Cnmmumtatem Uihertatii vt-flr.e 
 " ( to wit, of his County VaLit'ine ) jd^ certum diem, £?" locum, with all conve- 
 " nient Speed ; and that done, to peffuade and excite the faid Magnates C 
 " Communitas, to grant the Kins; the like, or a larger Subfidy, towards the 
 " Maintenance of his Wars ; which had been altogether in vain, if the Rifhop, 
 " or the King could in thofe Days have Taxed this County at their 
 " fleafure. 
 
 Now if thefe great Tenants in Capite could not Tax their Mefne Tenants 
 without their Conlents, much lefs could the reft of the Tenants in Capite 
 in England inripofe Taxes on their Tenants in Military Service, or in Socage, 
 without their Confents, which laft had a much lefs Dependance upon 
 them. 
 
 M. I muft confefs I never tonfidered thefe Precedents of the County Fala- ^- ^ ^• 
 tine o{ Chejkr ani Durham ; and therefore can fay nothing to them at prelent, ^''^^ '^'' 
 fince it is Matte'r of FaQ-, but as to Reafon and Law, I ^link it is confbnant 
 to both, that not only Tenants in Military Service, but Socage Tenure, fhould be 
 bound by the A£ls of their Superior Lords, of whom all the Lands of England 
 were formerly held by Knights Service: And though in Procefs of Time many 
 of thefe Eftates and Lands became free Tenemenfs, or were holden in Socage ; 
 that is, were a fort of Freeholders ^ yet the Lords retained Homage (which in 
 the Times we now write of, was no idle iiifignificant Word ) and by that a Domi- 
 nion over the Eftate^ whereby upon Dilbbedience, Treachery, or Injury done 
 to the Lords, iSfc. the Lands were forfeited to them. And although the 
 Lands, nor the Tenants of them ( which were termed Freeholders) were fub- 
 ieft to any bafe Services, or fervile Works, yet the Lords had a great Power 
 over thefe Tenants, by reafon of their doing Hotnage to them (which though now 
 antiquated ) yet eo nomine, their Lands were many ways liable to Forfeiture, and 
 Taxes too. 
 
 So that upon all thefe Accounts, it was then as reafonable that the Tenants 
 in Capite fhould in thofe Days make Laws, and grant Ta5;^s for all the reft 
 of the Kingdom j as the Tenants in Capite in Scotland fliould do fo to this very 
 Day, for all the Inhabitants of that Kingdom of never fo great Eftates-, and to this 
 Argument which is certain in Matter ot'FaCt, you have yet anfwered nothing, nor 
 do I believe can. 
 
 F. I cannot fee, notwithftanding what you have now laid, that the Su- 
 peiiof Lords, by reafon of Homage, fhould have an abfolute Power over 
 their Tenants Eftates : For though in the Profeffion of Homage to the Lords, I 
 grant the Tenant thereby promifed to become the Lord's Man ; yet he never 
 thereby meant to become his Slave ^ and there were mutual Duties on both 
 Sides; fo that if the Lord failed to proteft his Tenant in his Eftatc, or un- 
 ]uftly opprefTed him, he might have refufed ( nay renounced ) his Ho- 
 mage, till the Lord had done him right -, nor can I fee how a bare Right of having 
 the Forfeiture of the Eftate in the Cafes you have put, which yet let me tell 
 you, were never fb ftrift in refpetl of Socage as Military Tenure, as I could 
 ifhew you, were it worth while-, for if this Right of Forfeiture alone, 
 could give the Superior Lord a Power over his Tenant's Eftate, to make 
 Laws for him, and Tax him as he pleafed, then by the fame Rule, the King 
 as Supreme Lord over all his Tenants in Capite, fhould have had the like 
 Power over them, of making what Laws for them, and impofing what Taxes 
 he pleafed upon them, without their Confents 5 and fb there would have been 
 no need of Common Councils or Parliaments at all, fince upon your Hypo- 
 thefis, the Tenants in Capite were the only Perfons that had any Right to ap- 
 pear there. But if neither the Wardfhip, Marriage, nor Relief of the Heir, 
 could give the King fuch a Power over his Tenants in Capite, much lefs 
 could, they attain the like Right over all their Mefhe Tenants by Knights 
 Service ; for that would have given them a greater Power over their Tenants 
 than the King hlmfelf had over them ■■, therefore if thofe great Tyes of 
 Wardfhip, Marriage and Relief of the Heir, could neither gix'e the King, 
 nor yet any Tenant in Capite, Power over the Eftate of Liberty of his Tenants 
 by Knights Service, much lefs over their Tenants by Socage Tenure, who 
 were not under this Subjection, And farther, if a Right of Forfeiture alone, 
 
 Aaa in
 
 36 
 
 2 B I B L 1 O T H E C A P O I. 1 T I C A. 
 
 in fome Cafes, could have given tlie Lords a Power of making Laws, and 
 granting Taxes for his Tenants in Socage, then they ihould have ftill kept 
 that Right by this Rule, fince all Lords had a Right of Forfeiture even upon 
 their Tenants in Socage in fome Cafes, before the Statute of taking awav 
 Knights Service, and the Court of Wards, and Liveries, in the Second 
 Year of King G?ar/es the Second 5 as I could prove, were it worth 
 while. • 
 
 As to Scot /and, I (hall not deny the Matter -of Fa£l to be as you 
 fay, that it hath at this Day no other Reprefentatives in their Parliament, 
 but the Tenants in Qpite-, yet whether it was fo or not anciently, I very 
 much doubt -, hnce I find the very lame Words and Phrafes made ule of in 
 the Titles of their old Statutes, as alfo in their Records, to exprefs 
 the Conftituent Parts of the great Council of that Kingdom, as weie ufed 
 Vilchht. m England, to exprefs thofe of England at the fjme Time. For Proof of 
 fundat.Monafl. ^hich, prav fee t^e old Charters of King Malcolm IIL and' David I. as you 
 de Dunferling. ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^_^ ^^^ ^^ ^,^g Second Volume in Mr. Dugdale's Monaft. 
 Anglic, and you will fee the former to have been made by the Aflent of 
 the Comites iff Baroncs Regni, Oero adquiefcenieque Topulo, gic. and as \ 
 fhall alfo fhew you from Sir John Skene s Colleclion of Scotijh Laws ; to 
 begin with the moft Ancient there Ej^tant, {viz.) an Aflize or Statute made 
 B. A p. p. 96. in the Time of King William, Sirnamed the Lion, who began his Reign Anna 
 &fle'mSratui.j}c,m. iiCy. in the Fifth of our Henty I.; to the Obfervance whereof ic is 
 ^Fol ■'^ Caf^7 ^^^^^ expreffed, that the Epifcopi, Abbates, Comites, Barones, Thani , £/ tota 
 Communitoi Regni tenere jb-miter juraverunt. So likewife King Alexander IL 
 574^ Alexan. who began to Reign Anno 1214, which was the Sixteenth Yeat of our 
 Res. Fol. 22. King 7^^«, and he made his Laws de confilio i^ ajfenfu vcnerabiliumVatrum 
 "^^ ^' Epifcoporiim., Abbatum, haronum, ac probcrum hcmnum fuorum Scotix, and who 
 
 thefe were, may alio fariiier appear by the beginning of certain Statutes made by 
 the faid King Alexander in the fame Year, which begin thus, Statuit Rex per 
 confilium fjf ajjcnjfcm totius communitatis fiut. See. 
 »,»^Rob. I. I fliall next produce the Title of a Parliament holden the \'^'Ca. <£ Robert \. 
 Fol.2$. who began \\\sRfi\gn Anno Lorn. i:?c6, in the Third of our Edward \. In Dei 
 
 nomine. Amen. Rohertus Dei Gratia Rex Scotorum Anno Regni fuo Decimo tertio 
 die Dominica froxinm, Kc. habito folenni traBatu, cum Epifcopps, Abbatibus, 
 Fricribus, Coviitibus, Baronibus, ^ aliis Magnatibtis de Communitate totius Regni 
 ibidem ccngregatk \ and which Title concludes thus, de Commnni confilio ^S ex- 
 prejfo concenfu omriium Frelatorum, £? liberi Tenentium prediBorum ac totius Com- 
 munitatis predii?^ crdinavit, condidit, 8cc. Statuta injra Scripta, 8rc. So like- 
 wife in an ancient Manufcript, called, Scoto Cbrvnicon, formerly in the Pof 
 feffion of the Right Learned and Honourable Arthur Earl of Angle fey, and 
 now in the Herald-Office , you will find the Entail of the Crown of Scotland 
 TO have been made by this King JRfiif;-/, Anno Dom. 1515, in a general Council 
 or AlFembly of the whole Kingdom of Scotland, as well Clergy as Laiiy, which 
 Chap. 24. ias this Author tells us (who lived within Sixty Years after) was held, Dominica 
 pj-oxima ante fejfum Apoftolonan Congregati apud Acre in Ecclefa. Parochiali 
 ejufdem Laici, Efijcopi, Abbates, Priores, Archidiaconi, nee non Diaconi, C ceteri 
 Ecclefarum Pr/lati, Comites, Barones, Alilites, i^ cxteri de Communitate, Regni 
 Scotix, tarn Cleri quant Laid, Sic. j from which it is apparent, there was a great 
 Council of the whole Kingdom (as in England) more comprehenfive than that of 
 Tenants in Capite alone. 
 
 And that our Enghfh Records alfo agree with thefe Scotch Statutes, you may 
 
 fee by Two Records which Mr. Pryn has given us in hisHiltory of Papal Vfurpa- 
 
 Rot. Par. 17. tions, out of the Rolls of the 17th oi' Edward L It is a Letter to Eric, King of 
 
 £. iW. 4, J^orway, concerning the Marriage of his Son Edieard, with his Grand-daughter, 
 
 then Heireft of Scotland and A'crway, reciting that the Cujhdes (Scil. Regni 
 
 Scoriae) ALignales, Prjelati, ac tota Communitaf prcdicii Regni Scoti.e unanimi, iSl 
 
 Rot. Par. 18. cxprejjo confenfu, had agreed to the faid Marriage. So likewife in anorher Let- 
 
 E. I. M.9. ^ej oj jj,,^ j^j^g EdiiJard's about the fame Marriage, he declares that he had by his 
 
 Procurators therein named, treated and agreed with the Cuftodibus, Epifccpis 
 
 Ahbatibus, Conn ti bus, Baronibra, i^ tota Communitate ejufdem Regni ^ and it pre- 
 
 lently follows, ac prjed/Hi nobiles £?" tota Communila^ Regni Scotia pncdilli, Now 
 
 whom
 
 dialogue the Seventh. q6'2 
 
 whom can this Word Comminitas fignify, put here diftincl: from the Earls, Barons, 
 and Nobles, but the Commons of that Kingdom ? 
 
 So likewife in the Fourteenth Year of King Robert the Firft, there was ^'i-D^w.ijzo. 
 a Letter fent from the Parfiament of Scotlani to the Pope, complaining againft 
 the Violence of the King of England ( which is to be leen in Manufcript, and 
 is alio Printed by Dr. Burnet, in his Hiftory of the Reformation) and by which it Part 2. FoL 
 plainly appears, that the Comitcs, Barones, Liberi 7enentes, iJf tota Communita* i°9' ^-lo- 
 Scoiix^ agteed to this Letter. 
 
 And that the Cities and Borough Towns were at that Time Part of this p. A. C- p. 83. 
 Communitm, appears by the League made berween this King Robert and the 
 King o^Yrance, in the 28th Year of our Edward the Firft, which is to be feen in 
 a Roll of this Year, ftill Extant in the Tower ^ which League was ratified and 
 confirmed in their Parliament, by King John de Balwl, ac fr£latos, iS nobiki 
 XJnivcrfitates, ^ Commun'itates civhatum , C viUarum prxdiili Regni Scotu ; 
 and 1 fuppofe you will not deny that in Scotland, the Cities and Boroughs 
 from Times beyond all Memory, fent their Proxies and Reprefentatives to 
 the Parliament in Scotland , and that each Citizen and Burgefs lb fent, 
 had as good a Vote in their Parliament, as the greateft Bilhop or Earl of 
 them all. 
 
 M. I defire no better Prooft than what your felf have now brought to make 
 out, that the Tenants in Capite are not only at this Day, but have been from the 
 very beginning of Parliaments in that Nation. 
 
 For I fhall appeal to thofe very Stanites and Records you have now cited, 
 which compared with divers fublequent Statutes of that Kingdom, will 
 make the Matter plain enough, that the Communitas, and thefe probi homines 
 mentioned in thefe Laws you have cited, were the Community of the Tenants 
 in Capite only. 
 
 In the Firft Place, therefore, let me oblerve from that very Law of King 
 Alexander's, the Title of which you have but now quoted, that thefe Words 
 per ajjenfum Communitatis cannot here fignify the Commons, fince they 
 alone 'could neither advife, nor give their Conient to make Laws, and there- 
 fore they muft needs refer to the whole Community or Aflembly of Eftates, 
 confiding of Tenants in Capite only ^ as I fhall prove by a Parliament of King 
 Robert IIL who began to Keign Anno Dom. 1400, (in the loth Year of our b.a.p. p.p8, 
 Richardll.) the Title iS thus, Parliamentum Domini noBri Robert! IIL Scotorum Stat. \A.ob. ■i. 
 Regit, &:c. vocatls i^ fummonitii more jolito Epfcopk, Yrioribm, Ducibus, Co- ■'"''''• <^ 3 • 
 tnitibus, Baronibus, Liberis Tenentibus iif Burgenfibus qui de Domino Rege tenent 
 in Cipite -, and this is alio confirmed from the Title to a Parliament held at 
 Terih^ Anno Dom. 1427, being the 23d of King James I. Summonitis ^ vocatis 
 tnore folito Epifcopk, Abbatibus, Prioribus, Comitibus, Baronibus, tfJ Liberi Tenen- 
 tibus, qui dc nobis tenent in Qpite, &" de quolibet Burgo certk Burgenfibus. So that 
 I think nothing can be jjlalner from thefe Ancient Statutes, than that the Scotijh 
 Parliaments did anciendy confift of no other Members than the Bifhops, Abbots 
 and Priors, Dukes and Earls, Barons, Freeholders and Burgeffes, which held of 
 the King in Capite. 
 
 Having thus fhewn the Ancient Conftitution of the ScotiJJ) Parliaments, for your 
 Satisfa£lion, I fhall fmher (hew when, and how it was altered. 
 
 In the Seventh Parliament of King James the Firft, held at Perth, Anno Dom. 
 1420, there was a Law made (which I fhall conttaO:) " That the fmall Barons Statut. Jacob; 
 " and Freeholders need not to come to Parliaments, and that for the future out of i- Hid. 
 " each Sheriflrdom there fhould be fent Two or more wife Men after the Large- 
 " nefs of the Sheriffdom, tlie which fhall be called Commiflaries of the Shire ; 
 " and that thefe flrould have full Power finally to hear and determine all Caules 
 •' to be propoled in the Great Council or Parliament ; and that the faid Com- 
 " miffaries mould have Cottage of them of each Shire that ought to appear in 
 " Parliament or Council. I have only given you an Abftraft of this Statute, be- 
 aule it is pretty long, and penn'd in old Scotijh Englijlj, but you may confult it 
 at your Leiliire. 
 
 And this is farther confirmed by a fubfequent A£l: of Parliament of King James b. a. p. 
 the Sixth, holden at Edinburgh, July the 29th, 1587, wherein after a Repetition Poi.99. 
 
 A a a 2 of
 
 3^4 
 
 B I B L I O T H E C A P O L 1 T I C A. 
 
 of the Former A£l of King James the firft, and a Confirmation of the lame, li 
 follows thus: 
 
 " And that all Freeholders of the King, under the Degree of Prelates and 
 " Lords of Parliament, be warned by Proclamation to be prefent at the chu- 
 " fing of the faid Commiflioners 5 and none to have voit in their Eleftion 
 " but fick as hes Fourtie Shillings Land in free tenandrie halden of the King, 
 " and hes their aftual Dwelling and Rendence within the flime Schire, &"<:." 
 I need give you no more of this Aft -, but I think it is molt clear trom this as 
 well as the former Aft of Parliament, that the Commons in Scotland were 
 only the King's Tenants in Caphe, and are fo at this Day ; fince none but 
 they can either chufe or be chofen Commiflioners for the Shires. But as 
 w ^f s^"^ to the Boroughs, who do each of them fend but one Commiffioner or Bur- 
 land, />. 1^7! g^^s (except the City of Edinburgh, which fends two) all which are cliofeti 
 by the Common Council of the Towns ; now there are in Scotland three forts 
 of thefe Burghs, that is to fay. Royal Burghs, Burgs of Regality, and Burghs 
 Ibid. p. 100. of Barony ; but only the Royal Boroughs, the Btngi Dominici Regis, or qui 
 de Rege Tencnt in Capite , fend Commiflioners to Parliament, and are in 
 Number Sixty. 
 
 To conclude. That I may apply what hath been faid concerning the Confti- 
 tuent Parts of the Scatijh Parliaments to ours Anciently, it feems to me, that 
 from the great Affinity there was between ours and theirs, 'ris certain, that 
 our and their Comimnitas Regni, was the fame, that is, tiiey were the fmall 
 Barons and Tenants in Capite. 
 
 F. I cannot deny but that the Parliament of Scot/and hath, for above thefe 
 Two Hundred Years, confifted of the Bifhops, Abbots, and Temporal Lords, 
 together with the LeflTer Tenants /« C/^/Vf, or their Reprefentatives the Com- 
 miflioners for Shires, and BurgefTes of Cities and Towns, till the Reformation,' 
 that the Bifhops and Abbots were quite taken away ^ tho' the former were re- 
 ftored to their Places in Parliament, by a Statute made in the latter end of 
 King James the Firft; yet I cannot allow, that from the beginning of that 
 Government, the Scotch Parliaments have confifted of no other Members 
 than thofe ^ fince the Word CommunitiU coming, as it does in thefe old Sta- 
 tutes and Records ( I have now cited ) immediately after the Fr'-'ati, Comites^ 
 Barones, i^ Jlli/ites, &c. mutt fignify a Dittinft Order of N^cn. from the 
 Tenants in Capite , called in the Statute of King James the Fiift, the fmall 
 Barons, and fince the Citizens and Burge{f;s, rhoug' none of rhofe Barons, 
 were alfo comprehended under this Comm./nitaj (and whom you grant to make 
 the Third Ettate, ) why this Word might not comprehend all the other great 
 Freeholders, I can lee no Realon to the contrary. 
 
 And therefore I llippole, that in the Reigns of King David the Second, or 
 Robert the Second, or elfe the beginning of Robert the Third, there was a 
 great Alteration in the conltituent Parts or Members of the ScottiJJ) Parliament : 
 And about that Time, the Chief Freeholdeis, or Lords of Manors, who held 
 of Bifhops, Abbots, and other Temporal Lords, as well as of the Tenants 
 in Capite, or elfe of the King, by petty Serjeanty, or Socage Tenure j as 
 alfo many of the fmall Towns, or Baronies, might either forbear coming 
 at all, or elfe defire to be excufed, becaufe of the great Trouble and Charge 
 of Attendance 5 ( as you fee the fmaller Tenants in Capite afterwards did, 
 when Commiflioners for Shires were appointed in their fteads ) and fo 
 might by Degrees leave ofi coming, or be excluded by fome Law not ;:ow 
 Extant. And thus the Tenants in Capite , might become the fole Reprefen- 
 tatives of the whole Natron in Parliament. And I am of this Opinion, be- 
 caufe in many of the old Statutes before the Time of Robert the Second, we 
 find the Communitn! totius Regni, coming immediately after the Earls and 
 Barons (as in our own Ancients Statutes and Records -,) but after thofe Reigns, 
 we find no more mention of this Communitas, but only of the Dukes, Earls, 
 Barons, hiheri Tenentibus, i!f Burgenjibus, qui de Rege Tcnent in Capite, as in 
 the Titles to thole Statutes of King Robert the Third, and James the Fifth, you 
 have now cited. 
 
 And yet that Liber Tenens was not anciently taken for a Tenant in Capite 
 only , pray fee the la^th. Giap. of the Laws of King Alexander the Second, 
 mziiQ Anno Dem. 12 14. with your Doftor's Comment upon them; Statutum efi 
 
 quod
 
 Dialogue the Seventh. q-^^ 
 
 quoi nee Epifcopi^ nee Abbata, nee Comita, nee a/iqul fiber} Tenemes, tenebunt 
 curias fuat nifi V'lceeomes Kegii^ vel ferv'ientcs Vkccom'ius ibidem fueranf. B. A P.P.9S. 
 Upon which Words, the Doctor in his Anfwer to Mr. P. hath this Remark, 
 viz. This again (hews us, that the Freeholders were Lords of Manors at leaft. 
 So that unlefs you will fuppofe that none but Tenants in Capite were Lords 
 of Manors, or held Courts, (as certainly very many of the Melne Tenants did ) 
 this Word Liber Tenens muft extend to any other great Freeholder or Lord of a 
 Manor, of whatfoever" Lord he held it ; and as fuch naight anciently have 
 had a Vote in that Parliament. So that if I have (as I think fufficiently) 
 proved that the Word Communitas coming after the Earls and Barons, in our an- 
 cient Statutes and Records, did certainly fignify another Order of Men diftinft 
 from the Tenants in Capite , I have the fame Reafon to believe it was fo in 
 Scotland too-, not only becaufe thefe general Words Communitcui totim Regni, 
 niuft needs be more comprehenfive, than to exprels the Tenant in Capite only, 
 ( who could never Reprelent .all the great Freeholders in Scot/and any more than 
 rhey did in Er^land) but alfo becaule it is acknowledged by the Scotch Lawyers, 
 that the Fundamental Laws and Conftitutions are the lame in both King- 
 doms. For Sir John Skene in his Epiftle to King James before his Scotijh 
 Laws, iays thus, Intelligo tuas tuorumque Majoriem leges, cum legibus liegni 
 tui Anglitt magna ex parte eonfentiunt 5 which is alio acknowledged by the 
 King himfelf in the Speech he made in Parliament concerning the Union of 
 both Kingdoms. 
 
 To conclude, I cannot but admire your Doftor's ftrange Partiality, who does 
 alldw the Commons of Scotland to have even been a Third Eftate, when he 
 cxprefly grants, that, " The Commons of Scotland were, and are at this Day^ 
 *' the Kjng^s Tenants in Capite ; and that the King's Royal Boroughs were fuch 
 " as ever did, and do at this Day in Scotland, only fend Burgejjes to parliament : 
 Now why the Cities and Boroughs ii England Ihould not have always had the 
 like Privilege, as well as in Scotland, I wi(h you could give me any fufficient 
 Realbn 
 
 M. Since you own that the Tenants in Capite, or elfe Commiflioners in their 
 ftead, have been the Ible Rqprefentatives tor the whole Kingdom cJi Scotland 
 for above 200 Years, ^ I doubt not but they were fo, long before that Time ; 
 lince you confefs you cannot (hew any Law by which this Ancient Cuftom 
 came to be changed \ though I grant, that the Statutes betore King Tiavii 
 and Robert the Second, are laid to be made by the Communitca totius Regni^ 
 yet you muft not fuppofe that Coiiftitution of the Kingdom altered, when the 
 Clerks altered their Phrales in penning their Statutes and Records ^ fo that 
 this C-ommunitas was the Community of the Tenants m Capite only, and not of 
 the Freeholders, or of the Citizens and BurgelFes of the whole Kingdom ; 
 firce as for the former, you cannot fay, that all the People in Scotland had 
 ever a Right to chufe the Commilhoners for the Shires : For then 'tis moft 
 likely they would have kept it to this Day ; whereas we fee that none but Tenants 
 tn Capite have Votes at fuch Eleftions. 
 
 And as for Cities and Boroughs, I cannot find ( nor do I believe you can 
 fhew me ) any Inltance of a City or Borough-Town in Scotland that ever fent 
 Deputies to Parliament, but what held in Gipite of the King. For though 
 there are, as I (aid already, be(ides the Royal Burghs, two other forts, viz. 
 Boroughs of Regality, and Boroughs of Barony, who hold of the King, but 
 not in Capite, or elfe of fbme Bilhop or Temporal Lord •, and though divers of 
 thefe are confiderable for Trade and Riches •■, yet none of them fend any Burgefles 
 to Parliament : So that though I contefs there are Three Eftates in the Scotch Par- 
 liament, called in the Statutes of King David and Robert the Second, the Tres 
 Commiinitates Regni; yet did thefe always confift of the Tenants in Capite only ^ 
 who therefore lit together and make but one Affembly. 
 
 Now that we may apply what hatli been faid to England, I defire you to 
 take Notice, that the Dodor and we that are of his Opinion, do not pofitively 
 affirm, that the Commons of England were not at all reprelented before 49 
 of Henry the Fourth, but that they were not reprefented in Parliament by Knights, 
 Citizens, and BurgefTes of their own Choice, but by the greater and lefler Te- 
 nants in Capite, the gtcateft part of which I grant were not Lords, And admit 
 
 that
 
 366 
 
 B 1 B L 1 O T H E C A P O L 1 T 1 C A. 
 
 that I fliould grant you that fome Cities and Boroughs lent Members to 
 Parliament, before the 49th of Henry the Third ^ yet were they only fuch 
 as held in Capite, and no other, as the Doftor has very well obferv'd in his 
 Anfwer to Mr. Fs Argument from the Petition of the Town of St. Albans. 
 So that upon the whole Matter, there will be no more gain'd by you in this 
 Controverfy, than that perhaps fome Citizens and Burgefles appeared in 
 Parliament , and conltituted a Third fort of Men, which you may call the 
 Commons, if you pleale, though I cannot find they were fo called, till after 
 the Time of Edward the Firlt But fuppofing this to be fo ^ it is very far 
 from your Republican, levelling Opinion, who do fuppofe, that all the Freeholders 
 of England, had an ancient indifputable Right of appearing in Parliament by 
 Reafon of their Propriety in Lands, or other Eftates. Whereas by our Hypo- 
 thefis, we fuppofe the Great Council or Parliament to have anciently been the 
 King's Court-Baron, confifting of his immediate Tenants, call d thither by 
 him theJr Supreme Lord, to advertKe him of the Grievances of the Nation ; 
 and to propofe what new Laws were neceffiiry for the Publick Good of the 
 Commonweal ; and together with him to raife fuch publick Taxes, both upon 
 themfelves and their Tenants, as the Neceflities of the State required ; yet not- 
 withftanding, there is a valt difference between your Notion and mine, con- 
 cerning the Rights which fuch Tenants in Capite might claim of coming to 
 Parliament ; fince before King John\ Charter, ( whereby I grant all the Lefler 
 Barons or Tenants m Capite were to be Summoned by the Sheriff to come to 
 the Common Council of the Kingdom) the King might have- only calfd 
 Ibme of the greateft and wifeft of them, and fuch as he thought moft fit to 
 advife him in making Laws, and impofing Taxes upon the Nation. And 
 the like Prerogative his Son Henry the Third refumed during the greater 
 Part of his Reign, as I fliall liiew you from divers old Statutes by and by. 
 2 ji y And that our Kings did often take upon them to call whom they pleafed, 
 and omit whom they pleafed of thele Tenants in Capite , may appear by thole 
 who were called Fares Baroninn^ or alios Magnates, who are put after the Ba« 
 ions \ and of thefe there are many Inftances of their being called to Parliament, 
 and again omitted in leveral King's Reigns after the Commons were a Third 
 Eftate, as reprefented as at this Day. 
 
 Fl I muft beg your Pardon, if I cannot come over to your Opinion, notwith- 
 ftanding what you now have laid •, fince I do not find your Reafon to come up 
 to what you intend therein ^ for you only fuppofe, ( but without any Proof) 
 that the Words Fopidus and Communitas muft iignity only Tenants //; Capite^ 
 in the Anci«it Scotiji^ Charters and Statutes. All the Argument you bring to 
 the contrary is, that I cannot (hew you any Law by which it was altered to 
 what it is now ; and therefore, that the Conftitution has been always the fame 
 as at this Day. Now pray confider, whether this will not prefs altogether as 
 hard upon in your relation to England ^ for you cannot fhew me any Law whereby 
 the Tenants in Capite were excluded here, and Knights of Shires introduced in 
 their fteads^ and therefore, by the lame Rule, let the Scotij}} Parliaments 
 have been of what they will , yet ours have been ftill the fame they are now. 
 But if you fay, that this contrary Ufage hath been introduced, either by the 
 King's Prerogative, or by the filent Conlenc of th^ People \ or by Ibme Law 
 that is now loft, are not all the iame Arguments to be made ule of in the 
 Gale of the Scotijh Parliaments : Which I may upon as good Grounds fuppole 
 to have deviated from their Original Conftitution, as you do that our Englijh 
 Parliaments have done it. 
 
 ■' So that if thofe Arguments are of any weight, they will ferve for England^ 
 as well as Scotland-, but if they are not, it is in vain to make ufe of them 
 at all. The like I may lay, as to Boroughs in Scotland 5 fince it is as 
 eafy tp fuppole, that divers Boroughs \n Scotland might voluntarily delilt from 
 lending their Deputies to Parliament, that did not hold of the King in Ca- 
 pte -, as it is, that divers Boroughs in England did Petition to be exempted 
 irorn fending Burgefles to Parliament, by realbn of their Inability to pay the 
 Fxpences of their BurgelTes 5 as I could fhew you by divers Precedents_, (fome 
 of which are in Print; had I now Time. 
 
 A3
 
 Dialogue tie Seventh. n6-j 
 
 As for the reft of your Difcourfe, I cannot imagine to wiiac it tends ^ for 
 if the Tenants in Capiie iiad any Place in, or Right to come to Parliament, 
 how came they fo have it, but by reafon of the great Freehold Eftutes they 
 held of the King?. And if fo, I can fee no Reafon why tliofe that had as 
 good or better Freehold Eftates than they, Ihould be all excluded : Or why a fmall 
 Tenant in Qpite of but one Knights Fee held of the King in Capite, (hould 
 give him a Right to a Place* in Parliament •, and yet that a Mefne Tenant, 
 or Vuvjfour (as he was then called) who held Ten Knights Fees of fbme Bi- 
 (hop or Abbot, who perhaps did not hold in Capite at all, (hould have no 
 Right of appearing there, nor of chufing any Reprefentative for him ; fince 
 notwithltanding all you have now laid, the Do£tor either contradids himfelf, 
 or you, when he tells us exprefly in his Anfwer to Mr. P. " That the Te- 
 " nants in Cipite who were no Barons, reprefented only themfelves, and not ^■'^'''■^•''^' 
 " the Commons. But how will this agree with what he fays in his Intro- 
 duftion, that the Body of the Commons had no (hare in making Laws, &c\ 
 betore the 49th of Henry the Third, unlefs they were reprefented by the 
 Tenants in Capite ? And if fo mult then certainly reprelent thole that he here 
 calls tiie Body of the Commons of England collectively taken. 
 
 But as for your Notion of the Parliament's being the Kings Court Baron ; 
 tho' you have borrowed it of a learned Scotch Lawyer, Sir George Mackenzy^ 
 yet let me tell you it was never true •, for it is well known that the Great or 
 Common Councils both in EngLmd and Scotland are much more ancient than 
 the Tenures of Lands by Knights Service \ or than the very Inftitution of 
 Manors in this Kingdom, which the Doftor tells us are of no higher an 
 Original than the Korman Conqueft. 
 
 But admit I (hould allow your Notion of the Parliament's being anciently 
 the King's Court-Baron, then certainly all the Tenants in Capite had a Right 
 to appear there, and to be not only Suitors, but Judges of all Differences 
 ariling among the Tenants in the Lords Court, where neither the Lord him- 
 felf nor his Steward were Judges ; and that of Right .and not by Favour. 
 Whereas you fuppo(e fuch a Court-Baron as never was heard of, where the 
 Lord could admit or exclude whom of his Tenants he pleafed, to which 
 if they had a Kight rationeTenurie, certmnly he could never do. So that in- 
 ftead of a Court-Baron and a Common Council according to King Johns 
 Charter, whereby all the Tenants in Cipite were to be fummoned to this Coun- 
 cil, or pretended Court Baron ; you luppofe the King ftill retained a Prero- 
 rogative of calling or omiting whom he plealed s which inftead of confirming 
 the Validity of the Charter, and that it was to be a Rule how fuch Councils 
 Ihould be called ior the future ; you make to fignify iuft nothing, and that 
 no Common Council was ever called according to that Model. But pray (hew 
 me a Court Baron, wherein the Tenants ever took upon themfelves a Power 
 of giving Taxes our of their Eftates, that did not hold of the Manor, though 
 they were refidenc wuhin it. But indeed you are out in the whole Matter, 
 for the Doftor himlclf grants in his Anfwer to Mr. P. when " he gives us 
 " King Johns Letters of Summons to a Council direfted to the Barons and 
 " Knights (and as he ttanflates F/f^f/zT'^j) Feudatories, or Vaffals of all England, b. 4, p. ^. ^o. 
 " wherein he lets them know, that he had lent his Letters to every one of 
 " them, if it might have been done". Now what Realon had he to write 
 thus, if thefe Gentlemen had no Right to be coufulted, or that the King might 
 have called or left out whom of them he pleafed ? But the Barons, or Tenants 
 in Capite wtye of another mind, when in the 57th of King Henry the Third, as 
 Mat. Parts tells us, they refufed to A£l or Proceed upon any Thing, 
 without all the reft of their Peers-, divers of whom, it leeras, the King had for 
 fome Reafons then omitted to fummon. 
 
 But as for your Inttance of the Barons, Peers, or alios Magnates, which 
 were fometimes fummoned, and fometimes omitted in the Reigns of our 
 Three Edwards ; you do well to put in, that it was after the Times that the 
 Commons were a Third Eftate •, for indeed, it jps only after that the Te- 
 nants in Capite had left off making a diltin£l Council by themfelves ; which I 
 luppofe was about the End of the Reign of Henry the Third ; and then it is 
 true, the King called^ feveral of thele Tenants in Capite, (as alfo others that 
 
 were
 
 q68 Bibliotheca Politic a. 
 
 were not fb) by Writ, to the Houle of Lords, as Pares Baronum, i. c. not as 
 real Barons, but Baron-Peers, fince a bare Summons by Writ did not as yet 
 (nor long after) veil a Peerage in their Heirs. So that upon she whole Matter, 
 I fee no Realbn from any Thing you have urged from the Example o^ Scot- 
 land, to make me change my Opinion, that the Tenants in Cipite were anci- 
 ently the fole Reprelentatives, either of this or that whole Nation in Parlia- 
 ment. For pray take Notice that I do not find' the Tenants in Capite lb much 
 as mentioned in the ancient Statutes of that Kingdom, or Charters of their 
 Kings, as the Common Council or Parliament o^ Scot/and, before the Reign of 
 King Robert the Third, which was but late in Comparifon of the Antiquity of 
 thole Councils in that Kingdom. 
 
 M. I could fay more as to the Antiquity of the Tenants in Capite, their 
 coming to Parliament as the fole Reprefentatives of the Nation, before the 
 Time you mention ; but it grows late, and therefore I fhall wave it at prefent, 
 and fo (hall only proceed to remark that great Part of the Error of the 
 Gentlemen of your Opinion, proceeds from this falfe Ground, that you fuppofe 
 that the Parliaments both of England and Scotland were a perfeft Reprefen- 
 tative Body of all the Freeholders and Freemen of thofe Kingdoms ^ which is 
 a meer Chimera. For in the firft Place, if we will confider, it never was, nor 
 indeed is lb at this Day; lince you your ftlf mull acknowledge, that 
 all Copyholders and Lealeholders under Forty Shillings a Year, all Freemen in 
 Towns Corporate, where the Election lies wholly in the Mayor and Aldermen 
 or Common Council ^ and laftly, all that will not pay Scot and Lot in divers 
 Borough Town^, are utterly excluded from giving their Votes in the Choice 
 o! Parliament Men; and confequently from having any Reprelentatives in Par- 
 liament, though fure as much Freeinen as the reft of the Kingdom : And this 
 either by general Statutes, or elfe by the particular Charters and Cuftoms of 
 thofe Cities, Towns and Boroughs ; all which are looked upon as good and 
 lawful Reprelentatives of thofe Cities and Boroughs. So that I am clearly of the 
 B. A. P. Dolor's Opinion, that the Tenants in Capite, as well thole who were Barons as 
 
 i'<ti'6S. thofe that were not, only reprelented themlelves, and not the Commons, as 
 
 being (as you truly oblerve) never cholen by the People. And as no Man can 
 believe that a great Lord or Bilhop could reprelent his Mefne Tenants, fo 
 neither could the fmaller Tenants in Capite who were no Barons, be properly 
 faid ro reprefent theirs ; and yet, thefe might according to the Cuftom of Feu- 
 dal Tenures, and the Power they then had over their Tenants Eftates, very well 
 make Laws for them, and tax them at their Pleafures, becaule the main 
 Intereft and Strength of the Kingdom lay almoft wholly in them ^ and 
 thele (as the Doftor very well obferves) having the Power of this, or any 
 other Nation de faBo, always did make Laws for, and Tax the relt of the 
 People. 
 
 But to fiy fomewhat to the Authorities you have brought from the County 
 Falatines of Chejier and Durham ; I know not what old Privileges they might 
 pretend to, of not being forced to give voluntary Aids or Subfidies of their 
 moveable Goods without their Confents ; yet thus much I think may be made 
 out, that as for all Land Taxes, and the general Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom, 
 they were as much bound by the one, and as much liable to pay to the 
 other, as the reft of the Subjefts of England ; or elfe how came they after- 
 wards to be bound by our general Statutes at all, as certainly they were 
 from all Times fince the Conqueft -, though Cbejler had no Reprefentatives in 
 Parliament, till the Reign of Henry the Eighth, and Durham had none till 
 our Times. 
 
 ■ F; You Gentlemen who hold this general Notion of Tenants in Capite, are 
 fo intoxicated with it, that you do not care what Abfurdities or Contradi- 
 aions you fall into, provided you may maintain your dear Opinion, as I 
 Ihall (hew you by and by.- But firtt let me tell you, your Reply to what I have 
 now faid, is very fallacious, and in fome Points miftaken as to the Matter 
 of Fa£l : For in the firft Place, I doubt not but our Common Councils or 
 Parliaments were in the firft Inftitution, the main Body or Reprefenrative of all 
 the Freemen of the Nation; and though it came by long Continuance of 
 Time to deviate from that Inftitution ; yet, that is to be attributed either 
 
 to
 
 T>ialogue the Seventh. 369 
 
 to fbme prevailing Cuftom, or elfc pofitive Law to the contrary ; fof I think 
 it evident, that in the Sjxon Times, all the' Freeholders oi' EngLmd had a Right 
 of conning to Parliament in Perlon ; and hence it is, that Liber Tenerts, Li- 
 ber Homo iff Ingenuus, were Synonymous, and of the lame Si^nihcation, as I 
 h3\e proved from Sir Henry Spclm,in\ Comment, in his Gloffary upon thole 
 Words. And hence it is, that the Members of thofe Councils were 16 nume- 
 rous as they were in thofe Times, and long after, till they became fo valt and 
 unmanageable, that they were fain by Degrees to pitch upon this Method ot 
 fending Knights of Shires to reprefent them ; which is certainly a very an- 
 cient Inltirution, fince the Tenants in Ancient Demean, claimed to be ex- 
 empted from the Expences of Knights of the Shires by Prclcription, as I 
 (hall (hew you more particularly by and by ; and likewife, fince all Kiches 
 confifted in thofe Days in Land, or elle in Stock, or Trade ; therefore the 
 Ciues and Boroughs, and Towns, by Reafon of their Riches, had alvvavs i 
 Share in the Legiflacive Power, as well as in giving of Taxes. And iince 
 all fuch Citizens and Burgefies , not being able to come in Perfon, as the 
 Freeholders could, were reprefented either by their chief ■ Magiltrares, called 
 their Aldermen, or elle by Burgelles of their own chufing, as at this day ^ 
 fo that all Freedom, or Ingenuity being in this, as in all other Common- 
 wealths, reckoned fer cenfum, by the Eftates of the Owners ^ our. Common 
 Councils were, and that truly, the Reprefcncatives, not only of the Eltates, 
 but Peribns ol" all the Freemen of the Nation. For I am lb tar of the Docfor's 
 Opinion, that the Chcorl Folk (as they were then termed) were little bet- 
 ter than the Scotch Vailals, or French Peaiants at this Day, and fo ivere not 
 reckoned among the Freemen •, all Freedom confifting then in lb much Free- 
 hold Lands, held in a Man's own Right, or being Freemen of fome City or 
 Borough Town. And this gives us a Realbn, why Copyholders and Te- 
 iiants for Years, have no Vote in Parliament at this Day: lince it is certain, 
 ( and all our Law- Books allow it ) that at the hrlf all Copyhold Eltates were 
 hc-ld by Villenage, and the Owners of them at firit the Viilani, or Tillers of 
 tlie Dcmcfnes of the Lord of that Town; there being at firlt no Freehold 
 kfs than that of a whole Townfhip , fince a Minor ; and therefore all 
 Copy-holders and Tenants for Years, or at Will, though Freemen, are not 
 admitted to have Voies at this Day, becaufe (as I faid i)efore) Freedom anci- 
 entlv confilted in the Inheritance or Freehold Elfate of Land , or in Riches 
 in Trade or Traffi'-k 5 Leafes for Life and Years, being not commonly in Uie in 
 thofe Day^. And hence it is, that when Eftates of Freehold came to be 
 divided into fmall Parcels, all Freeholders till the Statutes of Henry IV. and VL 
 (which we have before cited) were as much capable of giving their Votes 
 at the Eledion of Knights of Shires, as the belt and greateft Tenants in Ctipite 
 in England, till it was reduced by thofe Statutes to 40 x. Freehold /'fr Annum-, 
 thefe Freeholders and Burgerfes of Towns being anciently looked upon in the 
 Eye of the Law, as the only ?"reemen ^ and it was thele Freeholders alone who 
 owed Suit and Service to the County Court, and were amerced if they did not 
 apptar. 
 
 This being premifed, and fufficiently underftood, will give us a very good 
 Account, why Copy-holders and Leafe-holders for Years do not give any Votes 
 at Elecfions of Knights of Shires •, and yet rhe Parliament may Itill continue the 
 Rcprellntative ol all the Freemen of the Nation; as the People of Rome^ and the 
 Territories about it were of all the Romans, though there were a great many 
 Libirti, and in In.jui/ini who Cure were Freemen, and not Slaves, and yet had 
 no Votes in their Comities Centuruitis, or general Adeniblies of all the Ri-iman 
 Citizens. r -^ ., , 
 
 But that the L/7wHww//?^i-, ilf LihercTenentes de Regno, muft take in more ^M/Aw 
 than your Tenants in Gipite, the Do'-for himlelf is at bit forced to contefs '''""'"^^" ^i'" 
 in his Gloffary ( hotwiihltandiug his maintaining the contrary in the Bodv q^^'^^'-^'"- 
 liis Book) v:z. that the Ijbcri Homines^iSi' Libere Vencntcs, mentioned in Y^. Johns 
 Mign.i Owtd, were not only the Tenants in Capitv, but their Rednue, and 
 Tenants in Military Service alio, and whom he there llippofes to have been 
 then the only Men of Honour, Faith and Reputation, in ihe Kingdom •, and if lb, 
 
 B b b might
 
 37< 
 
 B I B i. 1 O T H E C A P O L 1 T I C A.' 
 
 fnlght certainly have been chofen Knights of Shires , as well as any of the 
 
 Tenants in Capite; though this is but Arguwemum ad Hctnmm-^ for the 
 
 Truth is, that the Melne Tenants by Military Stivice, were not the only 
 
 Men of Faith and Honour in thofe Tiines, lince it is certain the King's Tenants 
 
 in Tetyt Serjeanty, and of feme Honour or Oftle, or elle his Tenants in Soccage, 
 
 befides thofe who held ot other Mefi:e Lords, and the Tenants of thofe Abbots 
 
 and Priors who did not hold in Qijiie, and yet were very numerous, were 
 
 Men of as much Faith and Honour as thofe that did •, fince many of them 
 
 poflefs'd as good, if not better Eftates than the Tenants in Capiie themlelves. 
 
 So that you ate certainly miflaken in Matter of Faft, when you lay the whole 
 
 Force and Strength of the Nation lay in their Hands j for if you mean Legal 
 
 Force, I have already proved, that the Tenants in Opite had no Legal Right to 
 
 give away the Eftates of their Mefne Tenants, or to make Laws for them 
 
 without their Confent?, who were altogether as free as themfelves, Servitik 
 
 Juii debitii foJvn.mcdo cxcepiii, as BraQcn tells us, much lefs for fo great a Body 
 
 of Men as 1 now mentioned, who never held of them at all, and conlequently 
 
 could not upon your own Hypothefis, be ever reprefented by them. But 
 
 if you mean a Phyfical Strength or Force-, though this can give no Natural, 
 
 much lefs Legal Right for one Man to Lord it over another •, yet even this 
 
 was much farther frcm Truth, fince the Mefne Tenants of all Sorts, as well by 
 
 Militaiy Service as in Soccage, together with thofe above-mentioned, who ^ 
 
 never held of the Tenants in Cipite at all, made Six Times a greater Body 
 
 of Men, both for Numbers as well as Eftates, than all the Tenants in Capite 
 
 taken together. 
 
 But to conclude, neither is your Remark upon my Authorities from Chefier 
 and Durham at all to the Furpofe •, for I have fufficiently proved, that thoie 
 County Pa/atines, were not at firit concluded within the general Laws and 
 Taxes of the Kingdom; fince they had their particular Councils for both 
 within themfelves •, as the Supplication of the Eftates of the County Valatine 
 of Cheffer, fufficiently declares 5 and certainly Durham had the like Privi- 
 leges, fince 1 never heard that the Men in that County were more Slaves to 
 their Bifhop, than the CleJ]:ire Men to their Earl. And though 1 grant that about 
 the confufed Times of King HtKry VL there was a great Breach made on the An- 
 cient Liberties of thefe Two Counties Falatines ; and if the King and Parlia* 
 ment made Laws for, and Levied Taxes upon them, though they had no 
 Reprefentatives therein, this proceeded partly from their being over-pow- 
 ered by the rtft of the Nation, and partly by the Eafe they found in be- 
 ing excufed from the Expences of Knights of Shires, and Burgelfes, which 
 all the reft of the Kingdom was at that time liable to, and which came to 
 a great deal of Money (Four Shillings /fr <//>;», being in thofe Days, more than 
 Forty Shillings now.) And yet you fee at laft they were aware of their 
 Error , and at their Requelf , got the Privilege of having Reprefentatives 
 in Parliament of their own chufing , as well as the reft of the Kingdom. 
 And if this had not been a Right claim'd by Englijh SubjeQs, how came the 
 Weljh Counties, which were anciently no part of the Kingdom of England, 
 to have been admitted to chufe one Knight for each County, and BurgefTes 
 for each Borough Town, as well in l\orihWales, as Scuth-Wa/es, though both 
 thefe were Conquered Countries at the firlt, and incorporated to England by 
 particular Statutes ? And therefore we have no Reafcn to deny the Truth of 
 *Vid.Fortef. £ra8on smdi "^ Forte/cue's Aflertion, that no Laws are made, nor Taxes im- 
 ^Laud.Le£. ^^^^^ jj, England, fine confenfu communi totius Regni •, or as the latter truly adds, 
 ng. ap. 3 . .^ parliamento ; and certainly this Word common Aflent muft take in all their 
 Aflents, who had Eftates either in Land, or other Riches, at that Time when this 
 Law was Eftabliflied. 
 
 But leaving this Difpute about Scotland, and the County Palatines, pray 
 make an end (for it grows late) and give me the rtii of your Reafbns, why 
 the Commons could not be reprelented in Parliament before the 49th oi' Henry III. 
 and 18th o[ Edward I. 
 
 M. I will
 
 Dialogue the Seventh. Q^t 
 
 M. I will proceed to do it, and for this End fhall reduce my Arguments to 
 thele Five Heads. The Firft is, fome Writs found out and produced by the 
 Doftor, whereby he proves that the Commons were not fummoned during 
 the Reign of Henry the Third, till the 49th. Secondly, The general Silence of 
 all Statutes in Iknry the Third's Reign ^ wherein is not one Word mentioned 
 of the Commons, but rather to the contrary. Thirdly, The critical Time {viz. 
 in tiie 49th of iyf/7/7 the Third, ) when the Commons were firft called, during 
 yVW/ZfT^ s Rebellion. Fourthly, Their Difcontinuance from that Time, till the 
 1 8th of Edtcatd the Firft, there being no Mention made of them in all the 
 reft of the Reign of Henry the Third, nor yet of Edwurd the Firft, till the 
 18th 5 in which the Doctor fliews you a Writ (not taken notice of before ) by 
 which the Commons were Summoned anew to Parliament : Laftly , From 
 the uncertainty of the manner of the Writs of Summons, whether for one 
 Knight or Two Knights, and fbmetimes no Citizens and Burgeffes at all; 
 which fufficiently prove the Novelty of the Inftitution, as alio of fome Par- 
 liamentary Forms relating to the Commons, which Ihew that neither their 
 Number, nor Manner of Election, was fettled long after the Reign of 
 tdiciird the Firft. 
 
 To begin therefore with the firft Head. I know the Gentlemen of your 
 Opinion make a great Nolle about the lofs, or rather defeft of the Writs of 
 Summons, and Parliament Rolls of all the Kings, till the 2 id or 25th of 
 Eduard the Firft. So that we cannot be fo well affured what was done in 
 Parliaments of thole Times, as we may be afterwards. Yet there are ftill 
 fome Writs of Summons extant upon the Clofe Rolls before and in thole o j p 
 Times, by which the Bifhops, Earls, and Barons, were Summoned to Parlia- p.'g,* j^*^„-„ 
 ments, or Great Councils. And we have all tiie Clole Rolls of King John 
 and Henry the Third \ on the Dorfes of which, anciently, moft of the Writs 
 ct Summons to the Commons in other Kings Reigns, are entred (few on tiie 
 Patent Rolls, which we have likewife.) 'Tis therefore very ftrange, if the Com- 
 mons were then reprelented by Knights, Citizens, and Burgeffes, and Sum- 
 moned to Parliament as at this Day, that there cannot be found any Summons 
 to them upon thele Rolls, as well as to the Lords. • ' ' 
 
 But the Learned DoQor hath, for our Satisfaftion, found out Three Writs 
 of Summons to the Lords, one in King Johns Reign, and two other of 
 Henry the Third. The firft is in the Clofe Roll, 6th of King John, direQed 
 to the Bifhop o{' Sa'i^bury , which is needlefs here to be KpeMed Verbatim ■, m. 2. Jorfo. 
 only pray take Notice ot the materia^ Words of this Writ, where after the * ' 
 Caufe of the Summons particularly expTefs'd, it concludes thus, expedit ha- 
 bere veJJrum Confilmm i^ atioriim M.ignatiem Terrx nojira quos ad diem ilium 
 iff Iccum frcimus ccnvocari. The Second is in the Clofe Roll of tlie 26th o'i M.ii.dorh. 
 Henry the Third, di reded to W. Archbilhop (£ Jork-^ wherein he is likewife 
 Summoned ad trdhmdum, hobifcum una cum cxterii Magnarib/zs nojlrh quos 
 fmilitcr fcamus convocari de arduis l\egotiis noflris ftatum nojirum iff totim 
 Regni ncjiri fpecidliter tangentibus ; with this Note underneath, eodem modo Scri- 
 bitur omnibus Epifcopis, Abbatibus, Comitibus, i^ Baronibus. 
 
 The Third is of rhe ^Sch of the lame King, directed 10 Boniface, Archbifliop a. 29. f/en. 2, 
 cf Canterbury ; whereby he is Summoned to be at IVeJlminlfer within Fifteen Days At. 14. (foi-f. ' 
 aiier iLliary next coming, before the Queen, and Richard Earl of Cornwall, de MagnunbHs 
 about the Alt'.iirs of Gafcony : And this very Council Mat. Paris^ Anno l)o,j}_yocatis adcan- 
 1254. calls a Parliament , to which all the Magnates, or Great Men of Eng- ^g'^^'p 
 land cdvnt together i the Day of which Meeting he makes to have been the p^. 92I pj. 
 6th ot the Calends of February, being Su Julian s Day, and which fell out 
 within Fifteen Days afier St. Hillary s Day, which was that appointed for the 
 Meeting of this Parliament by the aforefaid Writ of Summons. And who 
 were the Conftituent Parts of this Parliament, may be farther made out by a 
 Letter of the Queen, and Earl Richard to the King, then in Gafcony, which is 
 recited by Mat, Paris, in his Additamcnts in thefe Words -, Domino Regi Angli.e, Additimcnt 
 &c. Rcgina tT" Richardits Comes Ccrnubi.e Saluiem, Recipimus lit eras Veffras ad K 189. N. 50, 
 A'atale Domini proxim.t pneteritum quod in CraJIino SanSi Hillarij Co'nvocare- 
 mus Archiepifcopos, Epijcopos, Abbaies, Pricres, Comites, i^ Rcgni Angli.f ad 
 oflendendutn, &c. Whereby it appears who were then the Conftituent Parts or 
 
 B b b 2 Members
 
 372 
 
 BiBLiOTHECA Politic A. 
 
 Membeis of our EngHJh Parliaments, viz. the Archbifliops, Bifliops, Cf. 
 Earls, and Barons of the Kingdom. So that there is no luch Univerfal Silence 
 concerning the Conftituent Parts of ciir Parliaments, as you and thofe of your 
 Party fuppofe, from the Lofs of the Parliament Rolls of thofe Times ^ molt of 
 which, though I confefs are loft ■■, yet there are enough left to fatisfy any reafon- 
 able Perfon, that there were then no Commons in Parliament in the Senfe rhey 
 
 are now taken. r- , t 
 
 F; You cannot give me a better Demonftration ot the Lofs of the Parlia- 
 ttient Rolls and Writs of Summons, than what you now ofter ; for if we have 
 all the Qofe Rolls of King John and Henry the Third, on the Borfes of which 
 you tell me the Writs of Summons ufe to be entered ; then certainly thofe 
 to the Lords were there enter'd allbj and if fo, how comes it to pafs, that in 
 above Eighty Years Time, in which there muft be above Eighty Parliaments, 
 you can fliew me but Three Writs of Summons, and thofe only to as many 
 Bifhops, and to no Temporal Lords at all ? If fo be thefe were Parliaments 
 and not great Councils of the Bifhops, Lords, and Tenants in Gipite, 
 only, as I rather believe they were. For you rely too much upon your Doctor's 
 Credit, when you alledge, that we have all the Clofe Rolls of King John and 
 Henry the Third •, which is a great Miftake % for 1 have had a Friend who has 
 given me a Note of what Clofe Rolls are ftill Extant in thofe Reigns, and 
 what are loft, which you may here fee. 
 
 To begin with King John-^ pray obferve. That all the Clofe Rolls of the 
 firft Five Years of his Reign are gone^ and fo they are in the 9th, loth, nth, 
 12th, and 13th; for certainly, there were fome in thofe, as well as in the 
 lucceeding Years. In the next place, till the i8th, there is but one Roll 
 left of each Year j but then there are Three •, and after that, but one or two 
 in a Year to the very end. Now pray tell me, how we can beaffured, that 
 there was not more then one Roll in every precedent Year, as well as in 
 the 15th. The like I may fay for the Reign of Henry the Third, which though 
 I grant are more entire than thofe of King John^ there being fome left us 
 of every Year, but the 2?d5 yet they are but a few^ and for the greateft part 
 but one in each Year j never but two in any Year in all this long Reign, 
 unlefs it be the 39th, in which there are Four-, which is very ftrange, that in 
 fb bufy a Time, as moft of this King's Reign was, there fhould be no more 
 Rolls left ; And therefore it feems very probable, that at leaft half are loft, ■ 
 and in which might be many Summons, as well to the Commons, as to the 
 Lords. And if they are not loft, pray tell me what is become of all the 
 Writs of Summons to your Lefler Tenants in Cipite, who certainly often met 
 in this long Reign according to King Johns Charter. But if you will tell 
 me they are loft, or omitted to be entred upon the Clofe Rolls, I may with 
 like Reafon and Certainty affirm the fame of the Writs of Summons to 
 the Knights, Citizens, and Burgeffes ; for if the one may be loft, fure the other 
 may be fo too. 
 
 But what if after all, thefe Writs you have produced were not any Sum- 
 mons to a Common Council, or Parliament at all 5 but only to a Great Coun- 
 cil of the Tenants in Capite ? Which I have great Reafon to believe , not only 
 becaufe the Title to the laft Writ is only ^ummonitin ad Concilium^ and not 
 Conmune Concilium Regni ■, but alfo becaufe Mr. Sr/den and Mr. Pryn, who 
 certainly muft have feen all thefe Writs, as well as the Doflor, and were as 
 able to judge of them, never cite them for Summons to Parliament ; And 
 Mr. Fryn obferves of feveral Writs, in which the like Words of Summoning 
 the Lords to give their Advice, are likewife found, that they were only to fuch 
 Councils, or CoUoquia, or Treaties, which were frequently ufed as low as the Reign 
 of Richard the Second. But if thefe Writs had been Summons to Parliament, 
 fure "Mr.Se/den and Mr. Pry« had no Reafon to bewail (as they fo often do) 
 the Lofs of not only Parliament Rolls , but all Writs of Summons , both 
 of Lords and Commons, (except thofe of 49th Henry the Third,> till the 2?dof 
 Edicard the Firft. But pray go on, if you pleafe, to make good the reft of the 
 Pofitions you have now laid down. 
 
 M. I doubt not but in the next place to (hew (though 'tis true moft of our 
 Parliament Rolls are loftj both from our Ancient Hiitorians and Statutes, that 
 
 there
 
 Dialogue the Seventh. 070 
 
 there were no Commons in any Parliament, during all the long Reign of King 
 Uenry the Third, except in the 49ch of that King. 
 
 I iball begin with the firft AQ of Parliament we have of the Time o^Henry 
 the Third, which was made in the 20th of this King, at Mcrton, where though 
 it is laid. To be provided and granted, as vcell by the ArchbiJIwps, Bi^fhops, Earls, 
 Barons^ cs others ; yet the Words £7' A/i(s, and others, are to be understood of 
 the Tenants in Cipite, diftin8: from the Earls, and Barons, as I have already 
 proved. 
 
 F. I (hall Anfwer your Authorities as you go. You may fay you have proved 
 it, but I know not when. And why may not I with as good a Face maintain, 
 that thefe Words 6?" A/iis do here fignify the Commons-, if the Word Ba- 
 rons muft take in all the Great Lords and Leffer Tenants in dpire, as fome- 
 times you fuppole it doth, when no other Lay-Members are mentioned i" But I 
 have already obferved, that this Barones is a Cheveral Word, and to be ftretch'd, 
 or contracted , as beft fuits with your Hypothefis. So I think I may with 
 greater Realbn fuppofe the Earls and Barons, to be all comprehended under the 
 Word Barones, and the Commons under A/iis, as I have already proved •, and 
 which is alfo moft fuitable to the laft Claufe of jMagna Charta of King Henry 
 the Third. But you forget that I have, I think, fufficiently made out, that the 
 Commons had their Reprelentatives, both at the making and confirming o{^ Mag- 
 na Charta in the 2d and 9th of Uenry the Third j and therefore whatever Proofs 
 you bring to the contrary, will come too late j though I fhall patiently hear 
 what you have to fay. But if you have no more Authorities to produce from 
 Statutes and Records, which have not been already confidered , pray proceed to 
 the 49th of this King's Reign, and give me fome Reafons why the Commons 
 were called in that Year, and never before nor after, rill the i^xh. 0^ Edimrd. 
 the Firlt j for they both feem to be very improbable Suppofitions. 
 
 M. I (hall oblerve your Commands, and Ihall give you as fhort an Ac- 
 count as I can of rhis TranfaStion. Firlt therefore, 1 defire you to take Notice, 
 That after Simon Montjort, and the reft of the Barons of his Faftion had taketi 
 King Henry the Third, and Richard Earl of Cornwall, the King's Brother, with B. A. p. 
 many other of the Nobility, Prilbners at the Battel of Lciues ; he carried P-' 34- (&''';'"• 
 them about with Him, till they had taken in all the Itrong Forts and Caftles of 
 the Land i and when this was done, yMat. Parts tells us, that calling together at 
 London, the Bidrops, Earls, and Barons of rhat Faction, which fo feditioufly 
 held their King Prifoner ; they began to fet up a Committee for the Government 
 of the Kingdom, confilting of Twelve Lords, who were chofen out of the 
 whole Community or Body of the Baronage, without whofe Mlvice and Confenc 
 or at leait of Three of them , no Aft'airy in the King's Houfliold, or in the 
 Kingdom, fhould be tranfa^ted ; and to thefe Ordinances, the King and his 
 Son were fofced to agree. .And though the Record of this Agreement recites, 
 that this Oitiinance was 'made at London, by the Confent, Good-liking, and /i.t. Pat 48 
 Command of the King; and alfo of the Prelates, Barons, and of the Commu- Hcn.m.M. 
 nity there prefent j yet I am nor convinc'd, that by the Word Commumtai in ^- Dorjo. 
 the Latin Record, is to be underttood rhe Commons , but the Community of the 
 whole Kingdom ; fince this Agreement is Signed only by fome Great Earls, and 
 BaTons, and no Commoner Witnels to it, but the Mayor of London, whom your 
 felf will grant was no Parliament Man. 
 
 Alter which, Simon Montjort, the better to fettle himfdf in his Ufurpd 
 Power X, and in thofe Lands and Caliles which himlelf and thofe of his 
 Faction had unjultly wrctted from Prince Edward ; who was now alfo a Pri- 
 foner, having delivered himfclf as a Holtage for the Performance of this forc'd . 
 Peace •, they in the firft place lent out Writs in the King's Name, unto di- 
 vers Bilhops, Abbots, and Priors, and to fuch of the Noblemen as were of 
 their own Party, to api)ear at Weflminfler, on the 0£taves of St. HiUary next 
 enfuing ; and the Do£tor hath given us a Copy of the Writ of Summons to «■ ^- ^• 
 the Bilhop of Din-ham •, as it is found in the Clofe-Rolls of the 49th of this <"'^- 'P> 
 King ; and at ihe end of it, it is thus recited, codem modo Mandatum eft £/'//- ^^I'm'/!^ 
 cppo Qmleol. As alfo to divers Bifhops, and Abbots, all of theit own Party i\ ' Dono, m 
 and Fiction ; there being above an Hundred Abbots and Priors then Summoned s.i::duU'. ' 
 (more than were ever I believe, before or fince,); and then follows a fhort Writ to the 
 
 Sherifls
 
 37+ 
 
 BiBLlOTHECA PoLlTICA* 
 
 Sheriffs of Counties, to Summon two Knights de Legafwnbus &' Difcretoribus 
 fingulorum Comitatuum •, though it doth not appear by the Writ, whether the 
 Sheriffs of the Counties were to Ele8:, and fend thele Knights , the Sheriffs 
 being then of the 'Faftion , and made by them ^ for 'tis there faid, only 
 quod venire Jaciant. There ate alfo other Writs recited to have been directed 
 to all the great Cities and Towns of England, as alfo to the GnquePorts ^ 
 to fend two of the moft Legal and Difcreet of each of the faid Cities, Bo- 
 toughs, Towns, and Cinque-Ports, to the faid Parliament at H^eJJ/ninJler, at 
 the Time aforefaid. So that without the Hiftory of this Nick of Time, thele 
 Writs ( which are faid to be for the Delivery of the Prince out of Prifon, 
 and for the fettling of Tranquility and Peace in the Nation,) cannot be under- 
 ftood. 
 
 But Prince Edwari's Releafe could not be agreed upon in this Parliamenr, 
 whatever other Bufinefs might be difpatched .• So that Things flill remained 
 in this uncertain Condition (the King being all this Time a meet Shadow) 
 until fuch Time as Si/non Montfort, and Gilbert de Cure, Earl of Gloucefter 
 falling out, the latter at bit took up Arms, and joining with the Earls of 
 Surry and Pembroke, to whom alfo came Prince Edward, after he had made his 
 Efcape from Hereford j they all together raifed confiderable Forces againfl 
 Montfort, who meeting them, and joining Battel r\^i Evejham -, Montfort witli 
 one of his Sons, and many other Lords and Knights were Slain , and all his 
 Party routed. 
 
 Now pray tell me, if this is not a very clear Account from the Hiflory of 
 the matter of Fa£l, why the Commons were firtt called to Parliament by Mont- 
 jort during his Rebellion. And I think I can alfo give you very good Reafbns 
 (and Authorities to back them) why they were again difcontinued all the reft 
 of this King's Reign, until rhe i8th of Edward the Firft. 
 
 E I fhall tell you my Opinion of your Narrative by and by •, but in the 
 mean Time, pray fatisfy me in one or two Queltions : Pray Sir, what may 
 be the Reafon, that we can find hut Twenty Three Earls and Barons Sum- 
 moned, of that great Number there was then , and only Thirteen Bifhops in 
 this Parliament ; and yet at the fame Time thete fhould be Summoned above an 
 Hundred Abbots and Priors, and but Five Deans of Cathedral Churches j pray 
 why might not thefe numerous Barons be trufted, as well as all the Abbots 
 and Priors ? 
 
 M. As for his not Summoning all the Earls, Barons, and Tenants in Qipite, 
 but putting Knights of Shiies and Burgelfes in their Rooms ^ there may be a 
 B.A.p.f.ii^l. very good Reafon given for it, viz. the Danger that Simon Monfort and his 
 Privado's apprehended from the too great Concourfe of the Nobility, and their 
 great Retinues ^ and the Example of his own and the Barons Practices at Ox- 
 ford, in the Parliament of the <:;2d of Henry the Third, might be the Caule 
 why they altered the Ancient Ufjge ; and of their fending Writs out, com- 
 manding the Sheriffs of each County, as alfo the Cities and Burghs to lend 
 two Knights, Citizens, and BurgeflTes refpeSlively. But the Reafon why there 
 Ibid. 139. ^-^^ ^^ many Abbots and Priors Summoned, was, becaule Sitnon Montfort thought 
 himfelf fure of them : He was a great Zealot, and a Godly Man in thofe 
 Times, and a great Minion of thefe Religious Men (as then called) as alio 
 of the Bifhops and Clergy \ and they were at lealt feemingly Great Favourites 
 of his. 
 
 F; 1 mult confefs there is fome colour of Reafon, why Simon Montfort ftiould 
 Summon lb many Abbots ajid Priors to this Parliament, if he were fure of all 
 their Votes before-hand \ but there is no Certainty of this •, for if he had been fb 
 lure of them, there was as much Reafon why he fhould have called them all 
 likewife to the Parliament at London, which you fay he Summoned the Year 
 before ; when with the Confents ot" the Bifhops , Barons , and others , he 
 made the new Ordinances you mention : But you cannot find in any Hifforian 
 or Record, that he then Summoned fo many of them ; and it feems pretty 
 Itrange, that all thefe Abbots and Priors, and Deans, not a fourth Part of which 
 were Tenants in Capite, fhould all take the Trouble to come to this Parliament 
 without any Scruple ; if neither they nor their Predeceffors had ever been Sum- 
 moned before. 
 
 I But
 
 Xialogp.e tie Seventh. ojc^ 
 
 But the other Rearon you give why fo irany Earls and Batons fhould be 
 omitted, is much more unlikely ^ for if the numerous Barons fjftious Pra- 
 ctices at Oxford had before Irultrated Mcmfcri's Defign, there had been in- 
 deed fome Realbn why he ftould have done all he could to have hindred 
 their coming again •, whereas on the contrary, the Earls and Barons at the 
 Parliament at Oxford, though they came thither with Arms and great Reti- 
 nues, yet it was only to join him, and to force the King to agree to the 
 Oxford Provifions. But ii the Commons were now fummon'd (as you fup- 
 pofe) to curb the extravagant Power of the Lords, yet it could not be his 
 Interelt, or indeed in his Power fo to doj not the latter, becaufe the Earls, Ba- 
 rons and Tenants in Cifite, were too powerful and numerous a Body to have 
 fuftered fuch an Aftront and Breach on their Ancient Right, as this would have 
 been. Nor could he and his Two and Twenty Companions, have ever dared 
 to have dilpleafed fo great and powerful a Body of Men, as you muft allow 
 your great Barons, and Tenants ;/? Cipitc both great and linall then were, and 
 who made fuch a powerful Oppofition for their Liberties in King Jehu's Time ; 
 or that they would have thus tamely permitted Men wholly of the Sheriff's 
 Choice, to have thus taken away their Places in Parliament, and made Laws 
 for them, much lefs the Citizens and Burgeffes, molt of whom were certainly 
 not Noble by Birth, nor yet held Lands in Cipite. Nor could it be for Mont- 
 fcrfs Interelt fo to do: For the greateft Part of the Earls and Barons were 
 of his Side already, and thus to exclude them, had been the only way to 
 difoblige them, and make them leave him, and go over to the King's Side. 
 So that I mutt needs tell you upon the whole Matter, granting Momjort to 
 have been fuch a Knave and Hypocrite as you make him, yet certainly 
 he wjs no Fool, but a cunning Politician •, and I leave ic to your felf, or any indif- 
 ferent Perfbn, to judge whether it was poffible for him to do fo filly and un- 
 politick a Thing as this. For granting all the Abbots and Priors to have 
 been of his Side, (as you fuppofe) they could no way counterbalance the great 
 Power of thofe Earls and Barons, and numerous Tenants /// Cip'ne , that 
 were all hereby excluded. So that let the Commons have been Summoned 
 when you will, it was certainly before this 49th of Henry the Third, or nor 
 at all. ■ ' 
 
 But to give you my Opinion why fo few Earls and Barons are mentioned 
 in this Record of the 49th of ift'/fr/ the Third, to have been Summon'd to this 
 Parliament: I conceive it was not out of any Jealoufy or Sufpicion in Simon 
 Momfcrt of thofe who were then his fait Friends, but out of pure Carelefnefs, or 
 Omifiion of the Clerks ; who I fuppole through Hafte, Inadvertency, or Multi- 
 plicity of Bufinefs omitted to enter the Names of all the reft of the Earls 
 Bi(hops and Barons, to whom Writs of Summons were likewife fenr. Antf 
 that I do not Ijjeak without Book, I appeal to the Record it felf-, where there 
 is a blank Space left unfill'd of about Four Inches Breadth, which could be left 
 for no other End, than to add the Names of all the reft of the Earls and Barons 
 who were certainly Summoned to that Parliament, as^well as thofe vvhofe Names 
 are there expreffed. 
 
 ^11. I fhall not longer difpute this Point, but I think you mult grant that 
 the Commons are never mentioned in any Record or Statute of this King ; for 
 after his Viftory at Evcjhum^ he called a Parliament at Wincbcfer, whereto we do 
 not find any Commons Summoned, as before •, but the King, by the Advice of 
 his Mdgnaies alone, Seized the Liberties of the City of London, and alfo they 
 gave him all the Lands of the late Rebels. 
 
 And then there was after this a Parliament Summoned at Kene/rrorrh, in 
 the 50th of this King, where it was agreed by the common Allent of the 
 Bifhops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, and all others, that Six Perfons, who 
 were all (except one; either Bifliops or Barons, fhould chufe Six others, and the 
 whole Twelve were to judge concerning thofe who were difinherited for their 
 late Rebellion •, and their Determination or Award, is call'd, Diff/m de Ke- 
 neiwortb, and was made to better the Condition of the difinherited, and to 
 turn the Foifeiturcs and Lofs of their Effates into a Compofuion for them 
 after the value of rive years Purchafe, to be paid at two or three fhort Pay- 
 ments : Yet we do not find that to this Parliament the Commons were at all 
 1 fummoned.
 
 37^ 
 
 BlBLIOTHECA PoLlTICA. 
 
 Summoned, but the contrary -, for though it is true that the Statute gives 
 us all their Names who had a Hand in drawing up 'this Decree , yer the Doftor 
 fnrther proves to you Irom Sir William Dugdale^ Baronage, that there was not 
 one of them, but what was either a BiOiop, or a great Baron of the King- 
 dom. Whereas had there been any Commons in this Parliament, they would 
 certainly have had Commiflioners of their own Order, as well as the Bifhops 
 and Lords. 
 
 f I fhall give you a fliort Anfwer to your Authorities from the Parlia- 
 ments of Wincbefler and Kcnelvoorth. As for the former, you mult own that 
 B.i4.i'.p.i44. 2I1 ^}^g j^qIJj qP jj 3j.g 1q^^. gnj fi,^t jj^cre is no more left of it on Record than 
 
 that Writ or Commiflaon which the Doctor has given us^ which recites, That by 
 the unanimous Conlent of all the Mngnatim, or great Men (as the DoQor 
 renders it ) the King had the Seifin and PofTeflion of all the Rebels Elf jtes given to 
 him. Which is no Argument to prove that no Commons were there \ fince I have 
 ^0 often made out, that under this Word Mugnatum, not only the Knights of 
 Shires, but Citizens and Burgeffes were often comprehended. 'Tis true, there 
 are no Writs extant, to prove the Commons were now Summoned j neither is 
 there any Reafon to believe the contrary ^ fince if it were a cunning Inven- 
 tion of Montfort to Summon the Knights, Citizens and Burgefles, to abate the 
 Power of the Tenants in Capite, it was fure as good Policy for this King 
 to continue lb Politick an Inltitution, which would for the future lerve for 16 
 good a Balance, not only againit his Tenants in Capite^ but his great Lords 
 too. For the Parliament at Kenelvcorth, I fliall admit all the Matter of 
 Faff to be true as you have related it from Mat. Weftminjlcr^ who fays, that 
 the Twelve Commifhoners appointed to draw up the Statute of Keneltoorih^ 
 were chofen de Potentiorihus Frocerum, £?" Prudcnticribus Pix'atorutn:, ani 
 alio that the Prcnch Record (cited by the Dodor) together with ShlViliaa 
 Diigdiilis Comment upon it, make it out plain enough, that the Lay Com- 
 miflioners who were chofen by all the Parties there named, to make this 
 Statute, were all great Earls and Barons, though in the Record it lelf only 
 ftifd Knights. 
 
 Well, what follows from all this? That the Commons could have no hand 
 fh this Choice, becaule the tons Autres, or ojKnss AIij, mentioned in this, and 
 other Records , muft needs always lignify the Imaller fort of Tenants in 
 Capite:, and I lay it fignities the Com.mons as now taken. Whetlier you have 
 made good your Interpretation by any cogent Proofs, I mult leave to your 
 own Ingenuity ^ for to tell you the Truth, I think your Doftor lias led you 
 aftray in this Point •, and till you can make it out better than you have 
 done, I mult beg your Pardon if I keep my old Opinion. And if your Ar- 
 gument be good, that no Commoners were there, becaule none of them 
 were chofen Commiflioners, rhen by the fame Argument none of the fmall 
 Tenants in Gipitc were there neither ■, becaufe none under the Degree of 
 an Earl or Baron were Elected. As for the want of Writs of Summons to 
 thele Pailiaments, if that were to be the Rule, that makes as much 
 againit the reft of the Tenants ;/; Capite, who were no Barons ; nay, the very 
 Biihops, Abbots, and Lords ; fince there is no Writs of Summons found for 
 their Appearance at either of thefe Parliaments i and fo the King might call whom 
 he plealcd. 
 
 M. In the Firft Place, It does not follow that becaufe Montfort had Summoned 
 Ibme of the Tenants in Capite to appear for all the reft ^ and that he alfo 
 called fome Citizens and Buigefies to this Parliament of the 49th, yet the 
 King might have very good Reafons (though we cannot now pofitively tell 
 what they were,) not to follow this new Invention oi Momjort\^ however it might 
 then fer\ e the Turn ; for perhaps ths King did not like ir, becaufe introduced by 
 a Rebel. And he had alfo by his Victory at Evejham, lb quelled the Power of 
 the great Lords, and Tenants in Capite, that I believe he was afterwards able to 
 call or omit whom of them he plealed, according to the Teftimony of Mr.Camb- 
 dens Namelefs Manufcript Author, cited in his Britannia; that after the horrid 
 Troubles and Confuhons of the Barons Wars, only thofe Earls and Barons, ^uibus 
 Rex dignatiis eji brevia Siimmonitionii dingere venircnt ad Parliamentum J uum^ 
 ^ non Alii. 
 
 And
 
 T>iaJogue the Seventh, 'rj'j 
 
 And that this was true in Matter of Faft, I fhall prove from the next^-'^^- P-'44, 
 Statute of Henry the Third, which is extant, viz. that of Marlbridge, made "^'" 
 in the 52i Year of this King, to which there were no more Summoned than fome 
 of the more DiJ erect of the Greater and Lefjer Barons, as appears by theft Words 
 in the Preface to that Statute, Convocatis Difcretioribus ejufdem Regni tarn Majo- 
 ribus qitiim Minorlbus, Frovifiun eji, ^ Statutum ac concordatum, 8cc. which 
 feems to have been done by tlie King's particular Direftion ^ fince by the general 
 Writ of Summons provided by King Johns Charter, the Sheriff of each County 
 was to Summon all the Minor Barons, and Tenants in Capite ; which could not 
 be, if only the more Difcreet were then Summoned ; nor is there in this Preamble, 
 the lealt Hint or Intimation of any Writs direfted to Counties, Cities or Burghs, 
 for the Choice of Members. 
 
 I defire you in the next Place to take Notice, that Briton (who lived about b.a.p. p. 95. 
 that Time) fuppoles this Statute to have been made, ?er la Furveance de Robert 
 Witkrand i^ per Commune Affent dcs Graunts Seigneurs du Realme-^ by the 
 Procurement or Forecaft oi Robert Walerand, and by common Aflent of the Great 
 Lords of the Realm, without any Mention of the Commons. I have a great many 
 more fuch Statutes to Inltance in, which are faid by M, Park to have been made 
 in feveral Parliaments of this King, by the Community, or Common Univerjity 
 or Baronage of the whole Kingdom •, but I pals them by, becaufe we have fuffi- 
 ciently debated moft of them already. 
 
 F. If only fome of your Great Lords, and Tenants in Capite, could thus 
 meet, and make Laws to bind all the relt, and they fb tamely put up this 
 ftrange Infringement of their Privileges, as you fuppole, it feems their 
 Power was much abated fince the 37th Year of this King, when (as I faid) 
 Mat. Pans tells us, that the Barons would do nothing without the reft of their 
 Peers, whom it feems tb-e King had then omitted to Summon ; and there- 
 fore I muft needs tell you, that I am not of your Doftor's Opinion, nor yet 
 of C^mbdens Namelefs Author, that this King, after his Victory over Montfari 
 and his Adherents, could by his Prerogative call, or omit what Peers he 
 pleafed ■■, fince it is contrary to the Declaration of all the Bifhops, Abbots, and 
 Priors in full Parliament, in the Second of Richard IL wherein they claimed, 
 " lY^x. h.o\6.ms, per Baronium, it did belong to them, de Jure ^ conjuetudine i[,\d,sir R. 
 " Regni Angfu ( that is, by Rights of Prefcription ) to be prefent in all Parli- CocconV cJ/- 
 " aments as Peers of the Realm, and to treat, confult and ordain concerning the '''^""' "f ^' 
 " Afirairs of the Kingdom. And if the Spiritual Lords claimed this Privilege, f'^ '" '*"' 
 fure the Temporal Barons might with the like Right have made the like Claim • " 
 and I am fure it is highly derogatory to the Rights of the Peerage of England 
 to maintain that the King either hath, or ever had the Power of calling and 
 leaving out what Lords he pleafed, and fo to make pack'd Parliaments to ferve 
 a Turn whenever he pleafes. 
 
 But to come to the main Strength of your Argument, that becaufe the 
 more Difcreet Men of the Kingdom cf the Greater as well of the Lejfer, are only 
 mentioned in this Statute, that therefore there were only called to it 
 fuch Lords, and Tenants in Capite, as the King pleafed to Summon, and that all 
 the reft were left out-, which is a very idle Suppofition; for at this rate, 
 I may as well fay, that there were no Temporal Barons there at all, and that 
 by the Greater Difcreet Alcn are to be underftood fome of the Bifhops and 
 Judges j who, though no Peers, yet were then the moft Learned in the Laws and 
 Cuftoms of the Kingdom, of any Perfons at that Time, and confequently the 
 moji Wije and Difcreet to draw up Laws ; and by the lefier Sort of Difcreet Men, 
 Ihall be underftood fuch Great Clerks and Lawyers, though not Tenants in Capite, 
 as the King pleafed to chufe, as being likewiie moft able to advife him. But 
 if you tell me that this Interpretation is forced; I may as well fay the fame of 
 yours, and that with greater Reafbn. Yet 1 fhall prove that this Parliament 
 was Summoned in r,o other Manner, and coiififted of no other Perfons 
 than thofe that ufed to appear in all other preceding Great Councils or Par- 
 liaments. 
 
 In the Firft Place, therefore, I muft put you in Mind of what I have already 
 laid, that there is no Conclufion to be drawn from the bare penning of the 
 different Forms of ancient Statutes, who were Sunjmoned to the maJsing 
 
 Cc c ot"
 
 oyS B I B I. 1 O T II E C A P O L t T T C .A.' 
 
 of them, nor by what Power they were Enafl:ed ^ fome of them, it is true, 
 being drawn in the Form of the King^s Charters, or Writs •, withour any Men- 
 tion of the Aflent either of the Lords or Commons •, and others are faid to be 
 EnaQed by the whole Realm, without any Mention of the King at all; and I 
 have given you a Lift of divers old Statutes from the Reign of King Henry 
 the Third, to the Time of King Edward the Third, in which there is no Men- 
 tion at all made, either of the King, or any other of the Three Eltates •, and 
 yet no Man, I think, but will grant that thefe Statutes were all made, and 
 agreed to by them, according to the ufual Forms, though it be not particularly ex- 
 prefled. And therefcre to give a better Account of this Law, it is fit we con- 
 fider, that thele Words convocatk Y)'ifcret\onhm Rr^ni, are no more reftri- 
 £\ive to fome particular Perfons, than if it had been in the Superlative Degree, 
 inftead of Difartioribus, it had been Difcretijfimk, or Scipiouijfimis Regni, which 
 no Man would interpret to mean only a lew of thole whom the King (hould 
 judge the wileft and moft dilcreet Men of the whole Kingdom; and therefore 
 w-e mult not mind the GrMmnatical^ but Legal Senfe of thefe Words •, and then 
 it amounts to more than this, that by the Greater Di/creet Men, were meant the 
 Lords Spiritual and Temporal, as under the Leffer Difcrcet Men were included 
 the Commons. 
 
 But that thefe Mlnores Difcreti, cannot be underftood of the Tenants in Cipite 
 only, appears by the Conclulion of the Prrjjce to this Statute of Alar /bridge, in 
 thefe Words ; Provifioncs, Ordinariones, iSi Statntajubfcriptd ab omnibus Regni ipjiiis 
 incolis, tarn Majoribus, qiiam Alinorib/n, fa-miter i^ invioLibiitcr temponbtis 
 perpetuk Statuerit objervari ; 16 that if by the Miijorcs Incol.f, who were to ob- 
 feve thefe Statutes, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal are meant, then by the 
 Minorcs IncoU Regni, muft be underftood for the fame Reafon, the whole Com- 
 mons of England; and ib likewife by Parity of Reaibn, by tht Alinores Dif- 
 creti, mentioned before in the Preface, muft be alfo meant the Reprelenratives of 
 the Commons in Parliament. 
 
 And that this alone can be the genuine Senfe of thefe Words, may 
 appear, by comparing this Statute with another made at Gloitcefler, the 6ih 
 oiEdicard the Firft; where in the Preface it is recited in thefe Words, purvenant 
 mefm Ic Roy, pur Amende ment de Jon Royal me, & pur phm plenier exhibicion cie 
 droit Jicome le profit £ office deniande, appclles /es pltiis Difcretes de Jon Royalme 
 auxibien des Greindres , come des mcindres , ejhib/ie eft , tif acordantjiient 
 ordeine. So that if the Commons were there called to this Parliament, and if 
 by the Greindres Difcretes, were underftood the Lords, then by the. like 
 Reafon under Aleindres Difcretes muft be meant the Commons, as at this 
 Day. 
 
 But that this Statute was made by the Common-Council of the Kingdom, 
 and not by a Conventicle of a few of the Lords and Tenants in Capite, Sum- 
 /■"o/. 171, 174, momA ad Libitum Regis, appears by all the Original Writs, iounded upon fe- 
 »75- veral Branches of this Statute, which are to be feen in the Regilter •, reciting that 
 
 this Statute was made de Communi Concilia Regni. Now the Word Commune 
 fignihts no more than General ; and how could this be calfd a General Council, 
 which only confifted of a few of the wifer Sort of Bifhops, Lords, and 
 Tenants in Capitc. 
 
 As for what you and the Doflor cite out of Cambdens Namelels Author, 
 of King Henry's lending Writs of Summons, and culling out a lew of the 
 Earls and Barons out of a great Multitude that were Seditious, after the War 
 with the Barons was ended •, if you will have it extend to thole who 
 never forfeited by reafon of Montjort's Rebellion, I need not fay much to it, 
 FoL sjo. fince Mr. Se/den, in his Titles of Honour, hath fufficiently baffled that 
 Author's Authority •, for if it was never true as to^ Earls, it was not like to 
 be truer in refpeft of the greater Barons. But as for your lelTer Barons, or 
 Tenants in Capite , I know not but he might be much more in the right, in 
 refped of theni^ ■ . 
 
 What you fay as to Robert Walrand, is not much material-, for though he was 
 never lb great a Baron or Lawyer, yet he could draw up this Law but as be- 
 ing one of the Kings Council, who in thole Days drew up, and prepared all 
 Bills that were ofteied in Parliament. And thus Briton might well lay, 
 I that
 
 'Dialogue the Seventh. qyp 
 
 i 
 
 that this was made by the Common Ajjent of the Great Lords, (this A£t being 
 ib highly for their Advantage) and yet the Commons might be alio there as well 
 as they ■, tor otherwile, if Britcn muft be literally underltood, what becomes of 
 your Minores Dijcreti mentioned in this Statute to have given their Confents, 
 as well as the Mujorcs? whereas this Author mentions none, at whofe Requeft ic 
 was made, but the Great Lords only. But that by theft Mncres incolg Regni, 
 mentioned at the end of this Statute, were meant the Knights, Citizens, and 
 Burgefles, pray fee a Writ of Summons the 24th of Edward the Firft, with the 
 Doclor's Note upon it, in his Anfwer to Mr. P, The Writ is direfted to the Rot. a. a/. 4. 
 Archbilhop of Canterbury ; and concludes thus, that he fhould warn the Procu- f,'"'^"- 
 ratcres Cleri there mentioned, to appear with him, ad traBandum, ord'mandum "^-^-P-'SS 
 fS' faciendum nubifcum, C^ cum ceteris Frxlatis^ i^ Froceribus, £?' A/iJs, Incolis 
 Rcgni nofiri ^ in the Margin over-againft thele laft Words, the Doftor gives us 
 this Note, the Incolie Regni were the Knights, Citizens and Burgefles men- 
 tioned in the former Writ, but not here particularly enumerated. Now, though 
 it is true, that this Writ is after the Time that the Do8;or will acknowledge 
 the Commons to have been conftantly Summoned to Parliament ^ yet if thele 
 Words could mean the Commons in this Writ, why they Ihould not fignify 
 the fame in this Statute, I can lee no Reafon, but the DoQor's Prejudices to the 
 contrary. But if you have no more Authority to alledge from the Reign of 
 Henry the Third, pray go on, and lliew me the reft of your Arguments, why 
 you fuppole the Commons were never called in above half the Reign of 
 Edward the Firft, till the 1 8th. And I defire this the more, becaufe as 1 have al- 
 ready proved from the Statute oi Wejl. i. ;d of Edward the Firft, the Words, 
 i!j tout leCommunahy de laTerre, coming immediately after the Counts, Barons, 
 and thofe other Words foregoing, muft needs figniiy -the whole Cofwrnonalty, or 
 Commons of the Land ; and fo the Doftor himfelf has rendered it in his An- „ , r. 
 fwerto Mr. P. B.A.p.p.r^6, 
 
 M But firft, pray obferve what the Do£lor there tells you, that by the 
 Word Commonalty, he means not the Commons in the Senfe they are now Clauf. ^. Ed. i. 
 taken, but the Community of the Tenants in Capitc only : And for this, pray '"t.dievini- 
 confult the Writ of Summons to the Archbilhop oi' Canterbury to come to '''"^'' '^'^ ^•"•''-'-. 
 this Parliament, (which I confefs is the only Writ of this kind that is left '"''""""• 
 upon the Rolls from the 49th oi Henry the Third, to the 2 5d of this King) 
 in which you will find the Archbilhop Summoned ad traBandujn, ordinanlum 
 una cum Frelatis, £5" magnatibus Regni ^ that is, as the Doctor explains it, with 
 the Prelates and Great Men of the Kingdom^ which Great Men very frequently 
 comprehended, as well the Barons Majores as Minores, the Earls, Barons, and ^^'^- P* '"^^ 
 greater Tenants in Capitc, and the lels, which then were the Communirv of the 
 Kingdom •, fo that your Interpretation of the Words des Greindres, ^ des Mandres 
 in the Statute of G/(^/^<:<'y?f/- (by which you would interpret the like VV'-.rds in 
 the Statute of Marlbridge) for the Commons, as now underftood, will Ijgnify 
 nothing, as being before the Time we allow the Commons to have been Sum- 
 moned to Parliament in this King's Reign. 
 
 F. It were a very eafy thing for any Man of a confident undertaking Tem- 
 per, to frame what Interpretation he pleafes, from the general or equivocal 
 Words of Hiftories or Records, if he could as eafily find Authorities to fup- 
 port it ; but I lee nothing like a Proof for it, but the Doctor's bare AfTertion : 
 Since I have already liifficiently proved, that the Words CommunaltyxA Commu- 
 nitas coming in our Statutes and Records irnmediately after the Counts and 
 Barons, do always fignify the Commons, as now underftood -, and why they fhould 
 rot fignify fo here, 1 can lee no Realbn. For as to the Words in the Writ to 
 the Archbilhop of Canterbury^ they prove nothing at all, who were the Con- 
 ftituent Parts of that Parliament ; for if the Word Magnates muft needs fignify 
 the greater and lefTer Tenants in Capite only , pray why do they not fignify 
 fo in the Writ of Summons to Parliament, of the 49th of Henry the Third, '"^- •!?■ f-i- 
 to the nWhop oi~ Durhajn (which the Doaor has Printed) where there is no ""■-"• ^°'/«' 
 mention made of his Treating or Advifing with any other Perlbns, than the 
 other Prelates, iSf Abgnatibus noftrk ? Yet the Do£lor, within two Leaves after, 
 gives us the Writs of Summons tor the Knights, Citizens, and Burgefles to b. .4. P.p. 147." 
 this Parliameni. But it Icems in his firft Edition of his Book againlf Mr. P. 
 
 Ccc 2 he
 
 38. 
 
 B 1 B L 1 O T H E C A P O L 1 T 1 C i. 
 
 he had not made thofe rare Difcoveries he did afterwards ; where he pretends 
 npt to carry this Opinion beyond the 49th of Henry the Third. Therefore praf 
 go on to ihew this new Light, by which the Do£lor difcovered that the 
 Commons were never Summoned to Parliament all the Reign of Edzvard the 
 Firft, till the i8rh. 
 
 Al. In the firft place, you cannot (hew us any mention of the Words Com- 
 munalty, or Communitas, m any of the Parliaments of this King's Reign ^ not 
 B. A P. Tag. in the Statute de Bigamii made in the 4th of this King-, the Preamble thereof 
 '47. J48. juns to this efteQ ^ That theie Underwritten Conftitutions were recited before 
 fome of the Bifliops and others ot the King's Council , and afterwards heard 
 and publiflied before the King and his Council ; here is no exprefs mention, 
 who were the Conftituent Members of Parliament at this Time, or of this Par- 
 liament in particular, more than that it is laid, in the Clofe of this Statute, 
 that the aforefaid Conftitutions were Publifhed at Wefiminfler^ in the Parliament 
 after the Feaft of St. Michael. 
 
 So likewife by the Statute o^ WepmnJ]er the 2d, made in the i?thof M- 
 tsard the Firft, it appears, that the Prelates, Earls, Barons, and the King's 
 Council, were the Conftituent Parts of the Parliament at Gloucefler you but 
 now mentioned \ for it recites, that the King, in the 6th Year of his Reign, 
 ConvccatM Frelatps , Comitibus, Baronibi/s^ £5" Concilio fuo apud G/oceJlre, &c. 
 And thus the Statute of Mortmain made by this King in the yrh of his Reign, 
 is recited to have been made de Confi'io Yrelatorum^ Cuinitmn, Baronum, C a/io- 
 rum fideimm Regni noftri de Concilio nofiro exijicntium, &cc. The Statute of ^iTo^ 
 Burnel, was made in the nth of this King, by himlelf and his whole Council, 
 Ix Roy per Lt/y, ^ per rout fan Council ad ordcin i!f ejlablie ; though this 
 was done in Parliament, as appears by the Statute of Merchants of the 13th of 
 the fame King, which recites, that the King had made by himlelf and his 
 Council at his Parliament at ABon Burnel thefe Eftablifhments. 1 have been 
 the more particular in the recital of thefe Statutes, not only becaule here is 
 no mention made of any Commons in thefe Parliaments ; but alfo becaufe it 
 farther confutes your Pofition in your 5 th Dialogue, that the King had not then 
 the fole Legiflative Power. 
 
 F. You have faid almoft nothing now (I except that of the King's being 
 the fole Legiflative Power,) which I have not already freely acknowledged, 
 viz. that the Words Conimunitas, and Communalty, are not above twice men- 
 tioned in the enafting parr of any Statute in this King's Reign ; and the 
 Knights, Citizens, and Burgeffes not once mentioned, till the ?4th of this Kingj 
 nor any mention again of the Commonalty, till the Statute of Lincoln, made 
 in the nth oi' Edward the Second-, and yet it appears by the Writs of Sum- 
 mons and Expences' beginning at the 28th of Edivard the Firft, that the Com- 
 mons had been Summoned to Parliaments ever fince that Time ; and that they 
 were fo alfo before that Time, I have already proved both by A£ls of Par- 
 liament and Records-, and it would be a very uncertain Conftitution, if we fliould 
 fuppole the Reprelentatives of the Nation, in the Great Council or Parliament, 
 to alter as often as the Words or Phrafes whereby they are expreffed. But by 
 yours, and your Doftor's Method of Arguing , if the AVrits of Summons to 
 the Commons of the 49th of Henry the Third, had happened to have been 
 torn off", and loft, as they eafily might have been ^ fince it is only affix'd 
 to the Roll by a loole Schedule ; and alfo, that all the Writs of Summons to 
 the Commons had been loft, from the 2 5d oi' Edivard the Firft, to the 34th, 
 when there is no denying the Commons to have been there, becaufe particu- 
 larly named ; and if theie Writs had alfo happened afterwards to have been 
 loft, till the 12th of Edward the Second, when they are exprefly named in the 
 Statute of Lincoln, which I now mentioned : Then the Commons ihould have 
 been as well excluded by the fame Argument, as they are after the 49th of 
 Henry the Third, by the Doftor and thofe of his Opinion, becaufe no Wiits of 
 Summons are found for them , nor any mention made of them in any 
 Statute, firft for above Thirty Years, and after that for above Thirteen 
 Years together ^ fince you will not allow the Words Communitas and Com- 
 munalty to fignify the Commons, till you pleaie to take them in that 
 Senfe. 
 * This
 
 T)ialogue the Seventh. o 8 c 
 
 This may ferve as a general Anfwer to all you have laid concerning the OmiC- 
 fion of the Comnnons in all Sraiutes, till the i8th of this King, and may ferve 
 not only for them, but againft the Bifhops and Tenants /« Gipiie ; being all 
 prefem at divers Parliaments, where the Afts are recited to have been made by 
 the common Affcm or Accord, without at all Ipecifying vvhofe Aflent, and lome- 
 times without naming the King at all. 
 
 This being premifed, it will be ealy to return you a fliort and particular An- 
 fwer to the Starutes you have cited. As for that de Bigamii, you confefs that the 
 Statute only mentions its being recited before the King's Council, and publilh'd in 
 Parliament, without relating what were the conftituent Parts of it ; Ergo, no 
 Commons were there; and I may, with as good a Face lay, no Billiops, Ab- 
 bots, nor your fmaller Tenants in Capite were there, becaufe not particularly named. 
 As for the reft of the Statutes you have cited, of Glouceficr, Mortmain, and 
 ABon Burnel; 'tis true, the Prelates, Earls, and Barons are there only particularly 
 mentioned, becauft they then bore the greatett Figure in the Government, your 
 Lefler Tenants in Capite being quite left out •, for that they could not then be 
 comprehended under Bnronum, I have fufficiently made out. But to conclude, 
 give me any fufficient Realbn, why the Commons might not be at thefe Parlia- 
 ments, as well as they were in the i8th of this King; tho' molt commonly no 
 otherwjle mentioned than they were before that Time. If you lay the Writs of 
 Summons make it out they were there, you confefs ■ your Prejudice ; fince the 
 two Writs of Summons before that Time would, if they had not been loft, have 
 made out the lame Thing. 
 
 As for what you lay for the King's being the Ible Legiflative Power in thole 
 Times, I have long lince proved, that no King could ever legally make 
 Laws, without the Confent of the Common Council, or Parliament ; and after 
 that, all that you can fay for the King's making Laws alone, with the Advice 
 of his Council, fignihes nothing : For if the Words are literally to be under- 
 itood, then this Council of the King, whether you will have it to confift of 
 the whole Parliament, as the Statute of Mortmain feems to intimate, or elle 
 of his particular Council in Parliament, as in the Statute o^ ABon Burnel 
 where thofe Conftitutions are faid to be ordained by the King and his Council • 
 if by ordain'd, you mean only drawn up, and prepared for the Parliaments Aflent^ 
 it is no more than what I Ihall eafily grant to have been the ulage in thole 
 Times : But if you will have ordained to fignify enaBed, then pray tell me how 
 you will avoid the King's Council having a joint Hand with the King in his Le- 
 giflative Power-, fince the Words are, the King by himfcif and his Council had 
 Ordered and Eflablijhed. But you have carried both your lelf as well as me, 
 too far from the main Queftion ; therefore, pray give me Ibme better Realbns 
 why you are of this Opinion, That the Commons were not Summoned again to 
 Parliament, till the i8th of Edward the Firft. 
 
 M. I am now coming to it : But firft remember, that about an Hour or two S- A. « 
 ago, I cited a Record of the 30th of Edward the Firft, which related to an A£l ^''•^- '49' 
 of the i8th of this King: By which Record it appears, that the Prelates, Earls, 
 Barons, and other great Men of the Kingdom, had then in full Parliament on 
 the firft of June, granted him 40 s. on every Knights Fee, to marry his 
 Daughtet : And it thence alfo appears, that tho' this Tax is laid to be given 
 for themfelves and the whole Community of the Kingdom •, yet it was by 
 the Community of Tenants in Capite Jlone, becaule it was to be railed wholly 
 upon Knights Fees; fo that hitherto in this King's Reign, there appears no- 
 thing that can plainly evince, either the Summoning, or being of any Com- 
 mons in Parliament, as now underftood ; however, we are at leaft left at great 
 uncertainties ; nay, in my Opinion, the Proof is more Itrong on the Negative, 
 that there were none. 
 
 F. I wonder you Ihould mention this Writ any more •, fince I have already 
 confuted the Doftor's Notion about it ; and proved, that it was a general Tax 
 granted by the Parliament upon the whole Kingdom, and not laid, either by 
 or upon the Community of the Tenants in Capite alone ; nor does the way of 
 Taxing by 40 j. upon every Knights Fee at all prove it : For if it is to be under- 
 ftood of Lands only held by Kriights Service, then this Tax could not have ex- 
 tended to any other Eftates, as certainly it did j fince the King could, by King 
 
 Johns
 
 38' 
 
 B I B L I O T H E C A P O L 1 T I C A. 
 
 Jchns Charter have made his Tenants in Cipite to grant him an Aid towards 
 this Marriage of his Daughter ; and ( if what you fay be true) could alio liavp 
 tnade all the Mefne Tenants of the Tenants in Cipitc, to have contributed to \\ 
 according to the Knights 'Fees they held ; and this without calling a Parliament 
 at all •, therefore pray give fome better Authority than this ; tor I'll alTure you,- 
 I am not at all fatished with it. 
 B. A p.p. 149. M. I will now give you the Writ the Doctor has difcovered, and by which 
 dein. it will plainly appear, that this Tax granted in the 18th of this King's Reign • 
 
 was given before ever the Commons were Summoned to it^ and for this, the 
 Learned Do£lor has found out, ( among a loole Bundle of Writs of this Year,) 
 a Writ of Summons, directed to the Sheriffs of moft Counties of England 5 
 and they are the ancienteft extant, or perhaps that ever were (for in proba- 
 bility, the calling of Knights, Citizens, and BurgelTes, according to that Example, 
 was dilirontinued from the 49th of henry the Third, unto this Time) by which 
 two or three Knights were direfted to be cholen for each County : Pray read 
 the Writ it felf; fince I look upon it as the firft Pattern of this kind ^ that 
 of the 49th of Henry the Third , feeming to have been written in Hafte, 
 without thole Forms that were afterwards required in Writs of this kind, 
 and particularly in this : Edwardus Dei Gratia Rex Anglie^ Dominus Hibernis^ 
 &' Dux Aqu'itanix Vice-comiti Weftmerhindix Salutem. Cum per Comites, Ba- 
 rones Cf quofdam alios de 'Proceribus Regni Nojlri , nuper fuijjemus Juper 
 quihufdam SpcciaHter reqidfiti, Juper qitibm, tarn cum ipfis , quiwi cum dm 
 de Comitiiuhus Regni iUius Colloquium habere volumus ^ Tradatum, iibi 
 priccipmus quod duos, vel tres de Difcretioribus, &?" ad laborojidum potemiori- 
 bus Militibiis de Comitatu prxdlBo fine delatione Eligi, ^ eos ad nos iifque Wefi- 
 -monajier'nim venire facias ita quod fint ibidem a die SanHi Johannis Bapt. prcx, 
 futur. in tres Septimanes ad ultimnm cum plena poteftate pro fe, iff Coimtiu- 
 nitate Comitat. prxdiQi ad conjulendum, iff confentiendum pro fe iff Communitate 
 iHa hik qu^ Comites^ Barones, if> Proceres pr<ediBi, tunc dixerint coflcordanda^ 
 fff habeas ibi hoc Breve. Tejie meipfo apud Weftmonaft. 14. Die Jun. Anno 
 F.egni Noftri 18. 
 
 Whereby you may lee in the firft place, that there was yet no certain Num- 
 ber of Knights of Shires fettled, who were to be Summoned to appear at this 
 Parliament. And you may, in the next place remember from a before-mentioned 
 Record of the 50th of Edward the Firft, That on the firtt of this Month, the 
 King had Scutage then given him in full Parliament ; And now Fourteen Days 
 after, at the Inllance of the Earls, Barons, and other Great Men of the King- 
 dom, upon certain matters by them moved and propounded to him, he iflued 
 His Writs of Summons to the Sheriffs of the feveral Counties, to caule to be 
 chofen two or three Knights of each County, to come to him at Weflminfter, 
 three Weeks after St John Baptiji at fartheft. We may alio further oblerve from 
 this Writ, that it is moft probable (though it is not here abfolutely laid fo) 
 that the King was moved by the Earls, Barons, and great Men of the King- 
 dom, to call thele Knights to this Parliament ; and that as this Writ is the firlt 
 to be found after that of the 49th of Henry the Third j lb I take it to be the 
 firft Writ of Summons after that Time, tor the Eleftion of Knights to reprefent the 
 leveral Counties. 
 
 In the next place, that there could be no Citizens nor BurgelTes chofen, or 
 ient to this Parliament by virtue of this Writ, in the fame manner as they were 
 afterwards by Diiccllons contained in the Writs fent to the Sheriffs, for EleSling 
 Knights of the Shires. 
 
 Laftly, That by this Writ, the Knights were to come to the King at IV^eJI- 
 minfcr, three Weeks after St. John^BaptiJi at fartheft; which was the ijtii 
 of Ju/y ; alio, that in the fame Year, between the Time of the date of the 
 Writ, and the Time appointed for Meeting of the Knights , the Statute of 
 WepninPer the Third was made, as may appear by this Claufe at the be- 
 ginning, Dommus Rex in Par/iamento Juo apud IVeJlmonaflerium poji Pajcha. 
 Anno Rcgni Jui Decimo oBavo , videlicet in ^nindena Sun[ti Johannis Baptift. 
 (tnat is, the 8th of July) ad Injlantiam Magnatum Regni Jui Conccjfit, Providir, 
 iff Stati/it, ^od de cstero liceat unicuique libcro homini^ Sic. So that this was 
 the tame full Parliament, which gave the King Scutage on the firft of June-., 
 
 and
 
 Dialogue tie Seventh. 083 
 
 and then the King and Barons, without the Commons, made this Statute, or 
 the Knights had another Summons after the Date of this Writ (for before 
 that they ivere not in Parliament) or the Knights came a Week befbie they 
 had need to have done^ but neither of the latter are probable, feein" the 
 Knights then were great Husbands of their Time and Fxpences, and 
 were not very forward to undertake this Ser\ice, as being conltantly bound 
 with, or engaged by Sureties, or Manucaptors for the Performance of it, 
 and their Appearance in Parliament : And therefore it ieems reafonable to con- 
 clude, that this Law was made without them, and before their coming to 
 Parliament. 
 
 So much of this Writ ; from which, as well as divers following Writs and 
 other Records , it is evident, that it was from this King's Authority, and at 
 this very Time, that the Houfe of Commons came to be fixed and eftablilh'd 
 in the prefent conftant Form it is now , and hath been in for many Kings 
 Reigns i and then the King in this Age was not altogether confin'd to any 
 Number of Knights, Citizens, or Burgeffes ^ nor were feveral ItriQ Forms and 
 Uiages now pradiled, ever then thought of, nor fome Legal , Niceties and Pundi- 
 lio's now in u(e, then judged abiblutely neceHary. 
 
 f; Pray gi\e me leave to anfwer what you have now faid from this Writ, 
 before you proceed to any other Record. Firft, as to your Argument trom 
 the Variety or Uncertainty of the Number of Knights of Shires, which you 
 at firft fuppofe to have been fummoned to Parliament, that I doubt will 
 prove a grofs Mittake ; for if we clofely confider the Writ it felf, it will 
 prove no more than a Summons of thele Knights to a great Council, Collo- 
 quy or Treaty (as the Writ here alls it) and not to a Parliament; the Words 
 O'lloijumm t? Tradatum mentioned in the Writ, not then lignifying a Parlia- 
 ment •, but fuch a C^olloquy, Treaty or Council, as is mentioned in the Sta- 
 tute of the Seventh of this King, forbidding all Men coming with Arrhs to 
 ilich Affemblies ; wherein there is alio a plain Difference made between Par- 
 liaments and fuch Treaties, as I have already proved from the Statute of the Staple 
 of the 27''' ofhJiY.ird the Third,which was firit made in fuch a Treaty or Council.as 
 appears by the Title to the fiid Statutes, and was atcenvards confirmed bv the. 
 rccxt Parliament, in the 2bth Year of the fame King, Chap. i. whereby /Mi^/m 
 Cb.irtj, and all other Statutes before made, are alfo confirmed. For had this 
 Summons (you mention) been to a Parliament, fure there would have been al- 
 fo Writs of Summons found for the electing and returning of Citizens and 
 Burgelfes, as well as Knights of Shires to this AlTembly, and thefe Writs of 
 Summons would have been entred on the Dorfe of the Clofe Rolls, according 
 to the Rules your felf have laid down •, whereas this Writ is only found in a 
 loofe Bundle of Writs of Summons ; neither is there any Title in the Margin 
 of the Record (as is ufual in Writs of Summons to Parliament,) whereby it 
 may appear what kind of Aflembly this was to which thefe Knights were 
 fummoned. Nor is your Argument from the Date of the Writs of Summons 
 any convincing Proof that the Commons were not already in this Parliament 
 at the Time of the Writ ilTued ; fiiice during the Scfiion of it, the Farls and 
 Barons might make this Requelf, for calling of fome other Knights out of the 
 Counties, to give their Opinions and Advice in the Matters to be proposed 
 to them by the King; and that thereupon the King at their Reqireft, thought 
 fit to fummon Two or Three more of the Knights to have their Advice 
 alfo. 
 
 And as for your laft Argument, that the fame Parliament which gave the 
 Tax above-mentioned on the firlf oi'Ju/ic, mult he fitting even to tlie very 
 Time of the Return of the Writ , becaufe the Statute of Wejhninj\er the 
 Third was made on the ^iiindcne of St John BaptiJ}, (viz. the 8''' of ////v) 
 i'j that the King and the Barons, without the Commons, made this Statute, 
 and that thele Knights were fummoned after the At\ was palled ; there is 
 no Neceffity of making thele Confeqaences •, for this Parliament might very well 
 be diflblved . that very Day this A6l palled , and this Council or Collo- 
 quy might be fummoned to meet within Three Weeks ^ktx Ahdfummer (i.e. 
 about the i6th of Ju/y) according to the Writ you have cited. And lb I 
 believe it would appear, were the Rolls of that Parliament, and the Writs for 
 
 the
 
 384 
 
 BiBLioTHECA Politic 
 
 the Expences of the Knights now extant, as they are loft, as well as thofc 
 of divers fucceeding Parliaments, 
 
 M Well then, you are forced to confefs, that this Writ was ilTued whilft 
 the Parliament was ftill fitting ; and if fo, I cannot fee any need there was 
 of another lefs Council or Colloquy to meet after the Parliament was ended, 
 fince as long as it was fitting, that could have much better difpatched all 
 fuch Bufinefs as the King had to do -, and how the King could forefee that 
 he ihould have need of another Council before he had any Bufinefs for it, 
 feems very improbable ; and therefore I think I may very well fuppofe with ■ 
 the Doftor, that this Writ was a Summons to Parliament, though it does 
 not (I grant) exprelly call it fo. But your Argument is of no weight, that 
 beaufe this Writ was not entred upon the Clofe Roll, that therefore it is 
 not to be look'd upon as a Summons to Parliament, as alio becaufe the Title 
 to it is only Summonit'w ad Confilium ; fince the Do£lor in his Anfwer to 
 Mr. P. gives us feveral Parliament Writs upon the Clofe Rolls with this 
 Title ad Confilium ^ which proves, that the King had in thofe Days a larger 
 Power of calling what number of Knights of Shires he pleafed to Parliaments j 
 as appears byv^Two other Writs he there gives us of the 2 2d of Edvcard 
 the Fiiit, which are enrred in the Clole Rolls to the Sheriff of '^orthimherJani^ 
 to caufe Two Knights to be elefted for that County, bearing Date the 8''' of 
 OBobcr ; and the next Day after, the King, as appears by another Writ to the 
 fame Sheriff, ordered him to caufe to be chofen two other Knights befides 
 the former, and to caufe them alfo to appear at Wefiminjler the Morrow 
 after St. Martins Day, to hear and do fuch things as the King fliould more 
 fully enjoyn : The like Writs (with both the former) were lent to all the 
 Sheriffs in England. Now though it is true, that the Title to the firft of 
 thele Writs, is only de Mihtibus Elegendis £7 Mittendk ad Connlium ; yet 
 thefe Words well confidered muft certainly here mean a Parliament, both thele 
 Writs being entred upon the Clofe Rolls, where all Writs of this 
 kind are wont to be found, as I have already obferved ; and befides, the Words 
 in the firft Writ are the fame with thofe which are found in feveral other 
 Writs of Summons to Parliament, viz. ad Confulendim^ £? Conjentiend. pro fe 
 i5/ Communitate ilU hits qua Comiies, Baroncs tif Proccrcs pr/didi concorditei- 
 ordinnverint in pramijjis. 
 
 Y. I confefs we are at a lofs in this Affair, for want of the Records of this 
 Parliament -, which if we had, I doubt not but there would appear very good 
 Reafons why ;he Lords did then defire the King fhould confult more of 
 the Knights of the Shires than what had appeared at this Parliament; as that 
 Lords might refufe to give their Advice in the Matrers propoled by the Kuig, 
 without he would alfo confult more of the beft and ablelt Knights of Coun- 
 ties, who were to come up with freih Power, and further Inlfruftions, what 
 Anfwer to give the King in the Matters he Ihould propofe, which, that it was 
 neither to give Money, nor make Laws, is plain ; fince (you fay) the Tax 
 of 40 J. on every Knight's Fee was given, and the Statute oi Wefiminfier 3d 
 made before they came up to Parliamenr ; but indeed the Words in the Writ 
 plainly prove that this was no Parliamentary Meeting, fince they are hers 
 B. A P^ only Summoned ad (Sonfulendum^ t^ Confentifndutn ; whereas in all Writs of 
 p'ag. 137.' Summons to future Pailiaments, the Words are ad faciendum quod tunc de 
 Q'mmuni Ccnflio oi'dinabitur, or the like, as appears by the Writ of Summons 
 of the 2;d of this King, which the Doftor has printed; whereas the Words 
 in this Writ are only ad confentiendum, &c. /w qua Comtcs, Barones iff Pro- 
 ceres pr^ediSi tunc duxerint concordanda, &c. And if this had been done 
 at the Requeft of all the Tenants in Capite (as you fuppofej how come the 
 Bifhops, Abbots and Priors, who held alfo in Capite, to be omitted, and not 
 mentioned in this Writ to have joyned in this Requeft, as well as the Earls, 
 Barons and great Men ? 
 
 But as for the Doctor's next Precedent, viz. a Writ to the Sheriff of Nor- 
 ihumberland, to rerurn Two Knights of the Shire, and then the next Day after, 
 other Two for the fame County ; 1 am not at all latisfied, that thofe Writs 
 were a Summons to a Parliament, and not to a great Council ; for befides the 
 Title of the Writ is de Miiitibus Elegendii & Mittendk ad Confilium, the 
 
 Word*
 
 ^Dialogue the Seventh. ^^S^ 
 
 Words in the Writ are not the fame with thofe which were commonly ufed 
 in Writs of" Summons to Parliament , as I have already (hewn you in this 
 Writ of Summons we are now upon: Whereas in the Summons to Parliament ';'''*''>^?- ■^- '■ 
 of the 2?d of this King, the ordaining Part doth as much refer to the Com- '''' '^•^■^'''• 
 mons, as to the Lords, the Commune Confilhm confifting of both \ whereas in 
 rhefe Writs yoii have cited, they were to confent to iiich Things which rhe 
 Earl<;, Barons, and great Men Ih'ould think fit to agree to. Rut that I may 
 fhew you a little more plainly, the Abfurdity of this Fancy of your Dolor's, 
 that thefe Knights of Shires were now fummoned, the Parliam.ent fitting; 
 Pray let me ask you one or two Queftions concerning this BufinelSi pray 
 who were thele Gentlemen that the King you fay thus fummoned to Par- 
 liament ? 
 
 ^\. According to the Dolor's Account, they mull have been all Tenants 
 hi Cip'ne, fince he often tells us, that out of thefe alone, the Knights of Shires , 
 were choftn at the firlf. 
 
 F. Well, but then who were thefe Magmtes and Al'tj Troceres, mentioned 
 in the Statute of Weflm'inj]er , and in this Writ of the iSth of Edward 
 the Firft> 
 
 M. I muft own my felf at a lofs, certainly to define who they were ; for if 
 I fay they were the fmaller Tenants in Capite , who are here put as a diftin8: 
 Order from the Comites &" Barones immediately foregoing, I fbrefee you will 
 ask me how thefe Gentlemen could be Summoned ; fince all the Tenants in 
 Cipite were at this Parlument already ? Therefore, I muft te'.l you, I think 
 there were only fome of the greateft and wifeft of the Tenants in Capite, who 
 were no Baron-^, now Summoned ; and whom the Doftor tells us, were ofren 
 called to great Councils, as Barons, Peers ^ and who, though fometimes cal- 
 led to fit among the Lords, were often again omitted in feveral Kings Reigns -, 
 To that this Parliament was compofed (as thofe of Malhridge and G/ojurJfer) 
 not of all, but only of the move difcreet of the lefler Barons or Tenants in 
 Capite 
 
 }'. If this be all you have to fay to extricate your felf out of this Difllculty, 
 I think it will not amount to much ; for in the fiiit place, all you have here 
 laid is meer Conjecture without any Proof; fince this Statute o{ Well)ninficr 
 3d, fays only in general, that it was made at the Inftjnce of the Magnates, 
 under which Title your Do£lor, when he explains the Writ of Summons to the ^' '^•^•^'47■ 
 Archbifliop of Canterbury tells us, were frequently comprehended the Barones 
 Majcres, the Earls and Barons •, as under Minores, the leller Tenants in Capite -, 
 which when t!;e Statute of IVeflntinJJer the firft v>/as made, he will have ro be 
 the whole Commonalty of the Land therein mentioned ; and why this Parlia- 
 ment of Wcjhninfler the ;d, (hould not confift of the fame Members now, 
 needs fftme better Realons than your bare Affirmation to the contrary. Be- 
 fides, this Prerogative of calling thele Barons Peers to Parliament, did not 
 only extend to tenants in Capite, but to other Mefne Tenants allo; if the 
 King thought them confiderable enough for Ellates, or Wifdom, to do them 
 that Honour ; and fo was not confined to Summon none but Tenants in Capite, 
 who according to your Interpretation of King Johns Charter had all a Right 
 to appear by Gene;al Writs, at the Common Council of the Kingdom. But 
 you may put what Serde you pleafe on thefe Words Magnates ^ Proceres; yet I 
 am fure your Poller can take them in no other Senfe than for tiie Community of 
 all theTenmts in Cipite, both great and linall ; and lb he tells us in his Gloffary, 
 when he Comments upon the Writ of the 30th of Edward the Firlt, which j-^ f. „„; 
 you mentioned, and which refers to this very Parliament of the i8th, when tL-RTT"'' 
 Forty Shillings was granted on every Knights Fee to Marry the King's Daughter -, B.G.p!3M5, 
 and there the Doftor immediately tells us, " That fuch as paid that Scutage 
 " were Tota Commutntoi Regni, and no others ; and that the Tenants in Capite 
 " granted and paid it firft for themlelves and Tenants, t"c. and which 
 muft certainly relate to this very Parliament of the i8th of Edward the Firlt, or 
 none at all. 
 
 M. I confefs I do not fee how the DoBor can folve this Difficulty, but by 
 denying what he has already faid , and affirming, as I do now, tlia't all the 
 lefier Tenants in Capite were not Summoned to this Parliament, but only 
 
 D d d forne
 
 386 
 
 B I B L 1 G T li E C A P O L I T I C A. 
 
 fome of them at laft ordered by this Writ to be chofen and returned by the 
 Counties. 
 
 F. Yes, he might do it, if bare affirming were to pais for Proof; but I fliall 
 not give up my Realbn upon no better Grounds, either to him or you ^ not to 
 mention the Improbability of the Thing, that the King fhould be now over- 
 penuaded by rhe Earls, Barons, and other Great Men, to call thefe Knights 
 of Shires, which had been omitted ever fince the 49th of Henry the Third, for 
 above Twenty Years, when he had no need at all of them, but rather the 
 Advantage of governing without them ; fince it is the Policy of Princes ra- 
 ther to diminifh than increafe the number of the Members of their great as well as 
 private Councils, who certainly are more eafily managed when they are a few 
 than a great many. 
 
 M. But what if we fhould go from the Doftor's Pofition, and fay, that 
 
 perhaps thefe Knights were chofen out of the Mefiie Tenants of the Tenants /« 
 
 ' Gipite ; many ot whom I grant might be confiderable for Intereft as well 
 
 as Prudence ^ and with whom the King at their Requeft might defire to treat 
 
 of certain Matters which had been before moved and propounded by him. 
 
 F. This is all that can be faid, and yet is much more unlikely than rhe other j 
 fince to believe that the Earls, Barons, and Tenants in Capite fhould be now 
 grown fo weary of their Power of impofing Taxes, and making Laws for the 
 whole Nation, as to intreat the King to admit their Under- Tenants to partake 
 of fo large a fliare in both, is fo extravagant a Fancy, that if it had not fuited 
 with the Dodor's prelent Hypothefis , he would never have afTerted it in cold 
 Blood i fince himlelf aflnvms, that upon the making of King Johns Charter, 
 the Earls, Barons, and Tenants in Gipite, were the only Parties to it ; and 
 that (lU the reji of iheir Tenants who were there prcjent, vicre only their Retinue 
 and Tenants in Military Service, which were with them at Runntmede, and were 
 B.G.Glo.t.$i- hardly to be reckoned among the freemen of the Kiftgdom-, all the reft being only 
 followers who helped to augment the J\oiJe , and were not Taw makers- For 'tis 
 not probable (fays the Doctor very well) that thofe Men that had the Force of 
 the J^ation would permit Men of fmall Reputation to fhare with them in Taw- 
 jnaking : Thofe that had the Power of this or any other Nation de Fafto, always 
 did give Taws, and Tax the People. But it feems thefe Great Lords and Tenants 
 in Capite, are either very ftiff to maintain, ^ or elfe eafy to give up their Privi- 
 leges, jufl as it beft fuits with the Doftor's prefent Occafion ; but the Doftor 
 may contradift himfelf as much as he pleafes, fince it is not his Fault, but his 
 Hypothefis that hath led him into it, 
 
 M. I confefs it feems fbmewhat hard at prefent to conceive it ; but we 
 know not what Reafbn the Lords and Tenants in Capite might have had to 
 defire the Concurrence of thefe Knights of Shires at this Junfture of Time. 
 But that their coming to Parliament looks like a new Thing, may farther appear 
 from hence, that the King for a good while after the introducing Knights 
 B.AJ'.p. 15:. of Shires to ferve in Parliament, was wont to ufe the Liberty of Nominating the 
 fame Membeis of Parliament who were formerly chofen ; as appears by a very 
 remarkable Writ the Do£tor rhere likewife gives us, of the 28th of the fame 
 r:/,iM[.iP. £.1. King, directed to the Sheriff of Cumberland; whereby he is commanded to 
 M. 3, Dorj. caufe to appear at the Parliament of Tinco/n, on the OBave of St. Hillary, the 
 very fame Knights, Citizens and Burgeffes, who had before appeared at the laft 
 Parliament, unlefs any of them were Sick or D^ad. From which we may col- 
 left, that our Kings in thofe Days often made ufe of their Prerogative of 
 Summoning fuch Members to Parliament, as were not then a£lually chofen by 
 the Counties to fer\'e in that Parliament.- And for a farther Confirmation of^ this, 
 there is Itill extant upon Record in the fame Roll the Returns of feveral of the 
 Sheriffs upon the fame Writs : Whereby it appears, that the fame Members 
 were returned to appear in this Parliament, without any new Eleftions, who 
 had before ferved at the precedent, unlefs in the Cafe of fome that were Sick 
 or Dead. 
 
 And that our Kings hai not yet a long Time after loft their Prerogative of 
 
 Nominating how many Knights, Citizens and Burgeffes, they would have chofen 
 
 flauf. 4$. Eel. and returned to appear in Parliament, may appear by a Writ of the 4jth of Ed- 
 
 3 A 2. Dor^. voard the Third, whereby one Knight for a County, and one Citizen and Burgels, 
 
 and
 
 Dialogue the Seventh. 087 
 
 and thofe too named by the King to the Sheriff, were to be Summoned to appear 
 
 in Parliament at Winchcfur^ to do thofe Things that are appointed in the fame 
 
 Writ, which were likewife direfted to alt the Sheriffs in Kngliwd •, and rhat this 
 
 was a Parliament, appears from hence, that the Knights, Citizens and BurgeflTes 
 
 had Writs tor their F.xpences at this Meeting at Wincbt-ficr. And though in thefe C/.45. El ^. 
 
 Wiits it is only exprefl'ed by rhefe Words, Magntmi Confil'mm Kop-um-^ yet trorh ''^- 22- i><"> 
 
 this Writ of Summons it is evident, it did the Bufinefs of a Parliament, and lb no 7 ^: '7- '^" 
 
 great Matter for the Name. 
 
 K If thefe be all the Arguments you have to produce againft the Ancient Right 
 of the Commons being part of the Parliament before the it3th of EJw.ird the Firit, 
 I doubt they will not be fufficient to do the Bufinefs. For as to this Record of the 
 28th of Edwjrd the Firft, whereby the King is fuppoftd to have had a Power to 
 caufe thole Knights of Shires to be returned who were Elefted to ferve in the Par- 
 liament before going, without any new F>leclion, this is altogether precarious :, for 
 if you will but read the Writ it felf, and the Reafbn of the King's thus ailing, it 
 will plainly prove the contrary. For the King recites in that Writ, " That having 
 " refolved that the Charter of Forelts Ihould he oblerved, and that his Subjefls 
 " had made a Perambulation thereupon ^ yet that he would conclude nothing in 
 " that Matter, without the Counfel of the Prelates, Earls, Barons, and other Great 
 " Men; and therefore defiring to haften that Bufinefs, as far as he could without 
 " any Delay, he thereby orders him to caufe to come before him to the Parlia- 
 " ment at Lincoln, the fame Knights, Citizens, and BurgefTes, as were before 
 *' Ele£ted. Now the King might have very good Reafon for it, why he would 
 nther treat with them than with any other, becaufe they had been privy to all 
 rhe precedent Tranfacfions concerning this Bufinefs of Forefts, and therefore 
 were moft likely to come to the fpeediefl Condulion with the King in that Affair, 
 as being better inftrufted in it, than it was polfible for any new Members to be, who 
 had not before been privy to the whole Aftair. 
 
 Yet that the King never intended hereby to impofe Reprefentatives upon his 
 People without their free Confent, appears by this Claufe at the end of the faid 
 Writ, It a quod Ali/ires, Qvcs tff Burgenfes pr^diBi diSis die iSf loco modis omnibus ^ 
 
 i^/fr/fwr f/m plena poteftate audiendi, 8c faciendi eu qu£ ibidem inprsmiffis ordi- 
 nari contingent fro communi commodo diBi Regni. Now how theie Knights, Citi- 
 zens and Burgelfes could appear in Parliament with full Power of afting therein, 
 without the new Eleftion or Confirmation at leaft of thofe whom they repre- 
 lented, I f hould be very glad if the Doctor or your felf could inform me. But to 
 come to your next Record of the 45th of Edward the Third, whereby you would 
 prove that the King in thofe Days had a Power of appointing, not only how many 
 Citizens and Burgeffes fhould appear in Parliament for each County, but aifb 
 could name the Perlbns that fhould appear therein: 1 wonder how the Do^or 
 could fb impofe upon your, or his own Underftanding; fince nothing is more ap- 
 parent than that this Council at IVinchefter, to which they were Summoned, was 
 110 Parliament at all but a Great Council, as appears by the very Words of the 
 Writ it felf; which recites, " That whereas a Parliament lately at Weftminfter, 
 " had given the King a Subfidy of Twenty Four Shillings and Three Pence upon 
 *' every Parifh in England, that the King being willing to be better informed 
 " after what manner the Levy of this Tax might be foonelt performed •, and be- 
 " caufe it would be burthenfome for all the Great Men, Knights, Citizens and 
 " Burgeffes, who came to th'fc fiid Parliament to meet together again for this 
 " Matter, therefore he Ordained tor the fparing their Pains and Expences, to 
 " have a Colloquy and Treaty with fome of the fame Members, and therefore 
 " names the very Perfons whom he commands (hould appear before him at Win- 
 " chefier, to inform him and his Council of the beft Manner and Form whereby 
 •' the laid Tax might be Ibonelt and molt conveniently levied, according to the , 
 " Intent of the laid Grant. So that nothing is more plain from the Writ it felf, 
 than that this Aflembly was no Parliament -, the proper Bufinefs of which is al- 
 ways to make Laws, give Money, or redrefs Grievances ; none of which, it is ap- 
 parent, were the Caule of this Meeting. So that thole who were thus Summoned 
 did not appear as Knights of the Shires (their Power being expired at the Diflb- 
 lution of the Parliament) but only as fo many particular private Men, who bv 
 reafbn of their Intereit in the Country, the King fuppofed could beft inform him 
 
 D dd 2 ^
 
 ^88 BlBLIOTHECA P O L 1 T I C A. 
 
 in the Bufinefs above-mentioned ^ the like 1 may fiy for the Citizens and 
 Burgeffes then fummoned. But that in the Reign of this King there were 
 feveral Councils of this kind, which tho' no Parliaments, as having but one 
 Knight, one Citizen, and one Burgefs, and only making Temporary Ordinan- 
 ces concerning Trade, and other Things of lefs moment, which were to be 
 put in PraBice for a Time, till they could .be confirmed by the next Par- 
 liament, appears by the Ordinance or Statute of the Staple above mentioned. 
 Pr^. 215- And of thefe Mr. P/>« in the firft Part of his Parliamentary Regifter of Writs 
 gives us divers Precedents; which he rightly judges, were only Writs of Sum- 
 mons to fuch Councils, and not to Parliaments •, becaufe there is no Summons 
 in them ai Yarl'iimentum (which was the conftant Word then in ule for the 
 great Council of the Kingdom) but only Colloquium i!f TraHatum or Conc'il'iuvty 
 which was the Title then given to fuch Colloquies, Treaties, or Councils ^ as 
 alio becaufe there are often but one Knight for each Shire ; and no Citizens, 
 or elfe but one for each City and Borough \ as alfo from the Writs to thofe 
 Biliiops, which are fummoned to fuch Councils, in which is no Claule for 
 the fummoning of the Deans, Arch-Deacons, and Proftors for the Clergy of 
 the Diocele, as was then ufual in all Parliamentary Summons; and laftly, be- 
 caufe the Titles of the Writs for thele Affembles, are only Stimmohitio ai 
 Qoncilium \ all which your Doftor pafles by very ilily without taking any 
 Notice. And this may ferve for a fufficient Anfwer , not only to this, but 
 all thofe other Precedents which the Do8:or hath there heaped together of th6 
 like nature. 
 
 M. But what fay you to the laft Record the Doftor has given us, whereby 
 he farther proves that the King did likewile often ufe his Prerogative of dil- 
 charging fuch Knights of Shires as he judged not fit to be chofen, or re- 
 turned ? As may appear by another Writ which he likewife gives us of the 
 7th of Richard the Second, direfted to the Sheriff of Surry, reciting, " That 
 B. A. P. " whereas Sir Thomas Camois being a Banneret, was chofen one of the 
 
 Fni^e 1(52. " Knights of the Shire for the fame County, yet becaufe fuch kind of Ban- 
 a.M.i2. <■<■ nerets were not wont before-Times to be chofen Knights of the Shire, 
 " therefore he commands them to caufe another Knight to be cholen to come to 
 " Parliament in his ftead. So that upon the whole Matter nothing feems plainer 
 to me than that the chufingand returning of Knights, Citizens and Burgefles, being 
 then but a Modern Inftitution, and proceeding wholly from the King's Favour , 
 it was no wonder if they ufed a greater Liberty, and a larger Prerogative 
 of nominating and difcharging fuch Members of Parliament as they 
 thought fit , than they have of late Ages taken upon them to do, when 
 the Cuftom concerning thefe Matters became better fettled by Procefs 
 Pag. i$n. lb. of Time. I have omitted feveral other Inltances, which the Doftor 
 there gives us of the King's Adjourning or Difmiffing of Parliaments, to ap- 
 pear again upon his Summons without any Day appointed, which is con- 
 trary to the prelent Cuftom of Parliaments; as alfo of divers Records in the 
 Reign of Edward the Second \ the firfl a Precept to the Sheriffs to fend up 
 again fuch Members as had left the Parliament, or eUe to chufe others in 
 their Stead ; as alfo another Record of the fame King, whereby it appears, that 
 he not only by his fole Authority (and as far as it appears) without their 
 Conlent, not only Prorogued, or Adjourned the Houfe of Commons, but alfo 
 punifhed the Members for Abfence. All which do farther prove that feveral 
 of thofe Rights and Privileges which the Houfe of Commons do now afTume 
 as their ancient and undoubted Birthrights, have been only granted from th6 
 Crown by the Indulgence or Connivance of fbme of our Kings , who were 
 afraid to difpleafe them, and which his Majefty may, for ought I know, re- 
 alfume and exercife again whenever he fhall think it convenient fo to do. 
 
 E As for this laft Record, whereby you would prove from the King's dif- 
 charging Sir Thoma* Chamois from ferving as a Knight ot the Shire for Surry, 
 that therefore he had a Power at that Time of dilcharg'ng whom he plea- 
 fed from ferving in Parliament , the Writ it felf fhews the contrary, for it 
 Pag. 7^6. there recites, that the faid Sir Thomas and his Anceltors had been Bannerets, 
 which could not be meant of fuch Bannerets, as were Knighted in the Field \ 
 and therefore Mr. Selien in his Titles of Honour truly luppofes, that this 
 J 2 Word
 
 Dialogue the Seventh. ^8c? 
 
 Word cannot be uriderftood of any other Banneret then a Parliamentaty-Ba- 
 ron , 6r Banneret of that Time : " The Expreffion of Hujufmodi Banneretti 
 " fhewing chat it is not meant of all Bannerets, but fuch only as have that 
 " Title, either by Inheritance, or in fuch a kind as an Inheritance might 
 " be made of it, is apparent, by the precedent Words, Binneretius eft ficut 
 *' conplures Antecefjorum juorum extiterunt. And the iaid Sir Thomof, and 
 his Anccftors, having been often called to Parliament among the Barons, there- 
 fore this Writ was iffued to difcharge him •, for it appears by the firft Vo- 
 lume of Sir William Dugda/es Biionage oi England, that this Nobleman's An- 
 ceftors had been frequently fummoned to Parliament, from the Reign of Henry 
 the Third, as this Gentleman himlelf was likewife fummoned to all Parlta- 
 ments from this v'"" Year o{ Richard the Second, to the 8th oi" Henry the 
 Sixth inclufively, when he is fuppolcd to have died. And if he himfelt were 
 not fummoned to Parliament as a Lord, before the 7th of Richard the Second, 
 Mr. Selden in the fame Place , gives us a fufficient Reafon how this might 
 be, viz. " That his Name, by reafon of Non-age, or fome other Caule, was 
 *' omitted till the 7th of Richard the Second, for want of an Heir by Linea! 
 " Defcent, [Entails of Honours by Tenure, not being then frequenr.] And as it 
 *' hath fomecimes happened (m like Cafe) the Dignity being obfcured by his 
 " abltaining from the Name of Lord, or Baron, the Freeholders of Surry 
 " chole him Knight of theit Shire ; after which, he being according to his 
 " Anceltor's Rights, fummoned to Parliament as a Baron, there was a Necef- 
 " fity to difcharge him, which was done under the Name of Banneret, and 
 *' not Baron, it feems according to the u(e of that Time , becaule he then 
 " held not a whole Barony, or did not hold per Baroniant\ So that who- 
 ever will but confider this Account Mr. Selden gives us of this Bufined, need 
 rot run to the King s Prerogative, for a Reafon how this Peer came to be 
 difcharged from lerving as a Member in the Houft of Commons. 
 
 But that Banneret then fignified the loweft Degree of the higher Hoh'i- Polt. St. j'.no. 
 bility, appears by the Statute of the i;th oi' Richard the Second, in the Se- 
 cond Parliament, in which, after the Archbifliop, Bifhops, Abbots, Piiors, 
 Dukes, Earls, Barons, immediately follow Bannerets, Knights of Shires, Citi- 
 rens and Burgefles ^ all which are fpecified to have a Right of coming to 
 Parliament of old Times ; lb that this Title of Banneret could not then fig- 
 nify what it hath ordinarily done fince that Age : But a Baron's-Peer, at 
 leaft liich a one, had been himfelf, or his Anceftors, frequently called to fit 
 among the Lords, but not holding by Barony, was not called a Baron, but 
 Banneret only. 
 
 So that I hope I have now fairly run through, and examined all the Pre- 
 cedents which you or your Doftor have been able to urge in this great 
 Queftion -, and I think, if you are as candid and ingenuous as I take you to 
 be, you will not aflert, that any of them do amount to a Proof, either that 
 the Commons were never fummoned from the 49th of Henry the Third to 
 the 18th of tdward the Firlt •, or that the Writ of Summons he there pro- 
 duces, was to a Parliament and not to a great Council ^ or that the King 
 ever took upon him to appoint what number of Knights, Citizens and 
 BurgefTes, fhould come to Parliament, or could nominate who they ihould be, 
 or could difcharge whom he pleafed from lerving as Members rherein. All 
 which your Docl:or, I think, with greater Confidence, than right underftand- 
 ing of the true meaning of the ancient Writs and Records of Parliament, hath 
 undertaken to alTert. 1 beg your pardon for troubling you fo long on thele 
 Heads, fince the Length as well as Diveriity of Records you have now cited, could 
 not be anlwered in lels compafs. 
 
 M. I mult confefs, you have given pretty plaufible Anfwers to molt of the Autho- 
 rities and Records 1 have now cited ; yec I cannot alTcnt fo far as to come over to 
 your Opinion, without a longer Confideration of the Strength of the Anfwers you . 
 Iiave now gi\'en me to the Doftoi's Authorities. But in the mean Time you 
 would oblige me, if you could give me the reft of your Arguments, whereby you 
 would undertake to prove that the Commons have been always an eflential Part 
 of the Parliament ever fince the Conqueft: For it leem'i to me, by what I have 
 ^ead out of our ancient Hiltorians, that tliere is no exprefs mention made of themi 
 
 by
 
 39< 
 
 BlBLIOTHECA PoLlTICA. 
 
 by Name, in any Hiftorian or Record, till the Reign of Edward I. and as for 
 thofe Arguinents Mr. P. hath given us to the contrary, methinks the DoQor hath 
 given fatisfaStory Anfwers to them. 
 
 F. I think I have made it clear enough, that the Commons of England were a 
 conftituent Part of the Wittena Getnote, or Common Council of the Nation, before 
 your pretended Conqueft •, and if it doth not appear that they were deprived of 
 that Right by the A'i^/v;?^/?^ Entrance (which you have not yet proved) I think 
 we may very well conclude, that Things continued in the fame State as to the 
 Fundamental Conftitution of the Government, as well after your Conqueft as they 
 did before. Nor have you, as I lee, proved any Thing to the contrary ; lince 
 you confefs, that as much a Conqueror as King WiUiam was, yet he altered no- 
 thing in thole Fundamental Conftitutions ; the molt that you pretend he did, be- 
 ing only in an Alteration of the Perlbns who were the Legiilators, from Englijh 
 to Frenchmen, or 'Normans. So that upon the whole Matter, I think there is no 
 reed of any new Arguments to confirm this Truth ^ fince the Commons o^ England 
 claiming a Right by Prefcri prion, of having their Reprelentatives in Parliament j 
 if you, nor your Doftor, nor none of thofe whom he follows, can prove by fuP 
 ficient Authorities when this began, then I am lure you ought, if you were of 
 the Jury in this Matter, to find for the Tenant in Pofleflion ; fince that, together 
 with a conftant Ulage Time out of Mind, is as well by your Civil as our Com- 
 mon Law, a lufficient Title to any Eftate : Yet I doubt not but to fhew you the 
 next Time we meet, that the Doftor has not given fuch latista6\ory Aniwers as 
 you imagine, to moft of Mr. P's belt Arguments, proving this Right of Prefaip- 
 tion to have been the conftant Opinion of all fucceeding Ages-, to which I Ihall 
 alio add divers new Authorities, as well from Ancient Hiftorians, as Parliamentary 
 Records and Statutes. But fince it is grown now very late, I beg your Pardon 
 till another Opportuniay. 
 
 M. I thank you, Sir, for the Pains you have taken to latisfy me in this great 
 Qiieftion ^ but pray come again within a Night or Two, that we may make an 
 End of this weighty Controverfy, and then we may proceed to what we at firft 
 intended, viz. Whether the King can ever lawfully be reiifted j or whether by any 
 A£t he may commit, he can ever ceale to be King. 
 
 E I accept of your Propolal, and fhall wait of you again as you appoint, but in 
 the mean Time pray confider well of the Authorities I have now urged, and the 
 Anfwers I have given to )0ui Arguments, and then I hope there will be the lels 
 need of new ones. 
 
 M. I ihall not fail to doit; but in the mean time am your humble Servant. 
 
 F. And I am yours. 
 
 mwmtt^
 
 }pi!3liot|)era ^olitica* 
 
 DIALOGUE VIII. 
 
 Being a Continuation of the former Difconrje concerning the 
 Antiquity of the Commons in Parliament j wherein the beji 
 Authorities for it are propofecl and examined. With an 
 Entrance upon the Qiiejiion of Non-Re fifance^ &c. 
 
 39 
 
 Part III. 
 
 Am glad to fee you again To foon -, for indeed I am very im- 
 patient to make an end of tliis great Quettion concerning the 
 Antiauity of the Commons appearing in Parliament -, and 
 theretbre pray go on where you left oft, and give me thofe 
 plain Proofs you promifed me, whereby you would make out 
 that both the Knights of Shires, as well as the Citizens and 
 Burgelfes, had a Right to be there ever fince the Conqueft^ for I defire to go 
 no higher. 
 
 jF. 1 thought I had faid enough on that Subjeft at our laft Meeting to ficisfy 
 any realbnable Perlbn : I am fure more than you were able fairly to anfwer 
 efpecially as to my Replies to the beft Authorities you brought from the Dodor I 
 and therefore pray before we proceed farther, tell me your Opinion upon Second 
 Thoughts, of thole Authorities and Arguments I then gave you. 
 
 M. I muft confefs they do fomewhat (hock me j bur I hope you will pardon 
 me, if I cannot come over ro you, without firlt hearing what may be laid by 
 the other Side i and to this End I have writ to the Learned Doftor for his Solu- 
 tion to feveral Difficulties, that I confefs upon his Hypothefis I know not how to 
 folve •, but doubt not but to receive farther Satista£Hon from him as to thofe 
 Points in a (hortTime-, but in the meanwhile, let us proceed in our intended 
 Defign, and examine the rclt of the Arguments you have to produce on your 
 Side. 
 
 F. I (hall obey your Commands -, and therefore in the Firlt Place you cannot 
 expc£l more than is in our Power to give you. For fince all the Parliament 
 Rolls and Writs of Summons, ( except thole of the 49th oi Henry the Third ) 'are 
 loll, till after the Times in Qiieftion between us, you mult be contented with what 
 other Proofs we can produce, provided they are fufficient to fatisty any unbyafs d, 
 indifferent Perfon. And to this End 1 Ihall fort the Authorities I intend to mike 
 
 uls 
 
 9
 
 39' 
 
 B 1 B L 1 T H E C A P O L 1 T 1 C A. 
 
 ufe of into thefe Three Heads. Firft, I fhall give you divers Quotations out of 
 the moft Ancient Writers, who lived in, or neareft the Time you prefix ^ vis. 
 the coming in of the Kormj» William •, and fhall-dcfcend down in order of Time, 
 as low as your DoSlor's i8th oi'Edwiird I. 
 
 Secondly, I (hall lliew you from the Authorities and Teftimonies of the Judges of 
 almoft all our Courts ; of the Houfe of Commons -, nay, of feveral whole Parlia- 
 ments, and the King himfelf, That the Commons had an undoubted Right of 
 Sitting there by Prefcription. 
 
 Thirdly, From the Confent of all our Neighbouiing Kingdoms, who being go* 
 verned by a King, and a great Council or Affembly ot the Ettates according to the 
 Gothick Model, the Commons had always from the Inftitution of the Government 
 their Reprelentatives in thole AiTemblies. 
 
 M. I much doubt that; but pray begin with your Ancient Hiftorians-, for as for 
 my own-fart, I muft freely tell you, though I have looked them over very warily, 
 yet I can find nothing in them concerning the particular conftituent Parts or Mem- 
 bers of our great or Common Councils, but the Magn.ites, Optimites, ox Frin- 
 cipcs, Cofnit e^ ^nd Baroncs; all which, though you have at our lalt Meeting 
 Ihewed me from fome Authorities, that they may take in others, though not Noble 
 by Birth ; yet fince thele Words have been moil commonly taken in another Senfe, 
 it needs fome better Proof than to fay in general, that meet Commoners were 
 there, becaule thoFe general Words may fometimes be taken in that Senfe. And as 
 for the Words C/ems and Popuh/s, which I confefs are otien mentioned to be pre- 
 fent at thofe Aflemblies ; the Learned Doibr, in feveral Places of his Anfwer to 
 B. A. P. p. 26. Mr. P. as alfo in his G/qffary, hath plainly proved, that as the Word Qerus fome- 
 27. Tit.derm times fignifies the Biihops, and ibmetimes the Inferior Clergy ^ lo Topu/us does 
 ifyfopnlHi. alfo neither great nor little People, but only the Laity; and therefore as it is 
 iifed and teftrained, fignifies the Lay flelis, or the Lay Mdgnjtes. What I mein 
 by flcbs, I (hall (liew you by and by •, but that the Word Fopalns does not iiij,nify 
 the Inferior Sort of People, or fuch as were inferior to Barons, Tenants in Capite^ 
 or Noblemen, the Doftor has very well proved from that Paflage made u(e of by 
 Mr. P. to prove the Commons to have been in that great Council which made 
 p. R. c. Henry the Firft King, becaufe it is faid by Mat. Pans, that Congrcgato C/cro, £7 
 
 Fol. 55- Popnio iiniverfo, &:c. by which Word Popuhis he would underlfand tne Commons 
 
 B.A.r. alone diltijift from the great Lords. But the Doilor very plainly fiiews him the 
 p,ig.2T,22. Falfenels of this Interpretation from the fame Author, within Three Lines of the 
 Place himfelf had cited; where the fame Body of Men, which is but juft before 
 called Popiiliis, is prelently after called Magnates, ad kfc Clero refpondente £?' Mag- 
 nattbits cunBis ; not one Word in this Place of any Populus; but the Great, or No- 
 blemen, ( that is, the Tenants in Capite) muft be the People or Laymen here men- 
 tioned ; and this lame C'crus and Pcpulus is by Eadmerm, fpeaking cf a great 
 Council held at We\hmnjlcr in the Second Year of this King, called Primates Kegni 
 Anio D. 1102. iitjviifquc Ordinls ; or as Horence of Worcejler words all the Orders of Men aflem- 
 bled in this very Council, Omnes Prindpes Regni f./i Fxclefiajhci, iff Secjilaris 
 Ordinis:, the which the Dottor alfo proves from leveral like Paflages in Eidmer;^-^ 
 in all which, as alio in all other Authors the Doftor hath there cited, this Popu- 
 lus is explained to be the Earls, Barons, and great Men of the Kingdom only; 
 /AiV. r- 5'.3-- that is, all the greater, as well as fmaller Tenants ;// Capite. And though I con- 
 fefs at our laft Meeting you brought very good Proof, that the Word Populus was 
 more comprehenfive among the Kow,7;7x-, yet though the Roma/2 Popuh^s^j^mpie- 
 hended all the People, as well Nobility as Plebeians -, and thar mSUtfymi it took 
 in the BurgefTes of the Royal Boroughs, which hold immedi4f^ of the King ^ 
 yet does it not follow that this Word muft needs fignify fb iaT'this Kingdom too, 
 fince in all Countries, not all the People, but only the Governing Part of it is ufed 
 tor the Popu/us in all Hiftories, Publick AQs, and Laws of thole Kingdoms ; thus 
 in Poland, the Populus confifts folely of great Councils of the Nobility and Se- 
 nate, in which there are no Plebeians at all. 
 
 E I hoped we had done wrangling about this Word Populus-, but fince I fee 
 you are not yet fatisfied, I (hall (liew you more plainly, that by this Word uled 
 in our Ancient Engltjl) Hiftorians, is not only meant the great Lords, and Tenants 
 in Capite, but another larger, and more comprehenfive Body. And whereas you 
 fay that the Word Populus is ftill reltrained by our Ancient Hiftorians to the Mag- 
 I nates.
 
 Dialogue the Eighth. ^p^ 
 
 nates. Primates, (Sf Trincipes Regni ; all which Words do in their genuine Sig- 
 nification fignify Great or Noble-men ; and that tho' they are fometimes taken 
 in a different Acceptation, yet that it lies npon me to prove that they are to be 
 taken in my Senfe. To this I mult tell you, that the proving Part ought to lye 
 wholly of your fide \ for fince the Commons of England have been for above 
 thefe Four Hundred Years conftituent Members of our Parliament, (as is agreed 
 on all hands) and that they alfo claim to be fb by Right of Prefcri prion, it ftill 
 lies at your Door to prove the contrary, and to (hew at what Time, and upon 
 what Occafion they were firft introduced .■ Which if you have not been able hi- 
 therto to perform, fo as to give me any tolerable Satisfaftion, you cannot blame 
 me if I (till keep my owo^pinion, and believe them as Ancient as Kingly Go- 
 vernment it felf in this our Ifland. 
 
 But fince I grant thefe Words Qeriis and TopulM are of a general, and equi- 
 vocal Signification, their true Senfe and Meaning is belt to be underftood from 
 the Subjeft Matter that is treated of; as I (hall (hew you firft from the Nature 
 and Signification of the Words Clerus and Popu/us, according to the ancient Con- 
 ftitution of our Government, that they mult fignify many more than your Te- 
 nants in Cdpite alone •, and then I fliall confirm my Interpretation by the Autho- 
 rity of fuch ancient Hiftorians as lived either in, or very near the Times I men- 
 tion \, and therefore I fhall firft prove it from the great Analogy there was be- 
 tween the Clei'vs and the PopiJus, fo that if the Clerus took in more than your 
 Tenants in Capite in our Common Councils, by the lame Realbn the Populus muft 
 do lb too. 
 
 Now that this word Clertts, when yjbd by it felf, does not originally fignify 
 either the Bifhops and Abbots alone,- or the inferior Clergy alone, (as your Dr. 
 atferts) is evident, becaufe Clerus is a general Word, and comprehends all the Clergy ' 
 of whacfbever Sort or Degree. Now that all the Clergy, as well rhe Superior as 
 Inferior, had either themfelves in Perfbn , or elfe by their Reprefentatives, a 
 Place in the Saxon Wit ten Gemots, or MycelSyno^s, and made together with the 
 Laity one entire Council, or general Affembly, without the joynt Confent of both 
 which no Laws or Conltitutions, whether Ecclefialtical or Civil, could be en- K/^rSpelmanV 
 a£ted : For Proof of this, we need go no farther than Sir Henry Spelman\ firft Co«if- i ^'d. 
 Volume of Saxon Councils, and particularly in the Councils or Synods oiClovsfljo ^'""" ^' ?^*' 
 firft and lecond, that oi' Kingflon, Anno Dom. 8?8. that held under King Egbert, '" ^'^ 
 and Withlafe King of the Mercians, and that of Winchefter under the fame King 
 Egbert, in which Tithes were firft granted : In all which you will find that 
 both the Clergy, as well the inferior, belovy the Degree of Bifhops and Abbots, 
 as alfb the Laity below your Earls, and great Aldermen and Wires, had a Share. 
 
 And that this continued fb, both in, and after rhe Norman Times, appears 
 hy the firft great Councils we have left us, that were held under the firft Kings 
 of the Norman Race. 
 
 M. I fhould be very glad to fee that proved •, for I always hitherto believed 
 that none of the Clergy had then any Votes in theGrear, or Coramon Council of 
 the Kingdom, but thofe Bifhops, Abbots and Priors, who all held in Capite of the 
 King alone. And the' it is true, there was alfo a Synod, or Convocation of the 
 Clergy often held at the farne Time when the Common Council of the Kingdom 
 was afiembled, yet was it no Part of that Council ■■, and as the Clergy had no- 
 thing to do in the making of Temporal Laws, fo had the Laity no hand in the 
 making of Ecclefiaftical Canons, or Conftitutions-, for the Pope's Legate or Arch- 
 bifhop of Canterbury often held thefe Synods at other Times when the Common 
 Council of the Kingdom was not aflembledat all-, and thus it continued till the 
 25th and 26th ot Henry the Eighth, when the King was firft by the Clergy in 
 Convoation, and afterwards hy the whole Parliament, recognized and declared 
 Supreme Head of the Church of England under Chrift -, and from that Time 
 the King re-aflumed the Power which the Pope had before ufurped; and his 
 Confent alone under the Great Seal is the only Ratification of all Canons or 
 Ecclefiaftical Conftitutions pafTed in either of the Convocations of Canterbury, 
 or TorA, at this Day. 
 
 F. 1 grant that for between Three Hundred and Four Hundred Years, the Mat- 
 ter of FaQ hath been as you fay ^ but that it was not fo from the beginning, is 
 alio as certain. For firit, in the Saxon Times, before the Popes Ufurpation came 
 
 E e e in.
 
 394 BlBLlOTHECA PoLlTlcI. 
 
 in, it is evident from the Councils, or Synods, I have now cited, that the King had 
 no more Power to make or confirm any general Ecclefiaftical Laws or Conftitu- 
 tions without the Confent of the Wittena Gemot or Mycel Synod, confilting of 
 the Clergy, as well as Laity, than he had to make Temporal Laws without 
 it. So rar were they in thofe Times from having any Notion of any Perfonal 
 Supremacy in the King in Spiritual, more than in Temporal Matters -, and that 
 this continued fo till the Pope did not only ufurp upon the King's Right, but that 
 of the whole Kingdom in general, may appear by thofe Memorials we have 
 left us, of fuch Common Councils or Synods, in the Reigns of our firft 'Norman 
 Kings, 
 _ . . For the Proof of which, I (hall begin with the Rejgn of William the Firft, in 
 AnmDomwi. ^^^^^ ^^^^ Year the Privileges of the Abbey of Weflminfler were confirmed by 
 Sub Eff.gk that King in a Common Council, as well of all the Clergy, as Laity of the 
 t-'MJims, A. 3. whole Kingdom •, as may be proved by a Charter ftill to be found at large in the 
 old Chartulary of the Abbey of Weftminfter, now in the Cottoniun Library, collefted 
 by SuJcariiis an ancient Monk of that Abbey, the Conclufion of which Charter 
 of Privileges makes it very plain, of what Members this Council then confifted, and 
 who gave their Confents to the A6:Sof it, which pray read. In folemnitatePentecofles 
 hahito Confilio in celeberrimo loco prafcrtpli Weftmonaft. &' a noftra regia Majefiate 
 conventis in iinum^ ciinBis Kegni nojlri Primatibus, ad audiendcu, £7 confirmandof^ 
 qupfdam Synodalii decrai caiifas nece\jarias commuhi confenju maximcEpifcdporum, 
 Abbatum, t!f aliorutninfigniumProcerum, &:c. Script a eft luc Charta, & figiUata 
 &' ab ipfo Kege, & fupradiBk pcrfonk teftijicata conjbmat. ^ anHorizata in Dei 
 nomine. Sec. \ 
 
 This being one of the firft and moft remarkable Councils of this King's Reign, 
 ■ I cannot let it pafs without obferving, Firft, that all the chief Men of the King- 
 dom were there, as well of the Clergy as of the Laity ; and that the Words 
 Primates and Proceres here mentioned, are very comprehenfive, and may take in 
 many others befides your great Lords and Tenants 7n dpite, I have already pro- 
 ved at our latt Meeting but one. Secondly, Pray obfeive that this Charter of 
 Privileges, tho' all of them concern meer Temporal Things, is authorized, con- 
 firmed by the common Confent and Subfcri prions of all the chief Men, as well 
 of the Clergy as Laity. From all which nothing can appear more plain to me, 
 than that in the Reign of this King, the Clergy and Laity made one Common 
 Council, without whole joint Conients nothing could be tranfa£ted in the Legifla- 
 tive ; whether of Ecclefiaftical or Civil Concernment. 
 
 I could give you more Inftances of this kind in this King's Reign, but I 
 
 make hafte to that of his Son William the Second, in whofe Seventh Year Eadmen/s 
 
 Ead.wfhKor. tcHs US, there was a Common Council held 3it Rockingham, about the Difterence 
 
 /.. I. /. 16. ' between Archbiftiop Anfelm and the King ; at which were prefent, Epifcopi, Ab- 
 
 spelmani Con- bates, Principes, ac Clericorum, ac Laicorum numerofa multitudo ; now that by' 
 
 al.i^oi.2.f.26. p^.j^^jpg^ or Chief Men, may be here meant many more than your Tenants in 
 
 Qipite, I have aljeady fufficiently proved ; and that this numeroja multitudo nauft 
 
 mean fomewhat more than thofe, I fhall prove farther by and by. 
 
 In the long Reign oi' Henry the Firft, I could give you many Inftances of this 
 
 kind, but let thele fuffice. In the 7th Year of this King, Bromton tells us in his 
 
 Hiftory (fpeaking of the Council in which this King gave up his Right of In- 
 
 An.D. \\o6. yef^itures) Clcro iff Populo ad Conctlium Londonis congregato •, and who this Cterus 
 
 Sf'eLCwc'.To. and P^y.v/M then were, he immediately explains himfelf thus, Aftantibus, Archi- 
 
 2./. 28. cpi/copis, Epifcopts, cxteraq^mitltitudine maxima Procerum, tSMagnatum-^ under 
 
 which Words 1 have already proved,that divers others befides your Tenants in Capita 
 
 might be comprehended, and their great Number ftiews them to have been more 
 
 than thofe. 
 
 But tho' this Author does not here exprefly fay it, yet that the inferior 
 Clergy were likewile at thefe Councils, appears from Sim. of Durham, and the 
 Continuator of F/(7/r/7f<^ oiWorceftcr, Anno Dom. 1126. being the 25th of this 
 King, where they both make mention of a Synod or Council held ac London, at 
 which were aflembled the Archbiftiops, Biftiops, Abbots, £>V. (the Pope's Legate 
 prefiding over the Clergy,) and befides thefe, cum innumera Cleri, ^ Populi Mul- 
 titudine. And the Concinuator of Florence (hews us the Manner of their giving 
 their Confents to thofe Conftitutions, aswell Civil as Ecclefiaftical, there made and 
 publiflied ; they being propofed, with z placet vobiss and the Anfwer to them is, 
 I Placet,
 
 'Dialogue the Eighth- q^^ 
 
 TIacct, Tlacct, Vlacet, thrice repeated ; which is very like the Fbrin ftill ob- 
 
 ferved in the Bifhops and Lords giving their Confent to all Matters propoled in 
 
 their Houfe by faying Content. 
 
 So likewile the Continuator of Fhrnce, in Anno Dom. 1127. being the 27th 
 of this King, mentions fuch another General Council, or great Synod :, wherein 
 Wtlliam Archbiihop oi' Canterbury prefided over the Clergy, and after the Recital r,j.$pei cmil. 
 of all the Superior Clergy as before, he thus proceeds, Ccnflnxere quoq:, i/Iuc (i.e. ^yol-t'. 35. 
 to Wefltninfler) magnx miiltitudines Cicrkorum &" Lakorum, tarn D/vitum, quam 
 Medwcrium, ti fuifus eft Convent us ineftimabilis fcdit etiam tribiis diebus, aRafitnt 
 ibi do negotiis fieeu/aribus nonnuUa, qitxdam quidam determinata^ quxdam diliita 
 qu.fdam vero propter n'mium xftuantii turbx tumult um ah Audient'ia judicantium 
 profligata. And tho' the Author gives us the Ecclefiaftical Conftitutions, yet it is 
 plain from him, that Civil Matters were al(b tranfafted in this veryCouncil,which 
 confifted as well of the Superior as Inferior Clergy ; as alfo of the Nobility, and 
 Commons •, which are all exprelTed under the general Words of Divitum (!f Me- 
 dhcrium, and refemble the Phrafes of the Majores ^ Minores ; and the des 
 Greindres^ des Meindres, mentioned in the Statutes of Mtrlbridge and Glou- 
 cefter •, which Words were debated at our laft Meeting. 
 
 In the Reign of King Stephen, there were alfo feveral Councils held of the 
 fame Sort ■, and particularly that of his Third Year, in which was granted a 
 Charter of Confirmation of this King's, of the Privileges of the Abbey of"^-,^'"^^' 
 Weftmnfter, which is alfo to be found in Sukardus^s Chartulary above-mentioned ^ "^^" 
 wherein after the general Words of habit univerfa/i tot'uis Anglut confilw, and a 
 mention of the Pope's Legate (who prefided over the Clergy it follows thus, 
 off uer lint etiam Comitcs^ Regni mei iy Bar ones quam plurimi, 0' innumera Qeri &' 
 Fopu/i multitudo qui his omnibus interfuerunt, iSf Re/igiofo favore voluntatem 
 iS^ Alfenfj'um, Authoritati noJ{i\f pjgine, isf Privikgio pr.fbuerent, Sfc. 
 
 So likewife in an ancient Manulcript Chronicle of the Abbey of E/y, under 
 Anno T>om.\\^9. being the Fourth Year of YJxng Stephen, there is a remarkable 
 FafTdge, when fpeaking of a great Council then held at London, he expreffes it f^'^'/^f '"^ ^* 
 in thele Terms, C^nci/io adun.ito Ckri £/ Populi, (and then explains of what Mem- ^''*^'^^' 
 bers thefe did confilt, viz. Epifcoporum, atq:,Abbatum, Monachorum, C Ckncoru>n) 
 Fkbi/i]; infinite multitudink. Now pray give me leive to make fome Oblerva- 
 tionitrom thefe Paffages in all thefe ancientOarters and Hiltorians; that befides 
 thele Bilhops, Abbots. Karlsaiid Raronsof the Kingdom, there were alfo an innu- 
 merable Multitude of Clergy and People, or (as the Ely Chronicle words it) an infi- 
 nite Number of Clerks and Commons. Now, pray tell me, what can be meant here 
 by all theie put diltinft from the reft of the higher Orders, but the inferior Clergy, 
 as the Deans, Archdeacons, who were then the only Proxies or Deputies of the 
 Secular Clergy of the whole Diocefe ? And who can be meant by this infinite 
 Multitude of People, or Tlehis, (which naturally fignifies the common People di- ■ 
 ftin£l from the higher Nobility) but the moft confiderable Freeholders, or Lords 
 of Mannors, whether Tenants in Capite, or not, under the Degree of the higher 
 Nobility, together with the Citizens and Burgefles of Cities and Towns •, and 
 who came not only as idle Spectators, fince tlie Charter I bit cited exprefly 
 mentions that they were not only prefeiit, but alfo gave their AfTents to this 
 Charter of King 5rf/'^/'/7's ?' 
 
 Al And may I not with as good Reafbn ask you why thefe Words Populus and 
 Plebs may not in the hiflorical barbarous Latin of that Age fcrve only to exprefs 
 (not the Multitude, or Rabble, or meer common People, but) the Whole Body of 
 leller Tenants in Capite, beneath the Dignity of the greater Barons ? 
 
 F. I will give you two very good Reafbns for that ^ Firft, from the great Ana- 
 logy there was then between the Members of the inferior Clergy, and thofc of the 
 Laity or Commons-, the former of which, evenall the Abbots and Priors, Deans and 
 Archdeacons, (except thofefew that held in Capite) with all the reft of the inferior 
 Clergy already mentioned, holding only in Frank Almoign, and not by any Military 
 Tenure at all. Now pray give me any fufficient Reafon why the Laity Ihould not 
 alfo confilt of all other Orders of Men who did not hold /// Capite neither, and by 
 whom I do not mean the meer Vulgar, or Rabble, tho' Freemen or Freeholders of 
 fmall Eltates, but the molt conliderable Freeholders or Lords of Mannors in England; 
 or elfe the Knights of Shires, who, 1 fuppofe, reprefented not only themfelves, but 
 their Inferior Tenants whether Copyholders, or for Term of Years-, as alfo thcRe- 
 
 E e e 2 prefentatives 
 
 A
 
 39^ 
 
 BiBLioTiiECA Politic A. 
 
 B.A/.r->7'' 
 
 prefentatives of all the Cities and Borough Towns inEnghmd: Now theft might to- 
 gether with your* Tenants in Cipite, make fo great an Ailembly, as might very well 
 deferve the Title (with an eafy Hyperbole o'iinfinita oi innumera multitudo) as our 
 ancient Hiftorians exprefs it. 
 
 Whereas your Doftor's Tenants in Cipite, could never in thefe firft Times after 
 this Conquett, amount to fo great a Multitude ■■, not being, by his own Confeflion, 
 above 700 Perfons, befides the Bifhops, Abbots, and Priors, who did not make 
 above 100 more, which could never deferve the Title of an infinite and innume- 
 rable Multitude. 
 
 M. Neither your Notions nor your Authorities to prove it, do any way fatisfy 
 me •, for in the firft Place your Argument from the Analogy between the Clergy 
 and Laity, who, you fay, made up this Affembly, does nor hold 5 for, tho' I grant 
 there might be in that part of it which we call the Convocation, and was then 
 called the Synod, all the Bifhops, Abbots, and great dignified Clergymen ; yet 
 were not thefe confidered as Ecclefiafticks, Members of the great Council of the 
 Kingdom •, but a diftinft Affembly from it, which treated only of Spiritual Mat- 
 ters, and together with the Bifhops and Abbots made Ecclefiafticul Canons, as the 
 Two Houfes of Convocation do at this Day •., yet meddled not at all in Mat- 
 ters of a meer Civil or Temporal Concern ^ any more than the Lay Council coulj 
 meddle with Spiritual?. And to let you fte that this was true, it is evident be- 
 yond difpute, that this Ecclefiaftical Synod was often affembled by the Authori- 
 ty of the Pope, or Archbifhops of Canterbury or Tcrk, when the Common Coun- 
 cil of all the Laity were not fummoned at all ; and ib vice verfa the Common 
 Council ot the Kingdcm ofren met, when the Synod of the Clergy was not 
 convened •, as appears by the moft ancient Wriis oi Summons to the Bifliops we 
 
 Fag. 2. bave left us -, as particularly, the firft Writ of this kind thit is upon the Rolls, viz. 
 
 That for the BUhops (which Mr.P/^/z has printed in the Firit Part of his Parliamen- 
 tary Regifter) in the 6th of King Ji^/^w, and which I have cited fiom the Doctor's 
 AnfweiagainftMr. P;j«at our laft Meeting; in which Writ, tho'l grant there is 
 a Claufe for fummoning the Abbots and Conventual Priors, yet there is none 
 for the inferior Clergy. 
 
 But in the next Writ, which the fame Author has likewife Publifhed, viz. 
 
 Jbid Fa 'T^''^^ ^° ^^^ Archbifliops of Tork, ^ there is no Claufe at all for fuir.moning 
 
 ' ' ''^'^' any of the Clergy as fuch, tho' 'tis true, there is underneath an Eoiein moio 
 
 fcrihnur omnibus Epifcopis, Abbmibus, &c. Ccmribus &' Baronibus ; which (hews 
 
 that this Writ was not 10 fummon them in their Spiritual but Temporal Capaci- 
 
 P „ ^ ties. So likewife in the next Writ of Summons to Parliament , we have left us . 
 
 ''^'''^' ' on the Roll, which is cited in Mr. Se/den^ Titles of Honour ; as alfo in the 
 fame Parliamentary Regifter, and in Dr. B. againftMr.P. viz. That of the 49th of 
 Henry the Third, to the Bifhop o{ Durefme, without any Claufe of Summons to 
 ..- . . the Clergy, whether Abbots or others. So likewife in the next Writ of Sum- 
 ' '^' ' mons that is left us, viz. That of the 2 9d oi Edward the Firft, (publifhed al- 
 io by Mr Fryn) to the Archbifhop of Canterbury., m which there is no Claufe 
 of fummoning any of the Clergy ; and tho' there immediately follows another 
 Writ of the 2 5d of this King, in which I grant there is this Claufe of Pr^«?«- 
 nicntes frioretn, &c. viz. The Prior, Chapter, and other of the Clergy of his 
 Diocefe, to appear in Parliament •, yet that they were noneccffary part of ir, but only 
 of the Convocation, appears by the reft of the Writs of the Summons to Bifhops, 
 which Mr. ?ryn has alfo given us in that Chapter •, all which if you pleafe to 
 perufe, you will find, that in near 200 Writs to Parliaments or great Councils, 
 the Claufe of Prxn/unientes Cleriim , is to be found in ftarce half of them \ 
 which fhews that the fummoning or omitting them depended wholly upon the 
 King's Pleafure, and lb were no conftitumt part of the great Council or Parlia- 
 ment, as you fuppofe they were under the firft Konnan Kings 5 for then lure 
 they would not have been omitted to have been conftandy fummoned in all 
 Parliaments, as well as the Bifhops and Abbots. 
 
 But to come to your next Argument from tiie Numeroufnefs of thefe AlTem- 
 blies, which you fay could not be properly called ]\u/nerofa, or Infinita Mul- 
 titudo, whereas all the Tenants m Capite as well Ecclefiafticks as Lay-men, did 
 not amount in all to 800 ; there may be an Allowance made for this to the 
 Monkifh way of writing of thofe Times, who might call fuch a great, or more 
 than ordinary Aflembly of the C lergy and Tenants m dpite, an innumerable or 
 I infinite
 
 Dialogue the Eighth. - 297 
 
 infinite Multitude, when indeed they were but few more than oulLofds and Com- 
 mons are at this Day. 
 
 F. I pray, Sir, give me leave to anfwer what you have already faid, before yoU 
 proceed any farther, becaufe what I have to reply to it, will be precty long. Id 
 the firft Place, you annot with any reafon (if you better confider of ir) deifj--, 
 that the Clergy, as well the Superior as Inferior, did, before your Conqueft as 
 well as long after, make but one Ailembly or Body of a General Council ; tho' 
 fometimes luting in feveral Places Cas the Lords and Commons do at this Day) 
 for the Words in the Old Book of £"/>-, zx& Adunato Concilia dcri ifPopu/i^ which 
 is to be rendred, the Council of the Clergy and Laity, being united and joined 
 together, as I have already (hewn this Word Adun.ito does always Cgnify ^ as alio 
 by the Confirmation of that Charter of KingFr///w«'s to the khhty o'lWelhtiinJier 
 and to which (tho' a Matter of meer Temporal Concernment) all the Clergy, sts 
 well as Laity, gave their joynt Contents, as appears by the Condufion' of 
 that Charter, as alio to that of King Stephen, but nov\' cited •, which they could 
 never have done, had they not then made a Part of the fame General Council, 
 or Aflembly. 
 
 Ha\ ing proved to you that the inferior Clergy did anciently make a Part of the 
 General or Common Council of the whole Nation, I (hall now proceed to anfwei 
 your Obieftions : 'Tis true, that for a great Part of fc me Kings Reigns, for viinx. 
 of the Writs of Summons to the Superior as well as to the Inferior Clergv, we 
 cannot certainly tell, tho' we may prefume it from the general Words of the 
 Hiltorians, whether the Inferior Clergy were fummoned or not-, yet this, I think, 
 I niay boldly aver, that whereever any ancient Author makes mention of the 
 Clerifs and fapubs in general, being prelent at any fuch Common Council, it 
 mult ncceliarily mean, not the Bilhops, and Abbots, or the Superior Clergy 
 alone, or the great Lords and Tenants in Gpite only, but thole and the Repre- 
 fjnratives of the whole Nation, both Clergy and Lairy taken together -, as I 
 think I have ftifficiently made out. 
 
 Nor is your Objeftion conliderable, from that Writ of the 6th of King Job/! 
 that no Inferior Clergy were fummoned, becaufe only the Abbots and Priors 
 are mentioned at the End of ir. To this I anfwer, that (granting it to be a 
 Writ of Summons to a Common Council of the Kingdom, which is not yet 
 proved) the Omiflion of the Inferior Clergies being fummoned, is no cogent Ar- 
 gument to prove they were not there ; lince for ought as you and I know, there 
 might be other Writs iflucd to the Inferior Clergy, diftinO: from thole to the Bi- 
 ihops and Abbots ; which lall ufed to have dittinO: Writs to each by themfelves ; 
 and I may as well fuppofe thefe Writs to be loft, as you do that all the "general 
 Writs to the fmaller Tenants in Gipite, who were no Barons, and yet were to be 
 all fummoned, according to King John\ Charter, are all lolt. And as lor the Ab- 
 bots and Priors mentioned at the End of this Writ of King Johns, they w.;re fuch 
 as held only in Capiie, or elfe fuch as did not ; if the former, this might be on- 
 ly a Council of Tenants in Capite, and none other ^ of which I grant there were 
 many held in thofe Time>, upon Occafion of Wars, Scutages, and other Matters; 
 but if bv thefe Conventual Abbots and Priors fummoned by this Writ, you will 
 mean all Abbots and Priors of whatever Tenure ; then it appears plainly that 
 this great Council coniilfed of many other Eccleliifticks , than what held in 
 Cipite, and if lb, why might not the Inferior Clergy as well make a Part 
 of it > 
 
 But as for your next Authoiity, the Writ of the 49th of Henry rhe Third, 
 which is certainly a Summons to Parliament, in which is no Ciaule of fummon- 
 ing the Inierior Clergy ; this is no more an Argument than the former, fince 
 it might not then be the Cuitom to infert them in the fime Writ with the Bi- 
 fhop, to be fummoned by him ; but they might have general Writs of their own 
 direcfed to the Clergy of each Diocele. But that all the Inferior Clergy as well as 
 the Superior appeared at divers Common Councils or Parliaments during this 
 Kings Reign, (which they could never have done without the King's Sumnaons, 
 tlio' tlie Writs are loft) may appear from that great Council or Parliament of the 
 $th of Henry the Third : Whereto as Mat. P.iris tells us (in the Place, I have 
 fi> often mentioned) were fummoned C/erus iSf Populus, cum A\,ignatib:ts ke£ionis, 
 or Regni, ^^ Mii.Wepmnpcr words it; and in this Council wj<; given hy nines 
 d£ Regno, the i ^th of all the Moveables of all the whole Kingdom. So that thefe 
 
 cmnes
 
 398 
 
 BiBLlOTHECA PoLlTICA. 
 
 tmnts ie Regno muft take in all Degrees of Men, and confequently the Inferior 
 Clergy too •, fince it is certain the Bifhops and Abbots did never reprefent them in 
 the Houfe of Peers, or in Convocation, fo as to lay any Taxes upon the Inferior 
 Clergy without their exprefs Confents. And this is the more evident, becaufe this 
 Tax was a I'jth upon Moveables-, and not a Tax upon Land, and confequently 
 could never be impofed upon thofe of the Clergy, ( who held in Fm/ik Almoign^ 
 as all the Inferior Clergy then did, and do at this Day ) by the Biihops and Abbots 
 that held m Capite. And that thefe Charters were made by the Common Confent 
 of the whole Kingdom -, (and then certainly by the Inferior, as well as Superior 
 Clergy,) may appear by the Confirmation of the great Charters, as alio in the 
 Rot. Stat. 25. Preamble to the Statute of Arikulifuper Chart as (made, the one in the 25 th, the 
 £. I. Af. 38. other in the 28th of Edward I.) in both which it is exprefly recited, that the 
 great Charters of Liberties, and the Charters ofForett, wers mziQ per Commun 
 Ajjent de tout le Royalme, en Temps nofire Fere •, and if by the Common Afient 
 of the Realm, then fure by that of the Inferior as well as Superior Clergy, fince 
 the Biftiops and Abbots, who late there only by their Baronies could never repre- 
 fent them. 
 
 That the Inferior Clergy were alfo fummoned to Parliament, in the 39th of 
 Henry \\\. appears from the il«;?r//f of £«;7^«, in Anno Dom. 12 5' 3. Where that 
 Author, (who lived at that Time) relates, that the Inferior Clergy then appearing 
 in Parliament, fent Meflengers to the Pope concerning the intolerable Grievances 
 1 they then lay under ^ among which, the firft Grievance fet forth by the Procura- 
 
 tors of the Clergy for the Diocefe of Lincoln is this, ^uod decima bencjkiorum 
 fuoruin Dof/iino Reg't fiiit concejja ipfis non vocatis^ maxime cuin aghur de aliquo 
 ohfigando necejjarius eft ejus exprelj'us conjenjus : By which it appears, that the In- 
 ferior Clergy then claimed it as their undoubted Right by the Law of the Land, 
 not to be Taxed either by the King, or the Pope, without their exprels Contents ; 
 and they contended fo hard for it, that they have prtferved this Right even to this 
 Day, when they now give their Votes to the Choice of Knights of the Shires ^ tho' 
 till the late King Charles's Reign, they were never Taxed without the Confent of 
 their own Procurators in Convocation. And this may ferve to enlarge your Under- 
 ftanding, and to fliew you in what Senfe the whole Clergy, as well the Inferior as 
 Superior, did anciently make the Third Eftate in Parliament, which was more 
 Comprehenfive than the Bifhops and Mitred Abbots alone, who fate in the Upper 
 Houfe only/w haron'iam, by Reafon of their Baronies ^ the' in the Synod or Con- 
 vocation of the Clergy, they a£led only as Ecclefialtial Perfons; where they alfo 
 ioined in the making of Ecclefiaftical Laws, and giving Taxes-, which lift you can- 
 not deny, but to be a meer Temporal Thing. 
 
 M. You may be fo far in the right ; yet tho' the Inferior Clergy often joined 
 with the Common Council of the Kingdom, in giving the fame Taxes, yet this 
 was by, and upon themfelves alone, and they had no hand in making of Temporal 
 Laws, and giving Taxes for all the reft of the Kingdom ^ and I challenge you to 
 (hew me any Precedent within thefe Five Hundred Years, that the Inferior Clergy 
 ever made the Third Eftate in Parliament, or that their Confents was ever asked 
 to the making of Temporal Laws-, fince the Bifhops have been always look'd upon 
 till of late, as the only Reprefentatives of the Inferior Clergy in Parliament. 
 How elfe could they be obliged by general Statutes or Ads of Parliaments ? Since 
 according to your own ConfefTion, they gave no Votes at the EleQion of Knights 
 of Shires, but fince the Return of King Charles II. So that if they had ever joined 
 in this Legiflative Power (as you fuppofe they anciently did) I cannot fee why 
 they fhould not have kept it to this Day. 
 
 E I grant indeed, it has been otherwife between 300 and 400 Years j but 
 that it was not fo from the Original Inftitution of the Government, is alfe) as cer- 
 tain : For that the Englijh Common Councils confitted of all Sorts and Degrees of 
 Ecclefialticks you mult allow ^ fince-before the coming inoftheA<7r;»tf»y,theBifhops 
 and Abbots did not fit in the Mycel Synods, as Temporal Lords, is generally ac- 
 knowledged ; and yet even after they came to fit among the Lay Peers in the great 
 Council "of the Nation by virtue of their Baronies, the Inferior Clergy alio gave 
 theii Affentsto the making of Temporal Laws, and giving Taxes; I have proved 
 by fuch Authorities, as I do not fee you are able to Anfwer; and for further Proof 
 of this, to fliew you their coming was continued down to the Reign of //<?;?ry III. 
 Pag. (54. fee Sir h. Spehnan^ Councils, Second Volume, where you will find that they were 
 
 in
 
 I>ialogue the Eighth. gpp 
 
 in that great Council at Clorenion, when thofe famous Conflitutions were made, ^- '^4- 
 as appears by thefe Words in Mat. Tatis at the end of rhefe Conltltutions. Hanc 
 Recqgrtithnem, Jive Record.itionem de confuetudmibus £? libertaiibus in quis Archi- '^""' ^'^'"' 
 epifcopi, Epifcopi, Abkites, Priores, C/erus, aim Comitibus iff Baronibifs, iff fro- ' ' "^" 
 ceribus cunBis juraverunt. So likewife at the Council of Gaimington m the 
 34th of this King i Roger Hoveden has in his Hittory thefe Words, Dominus p. e^u 
 vera Rex JJjtim poj^quam m Angltam appliant magnum congrcgavit Concilium^ EpiJ- 
 coporum, Abbatum, Comitum t!f Barcnum, iSf alioriim multcrum Clcncorum, quam 
 Liiicorum, apudG/iintington. And Mat. Paris in the Year 1185, (being the 3 ift 
 of this King's Reign) mentions a Common Council of the Kingdom then called at 
 C/erJkenioell, where Convocatta efi Clerits £7 Popu/ui, am tota Nobi/itate ; which 
 Dr. Hey/in in his Stumbling-Biock of Difobedience thus tranflates ; the Clergy p. j „, 
 and Commons, together with the Nobility being fummoned. And in the ift of 
 Richard I. R. Hoveden alfo tells us of a great Council held at Pipcwel Abbey in 
 Korthamptonfljire, where the Archbifhop of Canterbury produced a Charter of 
 King Williajn I. Coram Rege, £?" Vnive?fis Epifcopk, Clero, i^ Populo. And an 
 Ancient Charter off /7«2(7 of King 7i?/;;7, (now in the Archbifliop ot' Canterbury's 
 Library) Entituled, Charta Moderatioms feod. magni Jigilli, recites the faid King to 
 have been Crowned, Mediante tarn Cleri quam Populi unanimi confenfu, i^ favore. 
 And tho' the reft of his Reign was turbulent, yet the Author of the Manufcript 
 Eulogium^ quoted by Mr. Selden, in his Titles of Honour, mentions a great Coun- 
 cil at London, in the i6th Yen- of King Jobn^ where the Archbifhop o'i Canterbury^- 587. 
 was prefent. Cum tot Clero, ijf tota feHaLaicali, i. e. (fays Dr. Hey /in in the (ame 
 Place) " The Clergy of both Ranks and Orders, with all the Laity (called here 
 " Se^a Laira/is ) and the Lords and Commons had then their Places in Parliament. 
 And the Doftor proceeds thus, " And in Pofledion of this Right the Clergy Itood 
 *' when Magna Charta was fet forth by King Henry III. Wherein the Freedom, 
 " Rights, and Privileges of the Church of England (of which this evidently was 
 " one) was confirmed to them ; (/. e the whole Clergy in general.) I have here 
 (hewed you, what Dr. T/^y^'s Senfe was; to let you fee that a Perfon of great 
 Learning, and a high Churchman, tliought it no Herefy to be of our Opinion, and 
 to maintain as he does all along in that Chapter, that the Inferior Clergy and the 
 Commons were a Confiituent Part of the Common Council or Parliament long 
 before the 49th 0^ Henry \\\. and that the Inferior Clergy continued to be fo, till 
 the Reign oi' Henry IV. at lealt. 
 
 But that their Confents was alfo anciently asked in the making of Laws, we 
 reed go no farther than the Authority I have now given you from the Continuati- 
 on o^Elorence oHVorceJIer. And farther, that they were once a Part of this great 
 Council or Parliament, befides the Teftimony of the Modus tenendi Parliamcntum, 
 (who tho' he be exploded, as an ancient Author, yet certainly is a good Witnefs 
 for his own Time, viz. That 0^ Edward III.) where the Procuratores Cleri are 
 reckoned among the Gwj7////<'W Members or States of Parliament ; wliich is alfo 
 confirmed by the Two firft Writs of Summons we have left us on the Rolls, viz. 
 the 23d of Edvcard^ I. wherein this Claule oS.Pr.(municntes Clerum is particularly 
 exprefs'd ^ which pray read from your DoQor's Aniwer to Mr. P. Pr.fmunicmes 
 Priorem& Capitulum Ecclefi£veJ}r.(,Archidiaconos tot umque Clerum vefir^Dwctfisfa- Kot. cl.iuf.m, 
 Cientes quod iidem Prior iSArchidiac. in propriis Pcrfonkfuis^ iSf diUumCapitulum'^- ^-^f"- 
 per duos Procuratores idoneos plcnam& fuffiaentem pot e flat em ab ipjis Capitul/s, ijf^- '^•^'' I^' 
 Clero habentes, una vobifcum, inter fint, niodk omnibus tunc ibidem., ad traBandum "^' 
 ordinandum, i!f faciendum nvbifcum^ iff cum cceterkPrxlatk, iff Proceribus iff aliis 
 Incolrs Regni nofh-i qualiter fit hujufmoii periculis obviandum. {viz, Tlie Dangers 
 in the Writ mentioned to be threatned from France.)kn^ that this was not the firft 
 Time this Claule o^Prxmunientes was inferred in the Writs of Summons to Bi- 
 fhops, might be eafily proved, had we all the Writs of Summons before the 23d 
 of Edward I. as well as fince. But we may hence obferve, that the Inferior Clergy 
 are not only fummoned to treat with the Prelates, but are as well as they, here au- 
 thorized to treat, ordain and aft with them, and the Lords and Knights, Citizens 
 and BurgefTes (forfoyour DoJlor himfelfhere in the Margin tranllates,il///x 7/?f(?/;i 
 Rf^«/.)And how they could thus confult and atl with them,ifthey had not been then, 
 as well as the Prelates, a Part of thefame Body of the great Council or Parliament 
 of the Kingdom, I confefs furpalfes my Capacity to underlland. Nor is this 
 Claufe found in this Writ alone, but alfo in the Writs of the BKhops Sum^mons 
 
 to
 
 z}.00 B I B L 1 O T H E C A P O L 1 T I C A. 
 
 to Parliament as low as our own Times. And that thele Writs were not a Cohvo- 
 F. 120. cation, but Parliament, appears in P;j«'s Parliament Regifter plainly, by the Let- 
 ters of Procuration made by the Prior and Chapter of Bath to William Swynhatn 
 and John de Merjlon^ appointing them to appear and aft for them as their lawful 
 Procurators in the Parliament fummoned Anno Boji. 1299. being the 27th of 
 Edvoard I -, which is of a different Form from another Letter of Procuration of 
 the fame Prior and Chapter, Anno Dom. 120^. (?i Edward I.) to their Pro- 
 curators therein named to aft for them in the Convocation then fummoned at 
 Wejimnjfer; the fame Difference is alfo oblerved in all the Writs of Summons 
 to Convocation, different from thole whereby the fame Perfons are fummoned to 
 Parliament -, the former being direfted only to the Two Archbifhops, or their 
 Vicar-Generals, to fummons all the Bifhops, Abbots, Priors, and Clergy of their 
 refpeftive Provinces •, without any particular Writs iffued to any other Bifhops, Ab- 
 bots, Priors or Clergymen, as in Summons to great Councils or Parliaments ; where- 
 in there are commonly particular Orders to the Bifhop to warn all the inferior Clergy 
 P l°^g in the manner but now mentioned ; asMr.P/^w very well obferves, in his Firlt Part 
 RotMauf. tif his faid Parliamentary Regifter-, where you may fee, there is a Writ of Summons 
 31.' Edw. 3. to Parliament, ofthe'^ilt ofiWroarillL to the ktcW\iho'po{ Canterbury, reciting 
 m. 21. Dorfo. that he intended a Parliament, for divers arduous and urgent BufinelTes concerning 
 Himfelf and Crown, and the neceffary Defence of the Kingdom and Church of 
 England ; and then proceeds thus, Et quia Nrgotia prxdlBa per quam Ardua fine 
 Maxima dehher at'iune tam Trslatorum ifj Cleri quam Magnatu}n, ifj ComtniinitaUs 
 cjufdem Regni, Sec. And therefore it behoved him to fummon the Did Clergy, 
 Great Men and Commons ; and then requires him to fummon all :lte Bifhops, Ab- 
 bots, Deans, and Priors, and Archdeacons, to appear perfbnally, and the reft of the 
 Clergy by two Procurators •, with full Power ad rraifandum, iS' confi'Jendum f.iper 
 prifniijjis una vobifcum, ad confentiendum. lUii qum tunc ibidem fuper diifis negotiis 
 divtna fuvente dementia contigerit ordinari. 
 
 M. But what can you fay to their being omitted to be fummoned in divers 
 Writs to Parliament, as appears in Pryns Regider you now cited •■, and from 
 whence himfelf has there made this Obfervation, " That there is no Claule of 
 P. 107. " Pr<emunientes, Kc. in any Writs of Summons to Councils of State, but only to 
 
 " Parliaments, and that not always, but at the King's Pleafure. Which ihews plain- 
 ly, that the' they were fometimes fummoned as a Part, yet were certainly no ef- 
 lential ccnfiitucnt Part of this general Council, fince they were om.itted in fo many 
 of them •, and had they been always a Part of this great Council •, pray tell me, 
 how they came to lofe this Right -, fince the Clergy in thofe Days were not went 
 to lofe any Right or Privilege they enjoyed. 
 
 F. I have already granted, that tho' the inferior Clergy have been no neceffary 
 Conpituent Part of Parliament, for divers Ages laft paft, yet does it not follow', 
 that therefore they never were fb ^ fince they have loft this Right by Degrees. And 
 I fhall now fhew by what Steps it might have happen'd. Firft, therefore pray ob- 
 lerve, that anciently all Abbots, and Priors whatever, as well thofe that held in 
 Capite, as thofe that held in Frank Almoign, were all fummoned alike to the gene- 
 ral Councils of the Kingdom ; as appears by the firft Councils after your 
 Conqueft, that we have any Monuments of; nay it alfo appears from that very 
 Writ of the 6th of King John, (if it were a Writ of Summons to Parliament) 
 which as I have already pro\ed at cur laft Meeting it is moft likely it 
 was not, whereby the Bidiop is to fummon all the Abbots and Priors 
 of his Diocefe, none excepted. And tho' I grant that in the next Writ of Summons 
 of the 26th oi'Henry III. to the Archbifhop of 2'ork, there is no Claule expreffed 
 of fummoning the Abbots and Priors, and other Clergy of his Diocefe, yet it is 
 much to be doubted, whether this were a Summons to Parliament, or not, being 
 without any Title either of //^ Parliamentum ox Concilium. 
 
 But that the Abbots and Priors, as well thofe that held in Capite, as thofe that 
 held in Frank Almoign, were fummoned to the great Parliament of the 49th of Ji?;?- 
 Ael/fTart i '^ ^^^" ^PF^^''^ ^y ^^^^ Lift of their Names, which both Mr. Pryn, and the Doftor 
 /.To(5.io8,'' ^^^^ printed from the Roll. Nor do I believe that this was the firft Time that all 
 jop, no,' thefe Abbotsand Priors, being 101 in all, were fummoned to Parliament, notwith- 
 B.A.P.j,. 138, ftanding your Doftor's Fancy, that Simon Aiontfort fummoned fb many of them, 
 '39' only becaufe he was fure of them ; fince if we had the Rolls of the foregoing 
 
 Years, as well as of this, we fhould perhaps find little or no Difference. For by 
 
 another
 
 Dialogue tire Eighth. z}.o r 
 
 another Lift of the Abbotsand Priors, which the Dr. himfelf has given usJofthe 23cl ioilii6,iij. 
 d^ Edward I. to the fame Parliament above-mentioned, when tlie Inferior Clergy- 
 were likewife Summoned •, there appears to have been Seventy Abbots and Priors 
 fummoned to this Parliament, of which not a third Part ever held in Capite ; and 
 tho' divers of them then pleaded Exemptions, yet they were many of them fuch 
 as held in Capite as well as tho(e that did not-, as the Abbots of St. Edmund\-Bur}\ 
 Waltham, St. Album, Evejham, &c. all which, as it is notorioufly known, held in 
 Capite , and were commonly fummoned to all Parliaments afterv/ards. Now pny 
 fee how all this numerous Train of Abbots and Priors (which Mr. Tryn confefles p^^ij 
 to havefometimes amounted to 122) who were fummoned to fome Parliaments g;y?. 14J.' *' 
 and great Councils, came to be omitted \ which is to be afcribed chiefly to their own 
 Petition and Defire, when their conftant Attendance in Parliament when held every 
 Year, and frequently oftner, was counted a Burthen rather than an Advantage, by 
 leafon of the great Charge and Trouble of coming to thofe Aflemblies, and their 
 being bound to contribute to the general Aids that were then given the King. And 
 thence it is we find on the Rolls ^o many Difcharges upon their Petitions in Parli- 
 ament, that they did not hold of the King by Barony, nor in Capite •, nay the Ab- ,,. , 
 bot ofLeicefler, after having ferved in no lefs than 50 Parliaments, yet in the 25th yl/sMca-s 
 of Edward III. procured a Writ of Exemption from the King, ^uod non compella- Titles of m- 
 tur venire ad Farliamentum ; the Lords in Parliament eafily giving way to it, fince ''5«^ P- 73i» 
 they knew that the fewer Hands the Legiflative Power was reduced to, the greater ^° 735- 
 ftill were theirs that remained. To which may be added the King's Pleafure, who 
 by Degrees began to omit fummoning of divers of the fmaller Abbots and Priors 
 before fufnmoned \ fince it has been the Policy of divers of our Kings to reduce 
 their great Councils or Parliaments, efpecially the Peers, into as few Hands as they 
 could, becaufe then they are moft eafily managed j and the Abbots and Pri- 
 ors never complained of it, for the Reafons already given. Thus moft ofthefe came 
 to be ftruck off by Degrees, till at latt, of all this numerous Company of Abbots Jbid. 141. 
 and Priors, there were in the Reigns 0^ Edward \\\. Richard ]l, and EdivardlV. 
 and even to the Diftblutionof Monafteries under Henry VIW. no more than 25 Ab- 
 bots and Two Priors, viz. the Prior of Coventry, and of St. John oK Jernfalem, 
 fummoned to Parliament. I have dwelt the longer on the Hiftory of thefe Ab- 
 bots and Priors, becaufe it fufficiently confutes yDur DoSlor's Notion, of none but 
 Tenants in Capite, appearing in Parliament. 
 
 But to give you fome Account of the Inferior Clergy, how they likewile might 
 come to be often omitted out of the Writs of Summons to great Councils, and 
 not to make a sonftant Part of the Parliament, but only of the Convocation. This 
 might happen two or three ways, and that without any pofitive Law for it. As in 
 thefirft Place, pray confider the vaft Increafe of Power which fell to the Bilhops, 
 after Henry I. had given up his Right of Inveititures to the Pope ; by which 
 means they depended not at all on the State, and fb took upon themfelves a greater 
 Power of impofing upon,and making Temporal Laws for the Inferior Clergy in Par- 
 liament, as if they had been their Reprefentatives ^ yet they could never reprelent 
 all the Abbots and Priors, who held in h-ankAJmoign, for the Reafons already given, 
 as alfo becaufe moft of them were exempted from their Jurifdiftion : But that 
 the Bilhops could never impofe Taxes upon the Inferior Clergy at their Pleafure, 
 without their exprels Contents in Parliament, or Convocation , appears by this 
 memorable Writ of 9th of EdwardW. to the Archbifhop dt Canterbury, which 
 Mr. P;>'« has likewife given us j by which it appears, that divers of the Clergy ^^"''"P" ^54- 
 had confented to grant the King a Subfidy in the precedent Parliament, but only 
 by Reafon of the Abfence of the faid Archhifhops, and others of the Prelates, and 
 Clergy, it could not then be done -, and therefore the Archbifhop is thereby ordered 
 to call a Convocation for that Purpofc ; which had been needlefs, if the Bilhops 
 alone could have taxed the Inferior Clergy in Parliament or Convocation, without 
 their exprefs Confents : So that it is plain, that in that Age they ftill retained a 
 great Share of the Supream Power, viz. of not being taxed, unlefs by Reprefon- 
 tatives of their own, either in Convocation or Parliament 5 as.it continues to this 
 Day. . 
 
 But to fliew you farther, how the Prefence of the Inferior Clergy, and confe- 
 quently their fummoning to Parliament, became lefs necelTary, we muft have re- 
 courfe to the Bull of Pope Boniface the 8th in the 2\x.\\of Edward I. by which he 
 forbad all the Clergy of the Wefiern Church, as well Superior as Interior, to give 
 
 F f f any
 
 402 BlBLIOTHECA PoLlTlC.A. 
 
 any ffiore Taxes or Subfidies to Temporal Princes, without his Holinefs's Licenfe^ 
 whereupon the King fummoned the Bilhops and Clergy to Parliament, at St. Ed- 
 171 i(nd\- bury in the 24th of his Reign ; where wlien they then retiiled to grant him any 
 Supplies, hethen,(asalltheHiItonans tell us,) held his Parliaments at Wefiminjler^ 
 Cutn Barombus fu!6, exclujo Clero, without either Bifhops, Abbots or Inferior Cler- 
 Vid. Mat.U'eJl. gy. Which was the firlt Precedent of this Kind, that we ever read of in this Par- 
 Ann. 129(5. liament •, the King with the Confent of the Lay Lords and Commons feized all 
 p. 405 fo 408. the Tf»;/w77///>x of the Clergy, as well Bi (hops as others, and put them out of 
 Thorn.^Co/. ^^'^ Proteftion,until they were forced to redeem themfelves by paying a 5th Pare of 
 19(55." ' their Moveables : for doing of which they were afterwards forced to procure the 
 Waljhgham. Pope's Abfolutions ; feme of which Mr. ?ryn has given us in his faid Regi- 
 Anno Dm. (^gj . g^^j yg^ for all this, the Pope maintained this Power over the Clergy for the 
 1^9^, 1297' ;{uture ■, lb that they could not be taxed without his exprefs Licenft, (which fince it 
 could not always be obtained j no wonder if our Kings did more frequently omic 
 fummoning any more than the Bifliops, and Abbots, who were bound to appear 
 in Parliament by their Tenures-, and lb left out all the inferior Clergy as ufelefs: 
 The main Bufinefs, and Caufe of their fummoning to Parliament, viz. giving of 
 Money, being now taken away by the Pope's ufurped Power. Tho' whenever his 
 Licenie was obtained, yet that their own exprefs Confents in Parliament or Con- 
 vocation was neceffary to this end, appears by that PaflTage in the knnA'spi' Burton 
 in Anno 1255. already ciied 5 when the inferior Clergy being extravagantly op- 
 prefs'd between the Pope and King, they lent exprefs Meffengers when they 
 met in Parliament, who were to let forth their Grievances to his Holinefs. I 
 liave given you as good an Account as I am able, how the Inferior Clergy, which 
 as well as the Superior, did once make a Conflituem Part of our great Councils 
 before the Conqueft, nay for above 200 Years after, did at laft ceafe to be fb, 
 partly by the prevailing Power of the Bifhops, partly by the Ufurpation of the 
 Pope -, tho' chiefly by their own Silence and Confent, not complaining of their 
 want of Summons to Parliament, as long as they could Tcape Scot-free, and all 
 the reft of the Kingdom pay Taxes. Notwithftanding which, the Claufe of their 
 afting and confultingj with all the reft of the Eftates in Parliament, ftill re- 
 maining in the Writs of Summons, is a fulficient Monument to Pofterity, to 
 prove their ancient Right. 
 vid. Dr. Bur- And the Clergy of the Lower Houfe of Convocation was fo fenfible of this, 
 nctV Hjflory cf ^j^^j. among certain Petitions by them made to Dr. Cranmcr then Archbifhop of 
 tht ^(f^'^at. Q^j^fbury, and the reft of the Prelates in the higher Houfe of Convocation, 
 Vr^coX 7=^ i" the Reign of King Edward the Sixth, and the Second Article of which 
 MS. Dr'stil- runs thus, " Alfo that according to the ancient Cuftom of the Realm, and 
 lingfleet, " the Tenot of the King's Writ for fummoning of the Parliament, which now 
 p. 117. II. ^^^ gygj. jjjyg jjeen direfted to the Bifhop of every Diocefe, the Clergy 
 
 *' of the Lower Houfe of Convocation may be adjoined ; and aflbciate with 
 " the Lower Houle of Parliament j or elfe, that all fuch Statutes and Ordi- 
 *' nances as (hall be made concerning all Matters of Religion, and Caules 
 " Ecclefiaftical, may not pafs without the Sight and Affent of the Clergy. 
 And there is in the fame Place a Second Petition ^ as alio a Paper ofRealbns 
 Ibid. p. 1 18, cg"eted to Queen Elizabeth, and after to King James, to the fame Efteft. 
 ^^■- And laftly, to (hew you, that the Government of the Church and State of 
 
 Scotland was anciently all one and the fame in refpeft of their Clergy as 
 well as Laity, with that of England in their great Councils or Parliaments , 
 appears by ihe Agreement between King Edward the Firft, and the States of Scot- 
 land, concerning the Marriage of his Son Prince Edward with the Princefs of 
 Korway then Heirels of Scotland, which is publilhed at large in Mr. P/j« s 
 Firft Volume of the Pope's Ulurpation, where you will find this Agteement to 
 ^- ?9^' have been made between the laid King Edward ex una parte, & venerabiles Pa- 
 
 tres cujlodes, (fcil. Scotia-j Epifcopos, Abbates, £?' totiim Clerum ; nobiles viros, 
 Comites iff Barones, totamque Communitatem Regni Scotiar, ex altera, de matri- 
 monio contrahendo, fSs^ 
 
 i-'rom'whence you may obferve, that as the fame Stile was obferved there in 
 the Titles of their general Councils or Parliaments as with us ; and as the inferi- 
 or Clergy there put after the Bilhops and Abbots did not hold in Capite, but Frank 
 Almoign in that Kingdom •, fo likewife by the fame Analogy between the loweft 
 Temporal State with the Spiritual, the Commonalty of Scotland here ftiled Com- 
 
 munitat
 
 Dialogue the Eighth- /^oq^ 
 
 viunitai ScotUconX'l not then confiftonly of Tenants in Gipte, asyourDoftor and 
 thofe of his Opinion fuppofe it did. 
 
 M. I muft confefs you have (hewn me more for the Inferior Clergies being once 
 a Conflttiient part of the Parliament, than ever I knew before-, I will take Time far- 
 ther to confider them : But that the Word Fopidus muft needs then take in any 
 more than the Tenants in Capite, I much doubt j fince the other Word Flebi- 
 which you fo much infift upon from the old Book of Efy, fignifies no more than 
 Pcfulus, which as the Doftor fliews us in his G/oJfa/y, " in it felf fignifies nei- s. g. p. 24. 
 " ther great nor litde People, but only Laity 5 and therefore as it is uled and re- 
 " ftrained, fignifies either the Lay P/ebs, or the Lay Ma^nate^, as I can (liew you 
 " by feveral Examples ^ as particularly out of vTIrf/. Wejhnmpr, Anno Dom. 1295, FoL/^i^.n.ic 
 " 2?d Edivard L where fpeaking how the Pope's Legates were received in En^/and^ 
 " who came to make up the Differences between England and France •, he thus' 
 " relates their Reception, ^uos in Regno Anglix appUcatos excepit P/ebs dcbito 
 " honor e, ac cita per Rcgem iipudWcfimonafterium Prunatum, i^ Optimat urn fuorunt 
 " Cdterva. Here the Plebs were the Great or Chief Men of the Laity ; that is 
 " the Earls and Barons which he had called to IVeJIminftcr, who fo honourably 
 " received thefe Two Cardinals. 
 
 So likewife the fame Author, Anno Dom. 1297. 25. Edward I. " The King ^i*/. 4?o. 
 " and Barons being at fome Difference about the Obfervation of Magna Charta, 
 *' and the Chartet of Forelt, fpeaking how the King declared that he intended to' 
 " obferve thofe Charters •, after this he relates, that the King thereupon required 
 " to be given him by the Incoleox Inhabitants, the Eighth Penny ; and fiys thus, 
 " Articnlos in prcediBis Chartis Contcntos, innovari infuper i^ obfcrvari Rex Alan- 
 " davit, exigendopro hac Concejfione ab Incolis OHavum denarium fibi dari, qui tnox 
 " Conceffus eft a Plebe, infua Camera tunc Circu7nftante ; petit etiam a Qero fubji- 
 *' dium. ^li refpondit fe velle fummo Pontifict Lit eras Siepplicatorias dinger e pro 
 " Conjerendi Licentia obtinenda. So that the Plebs here mentioned by the ^filto- 
 *' rian were only the Lay Nobility thatltood about the King in his Chamber. Now 
 " pray confider, thai the Word Pkbs is of a much more vulgar Signification than 
 " Populus, fo that if the former did notfignify the Commons as now underftood, 
 " the latter cannot do fo. And therefore I fee no Reafon to fuppole that thele 
 " Words muft fignify the Commons. The like Error, I muft tell you by the way, 
 the Gentlemen of your Opinion have fallen into, concerning the Word Valgus in 
 the old Coronation Oath in Latin, when they ignorantly Tranflate thefe Words in B.c, p. ^4.- 
 the old French Oath, les leys les queUes ly la commuante aura eleu, leges &■ Confue- 
 tudines quas vulgus elegerit, to the great Confufion of this Nation in the beginning 
 of the late Troubles: Whereas the Community here underltood in this Oath, 
 was the Community of the Rilhops and Abbots, Earls and Barons, and great Men, 
 and the whole Body of Tenants in Capite ; exprefled before in this Oath by Clerus\' 
 and Populus ; for by them alone could thefe Demands be made for the Vulgus :, i. e. 
 the Multitude or Rabble could never come near to make i\\q^q Demands at fo great 
 andfplendid a Solemnity. 
 
 ¥. This is but to urge the fame Thing over and over again j for that under the 
 Word Populus were alfo comprehended the Commons, I have already fufficiently 
 proved, and can yet prove it further, from divers Hiftorians and Records, both of 
 Henry III. and Edward I. and Edward II. Reign. In the Firft Place therefore I 
 muft ftill put you in mind of that Paffage fo often cited from Alatt. Park, in the Pol- ?2?. 
 9th of Henry III. where the Members of that Common Council in which Magna 
 Charta was granted, is faid to be Clerus iff Populus cum Magnatibus Regionis -, or 
 as Mat. Wcftminfter in the fsme Year, almolt in the fame Words, Clerus iff Popu- fJ. 284- 
 lus cum Regni Magnatibus-., with both which alfo agrees the Manufcript Hiltory of 
 Walter of^ Coventry, who fpeaking of this very Council of 9th of Mw)' III. relates 
 it thus ; At the Purification of the Virgin, there affembled at London the Proceres 
 Angfut ibique traBatu diffufwre habita cum Clero iff Populo, the King then granted 
 the Liberties of the great Charter, and that ofForefts; and that there was granted 
 a Comitibus St Baronibus, Clcro, iff Populo, ibidem Prafentibus quint a dccima omnium 
 mobilium dc Commiini Ajfcnfu. Whence pray obferve, what i before minded you 
 of, that this Tax, as it was a genetal one upon all the Moveables of the Kingdom, 
 took in all Sorts of Perfons, and fo could never be given by the particular Order 
 of the Doftor's Tenants in Capite, fince it did not concern Tenures at all ; and was 
 levied on thofe that did not hold by Knights Service, as well as upon thofe that did 
 
 Fff2 But
 
 404. 
 
 B t B L I O T H E C A P O L 1 T I C A. 
 
 But the Author of the Annals of the Abbey of Burton, is more full in this 
 Point-, for in AnnoDom. \2')'), being the 99th of iffw;^ HI, he tells us, a Parliament 
 was held at Weftminfier^Convocatisibidein Epifcopn^ Abbatibus, Priori bus, Comitibus, 
 t!f Baronibus, & lotius Regni Majoribiis, in quo petebat [ Rex ] a Clero ijf Popit/o^ 
 de LaiciifeoJiifuisftbi fuffrcigium exhiberi^ Sec. ( viz. For the Bufinels oi' Sici/y 5 ) 
 and then goes on thus, difponcns de fuo iniquo Confilio hoc prius a Clero, iSf pojimo- 
 dum a ?opulo Majori £7 Minori extorqueri. From which Paffage I fliall oblerve, 
 firji. That all the Clergy in general, as well the Bifhops and Abbots, as Inferior 
 Clergy, are here lliled Clerus. Secondly, That the Nobility and Commons, or 
 whole Body of the Laity, are all together called P^i/JAf/^i-. Thirdly, That this Populus 
 is there alfo diftinguiflied into the Major, and Minor ; now as by the Alaj'or can 
 be meant none but" the greater Nobility, fo the Populus Minor can iignify none, 
 but the Commons in general •, unlefs you will fuppofe that the King's Dcfign was 
 only to extort Money from the Tenants in Capite, and no others. 
 
 But to put it farther our of all Difpute, that this Word Populus, when put after 
 and diftinO: from Magnates Barones, and the like, in our Ancient Hiftorians and 
 
 M.io. Records, does fignify the Commons alone ; I Ihall prove to you by tiie Patent 
 
 Roll of the 19th of Edward I. (the Year after your Doftor luppoles rhe Com- 
 mons were called to Parliament ) where there is a Writ direOied, Baronibus, Alill- 
 tibus, &' Liberii Hominibus rf^ I'l/'^z//7^z,reciting that the Comites, Ba/ones, £>' Populus 
 de Regno, had lately freely granted a 15 th of all their Moveables, and therefore 
 defires like Aid from the Welch -, now nothing can be plainer, than that by Populus 
 in this Record muft be meant the Conimons-, and yet it isalfo as evident from 
 another Record now in the keeping of the Remembrancer of the Exchequer, that 
 this 15th was granted rhe Year before in tlie 18th of this King (the very Time 
 whence Dr. B. dates the conftant Summons o{ x\\tCommons to Parliament ;) for by 
 this Writ, or Commiflion, he appoints Commiflioners for the Colle£fing of that 
 15th of all Moveables ; which the King thus recites the Archiepijcopi, Epijcopi, 
 Abbates, Priorcs, Comites, Barones, iff omncs alt) de Regno, nuncjuut alias de nobis 
 (Sf Progenitoribus noflris libcraliter fccerunt, to have lately freely granted him ; 
 which can be no other than that mentioned in the Record of the 19th -, unlels you 
 can fuppofe that there was a 15 th granted Two Years together, which is very un- 
 likely, and more than the Nation could then well pay. 
 
 j^f 2c. So likevvile by the Parliament Roll of 1 Edward III. it appears that Hugh k 
 
 "Difpencer, Jun. had been in the Reign of his Father, Per Confiderutionem Parium, 
 Hj Populi Rcgni, iS^ per AJjenfum Donini Edicardi tunc Regis Angl. exiled and dif- 
 inherited for ever, as a Traytor to the King and Kingdom ; that is, he was baiiifh'd 
 by the joint Confent of King, Lords and Commons. Now if Populus in thefe Re- 
 cords fignifies the Commons after the Time you own they appeared in Parliament, 
 I would be glad to fee fome better Reafons than you have hitherto given me, to 
 prove that this Word could not have the fame Signiiication before the 49th of 
 Henry III. or 18th o^Edivard I. Though I grant that Populus does alfb Ibmetimes 
 fignity both Lords and Commons •, as appears from Alat. Wejiminjler, where rela- 
 ting how King Edward L in the 24th Year of his Reign, made his Son a Knight, 
 then he tells us. Pro hac AMlitia filij Regis Concejjus eft Regi Trigcftmus Benarius a 
 Vopulo iSf Clero, Mercatores vera Vuefmum concetjerunt. Yet that the Commons 
 had alfo a fliare in this Grant, the Doctor himfelf acknowledges in his Gloffary^ 
 under the fame Heads in thefe Words; " It is evident from this Record, (meaning 
 " that of the 34th of Edward I. above-mentioned ) who were the Populus, or Peo- 
 " pie intended by the Hiltorian in this Place, to wit, xh^Comites, Barones, &" al^ 
 " Alagnates, nee non Milites Comitatuum. Now I defire to know whether the 
 Knightsof the Shires were not then Commoners as well as now, though reckoned 
 among the Magnates, and as a Superior Order to the Citizens and Burgeffes, here 
 called by a general Word Mercatores, who then gave a 20th Part of their Move- 
 ables by themfelves ? 
 
 But that the Word Plebs does not only fignify the Lay Nobility, but the Com- 
 mons too, in both the Quotations you have made ufe of out of Mat. Weftminfier, 
 is alfb as plain ; for in the firft Inltance concerning the Reception of the Legates, is 
 it to be imagined that none but Earls, and great Lords accompanied them, and 
 that there were no Knights or Gentlemen amonglt them ? And as for the words Pri- 
 mites, and Optimates, I think I have fufficiently proved that thofe do not only fig- 
 nify the Lords, or greater Nobility, but the lefler alio : Nay, the Chief Citizens, 
 and Magiltrates of Cities and great Towns. As
 
 'Dialogue the Eighth. a 05 
 
 As for the next Authority concerning the Flebs that granted the Eighth Penny, 
 it is much more evident that the Commons, as well as the Lords, mult be com- 
 prehended under that Term. And that this is fo, I need go no further than the 
 Doclor's own ConceiTion in the lame Place a little farther, which you may read in 
 thefe Words i And that the Agreement for the Confirmation of the Charters here ihii. p. j<. 
 mentioned was made, and the Eighth Penny granted by the Earls and Barons, and 
 perhaps the Knights of Shires-, and that they were thc?\&hs that flood about the King 
 in his Chamber, is clear from the Writ of Summons oj Parliament for Two Knights in 
 every County, Dated September the 15/fe immediately following, to come and receive 
 the Confirmation of the Charters and his Letters, that the payit^ of this Eighth Penny 
 fhould not prejudice the Commons for the future •, and to do further what by his Son 
 and his Counfeljhould be Ordained. So that the Doftor himfelf is forced to confefs, 
 ( tho' fparingly ) that the Knights of Shires were likewile there, and comprehended 
 under the Word Plebs at the Time of this Grant. The King held this Parliament at 
 his Palace ofWeflminJler, in fome of the Halls or great Rooms, and the Commons 
 might very well fit in the now Court of Requefls, ( then called the Alba Aula, or 
 White-Hall ) ( where Parliaments have been frequently held ) and from thence' be 
 fent for by the King into the Paint edOiamher, or now Houle of Lords, where the 
 King then fate ; and which might, in refpe£t of the Hall from whence they came, 
 be very well called, Camera Regis •, for none can imagine his Prefence-Chamber, or 
 Bed-Chamber, could hold all that Company •, and in that Room the King might 
 make that Speech to them which this Author mentions j and then upon his pro- 
 mifing to renew the Charters, followed the granting of the Eighth Penny ablncolis, by 
 the whole People, who immediately granted the faid Subfidy. Now the Doctor grants 
 in this Place, That the Incolt here meant by theHiftorian were thelncol^ Keg,n\, fucb 
 Inhabitants as ufed to pay Subfidies and Aids ; only the Plebs mult here fignify the 
 Lay Nobility. Now, if the IncoLt Regni were fuch as uled to pay Aids and Sub- 
 fidies, who made this Conceffion, can any Man doubt, but that this Grant was 
 made by their Reprefentatives, or the Knights, Citizens and Burgeffes? For if the 
 Tax was general upon the whole Kingdom, (as it appears it was) can you ima- 
 gine that the Citizens and Burgefles were not there prefent when this Tax was 
 given, as well as the Knights of the Shires -, fince it was to be levied upon all alike > 
 Nor is the Doctor's Objeftion of any Weight, That becaufe the King not long after 
 Summoned another Parliament when he was beyond Sea, to meet his Son Prince Ed- 
 ward at Weftminfter \ that therefore it was not probable, that if the Commons had 
 been at the Agreement, and granting of the Eighth Penny in the King's Chamber^ 
 they would have been dif miffed, and called again about the fame Bufmefs in fojliort 
 a Time, feeing the Confirmation oj the Charter was difpatchcd in Six Days, when the 
 Parliament met Oftober the 6th. For the DoQor is very much miftaken to imagine 
 that this was the fame Bufinels they met about before, when the very Writ of Sum- 
 mons fhews the contrary. For the Tax was given already, and therefore they could 
 not meet about that ; but the Truth was, the King went away in Halte into Flan- 
 ders, without confirming the Charters. So that before the People would give any 
 more Money, his Son, ?t'mce Edioard, was forced to confirm them, (as the Do- 
 ctor himfelf confeffes in the fame Place,) after the Confirmation of thefe Char- 
 ters, and that the Earls and Barons were latisfied. But as for the Doffor's wondrous 
 Difcovery of the falle bad Tranflation of the old French Coronation Oath, I do lb 
 far indeed agree with him, that the Words le Commune aura elu, are not to be 
 Tranflated, which the Commons, or Vulgar People, but the whole Community 
 Ihall chufe ; rendred here by the Word Vulgus, by the Old Monkifb Tranllator : 
 yet this can by no means fignify only the Bilhops, Abbots, Lords, and Tenants in 
 Capite:, (for who ever knew the Word Vulgus to fignify the Superior Clergy and 
 Nobility ? ) and fo to exclude the whole Body of the People in general. But Mar. 
 Wcjiminfler tdls MS, Concejjus eft (viz. to Edward l.) Novenarius Denarius a Vulgo^ p^i ^, 
 a Clero vera Denus ad Scotorum Pertinacium reprimendam, who had then invaded ' ^ ' ' ^ 
 Northumberland, and harafl'ed the other Northern Counties. Now pray read thep;,„ 25 
 Doftor's Comment upon thefe Words in his Qloffary. Here Vulgus is the fame 
 with Populus and Plebs, when oppofedto Clerus, or joined with it as a diftin^ Body 
 of Men -, and Clerus Sc Populus, c:ierus Sf Plebs. Clerus & Vulgus, are the Clergy 
 and Laity, m the Meaning of this Hijlorian -, whether the Earls and Bjrons alone, or 
 the Temporal Earls and Barons with the Commons were underftnod by them ; that is 
 the Commons reprefented in Parliament, and not the Miiltittde or Rubble, Which 
 
 3 ' indeed
 
 406 B I B L I O T H E C A P O L 1 T 1 C A. 
 
 indeed is a worthy Difcovery of the Doftor's. Nor do I know any body fo mad 
 as to render it in the Coronation Oath •, but that this Word Vulgiis, when put for 
 the whole Laity of the Kingdom, is very ancient in that Oath, fee the Old Co- 
 ronation Oath in To/r/^'s Colleftion of old Statutes, who tranfcribed it out of fome 
 Ancient l.aun Copy of that Oath, or elfe from that Claufe in the Coronation Oath 
 of King Kuhari II. which is ftill to be feen upon Record. 
 
 I beg your Pardon for (peaking ^o long upon the true Signification of thefe 
 Words Gi-rwx and P^f/^/wj, Ykhs zx\iLVulgiis, fince there was a Neceflity for it, by 
 leafon of thofe falfe Gloffes that the Do8:or has with Sh much Artifice put upon 
 them, ftill ufing them like Charms to bewitch and impofe upon his unwary Rea- 
 ders ; efpecially fince a right Notion ofthefe Words isabfolutely neceflary for the 
 light underftanding the true Senfe and Meaning of our Ancient EngliJJ) Hiftorians. 
 So that after all this Pother the Doitor makes about the Signification of thefe Words 
 yopulus, P/ds, and V/z/gus, as Synonimous as he grants them to be, they muft all 
 fignify the whole Body of the People, as well the Commons as the Lords, repre- 
 fented in Parliament, by his own Confeffion-, or elfe, I leave it to your lelf tocon- 
 fider, who of the Two is guilty of levelling Notions, yourDoftor or Mr. P. fince 
 one does but aflert with the general Confent of Ancient and Modern Writers, that 
 the Words Barones and haronaghnn Anglu did anciently take in more than the 
 Lords, and Tenants in Capne. And the Doftor ftraight calls him a Man of Level- 
 ling Principles, and that jumbles the Commons together with the Lords. Whereas 
 • your Doftor can when he pleales, make the Words P/cbs and Vu/gia to fignify the 
 great Lords, and Tenants in Cipite, contrary to the SubjeO; Matter on which he 
 diftourfes, and to their Genuine Signification, either in Ancient or Modern Lati/i. 
 M. Yet notwithftanding what you have now faid, methinks you liave not been 
 yet fo clear in your Explanation of the Word Populus ^ for admitting I (hould 
 grant you, that there were in lome fort Commons in Parliament as reprefented by 
 the leffer Tenants i?: Capite^ who were not Lords; yet does it not therefore follow 
 that there muft have been another Rank or Order of Perlons beneath, or difFeient 
 from them, fince (as I faid it is, but now) 'tis only the Cuftom, and Law of 
 each Country, that can determine what is the Community, or Reprelentative Body 
 of the People i fo that there is no fuch certain Analogy between the Qmes, when 
 taken for the Inferior Clergy, and the Populus when taken for the lelfer Nobility, 
 or Tenants in Capite. Since in Scotland, though their great Council or Parliament, 
 might confift of the Abbots, and Inferior Clergy, as with us, who did not hold in 
 Capite-^ yet you cannot deny, but that the Temporal Eftate or Laity, (at leaft of 
 late Ages) wholly confifted of the Earls, Barons, Lairds, or fmaller Barons, toge- 
 ther with the Burgeffes ot" Royal Borough-, all which held in Capite ^ and for 
 ought as I can lee from any clear Proofs you have brought to the contrary, did 
 fo from Times beyond all Memory: And lb it might have been in England. 
 too, for ought as I know ^ for though you have taken a great deal of Pains to An- 
 fwer the DoQor's and my Arguments againft the Tenants in Capite being the Re- 
 prefentativesof the whole Kingdom in Parliament, before the 49th o'i Henry \\l, 
 and 18th oi" Edviard I. and alio to prove that the Words made ufe of in our An- 
 cient Hiftorians, Records, and Afts of Parliament, are of a more comprehenfive 
 Signification than to be confined to them alone : But you ha\ e not as yet proved 
 that thefe Gentlemen who you fuppofe to have had Places in our great Councils, 
 befides the Tenants in Capite, were Knights, Citizens, and Burgeffes ; or whether 
 all the Lords of Manors, or great Freeholders in England, appeared there in Per- 
 fon for themfelves, and their fJnder-Tenants ^ therefore I pray be a little more 
 clear in this Point, and Ihew me fome Authorities that the Knights of Shires, 
 Cuizens and Burgeffes, have been always conftituent Members of Parliament ever 
 jince the Conquelt : For methinks you waver in this Matter, and fometimes you 
 leem to aflert the former, and lometimes the latter, 
 
 jF'. I confefs it is not my Humour to be pofitive in any Thing that is in the 
 lealt doubtflil or obfcure:, and therefore as I will not maintain that Knights of 
 Shires were always a conlfiruent Pact of Parliament before your Conqueft, or pre- 
 fendy after, tho' it is pofitivdy afferted by the Author of the Modus tenendiParlia- 
 memum ^ fince the Antiquity of that Piece is juftly qucftioned by Mr. Selden and 
 other Modern Antiquaries. So on the other Side, I Ihall not aflert that they were 
 not therefrom the beginning. But thus much I think I am able to prove, that they 
 were Summoned to Parliament long before the 4Qth of Henry 111, or 18th of Ei- 
 
 laard
 
 T>iahgue the Eighth. a 07 
 
 -juari I. But as for the Cities and Boroughs that they had their Reprefentatives in 
 Parliamenr, at or prefently after your Conquelt, 1 think 1 can prove from as unde- 
 niable Teftimonies as can be expected; Since all the moft Ancient Rolls and Re- 
 cords of great Councils and Parliaments are long fince loft and deftroyed. 
 
 Yet to (hew you that we have fome very ancient Authors that feem to mention 
 not only the Citizens and BurgelTes, bur Knights of Shires to have been fum- 
 moned before the Times you infift upon ; and if it prove fo, whether they were 
 there from the very Time of the Conqueft is not material; fince if I confute your 
 and your Doctor's Opinion of the 49th di Henry III. and i8th oi: Edward I. I carry 
 the Caufe, and you may then invent if you can Ibme other Epocha whereon to fix 
 their firft appearing at our great Councils. 
 
 I Ihall therefore give you another Quotation out of the fame old Monk Sulcardus 
 which immediately follows the Conclufion of the Charter of King William I. to the 
 Abbey of WefminJIer, but now cited : And it has been made ule of not only by 
 Mr. P. in his Ancient Rights of the Commons, ice. but by Sir WiUiam Dugda/e him- 
 felf, in his Origwes Jiind'icales •, as allb by the Author of Argumcntum Ant'irior- 
 mannicum, to prove the Commons to have been fummoned to a great Council in 
 the 9ch Year of King William I. Anno Dom. i 07 5 . The Words, as cited i n Sir William 
 Dugdale, are thefc, Thjt alter the King had Subfcribed his Name to this Charter 
 with the Sign of the Crofs^ adding many of the Bilhops, Abbots, and Temporal 
 Nobility, inftead of Cum multk aim, hath thefe Words, Multk frxterea lUufiri/Ji- 
 mii virorum perfonii, 6^ Regni Pnncipibus diverfi Ordink omijjis qui hide Confirma- 
 tionipujjimo affe&u tejies iff jautores fuerunt : Hij autem illo tempore a Regia pote- 
 flate diverfis Provinces •, ^ urbikus ad tiniverjalcm Synodum pro caufis cujuflibet 
 Chrijlianje Ecdefix andicndis, ^ traUandk ad praifcriptum celeherrimum Cccnohium, 
 quod Wejlmonajierium dicirur Convocati. Now I fhail only oblerve from this Au- 
 thor, that Mx.Selden in his Titles of Honour, and Sir Henry Spelman in his Glojfary, f.«. 27?. 
 do always render Provincia for a County or Shire. ' Tit. ProvincU, 
 
 M. I pray give me leave to examine this Qyotation, becaufe I confefs it feems 
 very fpecious at firft Sight-, but if it be thoroughly examined, will make nothing 
 at all for you. And to this End, pray let us read the Doftor's Obfervations on B. A A 301. 
 this Faflage at the end of his Anfwer to Argument um Antinormannicum. 
 
 f. But you need not read from the beginning of that Paragraph, fince I fo far 
 agree with theDoftor, as that by Principes diverfi Ordink. are not to be under- ^'^'"i- ?oi' 
 flood (as this Author renders them, whom the Do8:or here writes againft) the 
 Chief or Principal Men of leveral Ranks or Conditions; but the Chief 
 and Principal Men of both Orders, viz. of the Clergy and Laity ; yet will it 
 not therefore follow (as the Doctor here would have it) t\id.x.xhtkPnncipes di- 
 verfi Ordinis were only Bifhops Abbots, and great dignified Clergymen only; 
 and the Proceres and Magnates, the Earls, Barons, and Temporal Nobility alone ; 
 for though I grant he produces feveral Quotations out o'iYlorence o{ Worcefter^ 
 Malmsbury and Eadmcr, to prove that Principes Regni Ecclefiaftici ^ Seculars Ordinis 
 Primates Regni utriufque Ordinis, &c. were at thefe Councils ; yet I have already 
 proved that the Words Principes and Primates do not in their proper Signification 
 fignify none butBifliops, or dignified Clergymen, or the Temporal Nobility only; 
 fmce thefe Words mean no more than Chiet; Principal, or moft confiderable Men 
 both of the Clergy and Laity, who had by reafon oi' their Offices, Dignities or 
 Ettates, any Place in our General Councils at that Time; and which did certainly 
 comprehend the Inferior Clergy alio, though the Do£lor has made bold to pafs 
 them by, without any Notice taken of them ; and if they were then there, by the 
 fame Rule the lefler Nobility or Commons were alfo fummoned from divers Pro- 
 vinces, Cities, and great Towns. 
 
 M. Well, but pray fee here ; does not the Doftor prove plain enough, that this ibid. 
 Gentleman he writes againft is miftaken in his Tranflation, by applying the Words 
 Provinciis, iSf Urbibus, to Chief Laymen from divers Counties, Cities, and Bo- 
 roughs ; whereas the Doftor here proves that the Words mentioned in this Paffage 
 cannot here mean Laymen lent from County to Cities, but only the Bifhops, 
 whole Seats are here called Vrbes, and which, as the Do^or (hews us, were by a 
 great Council held at London in the Year 1077, being the nth of King William 
 tranflated from Villages to Cities, as were Sberburn in Dorfetffiire, removed to 
 Sarum-., Selfey to Chichrftcr, Litchfield to Chefler, which was before this Council at Ibid. p. 302, 
 Weflminfter cited by Su/card.is, which this Author places in the 14th of this King. 
 
 3 And
 
 /).08 B I B L i O T H E C A P O L 1 T 1 C A. 
 
 And the Doflor here farther proves that thele Words following, pro aiufis CHJuJlihet 
 Chrifltiinx Ecclefut \ that this Univerfal Synod being called for hearing and handling 
 the Caufes of every Chriftian Church ; that thefe Words, every Chriftian Church, 
 rrtuft certainly mean many Churches in England, which in Reafon and Probability 
 could not be meant of the fmall Pari (h Churches all the Nation over ; and therefore 
 muft be underftood of Cathedrals or Churches where Bilhops Seats then were, or 
 where they had been, or were to be removed. . 
 
 y. Pray give me leave to anfwcr this Comment of your Do8:or's, before we 
 proceed farther. In the firft Place, fuppole I grant him that by Vrhes may here 
 be meant fuch Cities as had Bhhops Seats, yet does it not therefore follow that 
 it (hall fignify no other Cities or Towns but Bifhops Seats only ; for tho' I grant 
 in the Modern Acceptation of this Word Vrbs^ here in England, a City and a 
 Bifhop's Seat are one and the fame; yet it is plain, that at firit it was not lb ; for 
 then there had been no need of the Law you mention, whereby it was ordained that 
 Bifhops Sees (hould be removed from Villages to Cities ^ nor were all of them lu 
 removed at the Time of the holding this Council, which was held Two Years before 
 the faid Decree : Nay, the Doftor (hews us from this very Place here cited, that 
 Ibme of them ftill remained in Villis ilf Vicps, in Villages and fmall Towns. And 
 tho'the DoQor herefuppofes (I know not on what Grounds) " That the Perlbns 
 *' fummoned by the King to this Synod, from Provinces and Cities, were fuch as 
 " were concerned, or able to advife the King in this Matter, of the Conveniency 
 " of the Places whither the Removals were to be made, as Deans, Archdeacons, 
 *' and other dignified Perfons, and Church-Officers, as well of the Clergy as 
 " Laity, iS^c. 
 
 In tire next Place pray obferve, that the Do£lor owns that by thefe Princ/pes iim- 
 ■cerfi Or dines, were meant the chief Clergymen and Nobility he there mutters up j 
 but paffes by, or elfe did not confider the whole Context of thefe Words, h'lj autem 
 illo tempore diverfis Frovinciis & Vrbibiis ad umvcrfalem Synodum Convocati j 
 which mutt certainly refer to the Principes Regni diverjt Ordines, to the chief and 
 confiderable Men both of the Clergy and Laity of the Kingdom, who were alike 
 fummoned from divers Countries and Cities, and great Towns, to this Synod. 
 Now pray do you or your Doftor tell me ( if you can) what Earls, Barons, or 
 great Noblemen, were then fummoned from Cities, or great Towns, as well as 
 the Bifhops and Deans of Cathedrals : Which if you cannot do, I fee no Reafon 
 why we may not underftand thefe Principes Regni, who were alfo fummoned from 
 the Countries and Cities, for the Reprefentatives of the Commons of thole Cities 
 and Towns at that Time. 
 
 In the next Place, I think the Do'*T:or is as much out in his Interpretation of the 
 VI Old pro cau/is cujitjlibet Ecclefut, for the Caufes of every Cathedral Church ^ fince 
 it mult certainly mean not only Cathedral Churches, but all other Churches, 
 whether Parochial, or Conventual ; for that it takes in the latter, appears by one 
 great Caufe of the fummoning thi. Council, which was chiefly for the Confirma- 
 tion of the Privileges of the Abbey of iy<'y?/;;/w^<7;-, which lure was r.o Cathedral 
 Church, a!id yet mutt be fome Church, or Ecdefialtical Corporation, or elfe this 
 Synod could have had nothing to do with it : And I doubt not but this General 
 Synod might, if it had pleafed, have either made more Parilh Churches^ or united 
 others where there were too many ; and Ihould it not then have been faid to have 
 vattfro caufis cujujlibet Ecclefut \ for the Bufinefs of each Parifli, as well as Cathe- 
 dral Church ? ha^ly. The Doftor will have all thefe great Clergymen and Laymen 
 only to meet at this Council, to advife the King about what farther Removals 
 were to be made of Bifhops Sees •, as if thereupon he had had the fole Power of 
 making Laws about them, without their Confent, or that of the Lay-No- 
 bility, who tho' he will have to be always prefent in fuch Synods and Aflemblies, 
 yet does he not give them any Votes therein -, whereas it appears by this Charter 
 in Sulcardns, but now cited, that the Bifliops, Abbots, Earls and Barons, whole 
 Nan-e;i are to it confenferunt iSf fgnaverunt -^ and it was ah ipfo Rege i^ fupradi&is 
 PerJoKiS teftificata, confirmata £? auciorizata ; which if I underttand Eatin, fignifies 
 not only that they witnefled, but alfo alTented to, authorized and confirmed it -, 
 which alio appears more fully by the Conclufion of the Charter of King Stephen % 
 but now cited -, all which the Doftor palfes by as flily as a Commenrator does thofe 
 Words iri a Text of Scripture that make againtt his Senfe ;, lor this had quite ruined 
 and deftroyed his fine Notion of the great Councils of the Kingdoms then wholly 
 
 con-
 
 T)iaJogu€ th Eight L i}.oQ 
 
 confifting of a few Bifliops, Abbots, dignified Clergymen, and gt'eat Noblemen, 
 who had nothing elfe to do there but to look on, whilll the King alone made the 
 Law. 
 
 To conclude-, to fhew you that this Aflembly was not only an Ecclefiaftical 
 Synod, but Civil Council alfo, or Parliament as we now call it, 1 will give 
 you Two good Teftimonies for it, that we are not alone in this Opinion : The 
 iirfl is from Mr. Somners Gloflary, Varliamcmutn Synoius mngna vocatur ^ and 
 to confirm this there is written in an old Hand in the Margin ot this Manulcripc 
 of Sulcardus over againft the Paflage now cited, this Note -, ^'ota hie omnes con- 
 vociiri a Rege fua autlor'itate ad caitfa* Religwnis iraBundoi tarn nobiles de Qcrd, 
 quam Principes Rcgni cumaliii injeriom gradus quorum convenuo videtur ejfe Par- 
 liamentum. 
 
 M. Yet I fuppofe you cannot deny but that theDoftor has plainly proved from 
 feveral Quotations from Gervof of Canterbury, Richard of Hagu/Jlid, and the 
 Continuator oi'h/ore/ice, that the Word Provinciain this Place fignifies a Bidiop's ^'"■^- P- i^^' 
 Diocefe •, and therefore that the P/7;7d/'^j- R^^w' who werefummoned out of thele 
 Provinces or Diocefe-, were only the Bilhops, Abbots, and other great Clergymen. 
 
 F. I will not deny but that this Word Provinda does lometiraes in our ancient 
 Authors fignify in an Ecclefialtical Senfe the Diocele of a Bifliop, as thole Authors 
 (the Do6or has here cited^ ihew us ; yet that it muft be taken in a more unli- 
 mited Signification in this Place, is alio as certain ; lince belides that this Word 
 Provincia does molt commonly fignify a Shire or County, (as I have already 
 (hewn) the very Context fufficiently proves it-, fince Sukardtis fays exprelly, 
 that the chief Perfons of both Orders were liimmoned from the Counties, or 
 Provinces, as I already faid -, which when it refers to Lay-Men as well as to the 
 Clergy, I hope you will not affirm that it can fignity Dioceles only \ but that 
 befides the Bilhops and Abbots, there were a great many more Perfons prefenc 
 at this Council, both of the Clergy and Laity, the Doftor himlelf coiifeffes. 
 Let us therefore coniiilt the Authors themlelves which Dr. Brady has cited for 
 the Senfe of this Word Provinda, and let us fee how fairly he has dealt with 
 them. Now pray Sir obferve, it is true, the lame Words are almoft repeated 
 vfr^^/m in every one of thefe Hiftorians, R. Hagu/Jiad, Gervai o^ Canterbury, Jbll. 
 and the Continuator o^ Florence, who all fpeak of a General Synod held at Wcji- 
 tninjler Anno Dom 1138. being the Third of King Stephen, in thele Words, De- 
 cima tertia die Decembrh celebrata eft Synodus apud Weltmonaft. cut prsfuit Al- 
 bericui Hoftienfn Epifcopus Domini Papx Legatus, cum Epifcopis diverfarum Pro- 
 vinciarum numcro XVIL Abbatibus fere XXX. Here the Dr. concludes with an 
 t?V. Now lee what lies hid under this &"<:.-, in R. of Hugu/ftad, and the Continu- 
 ator of Plorence, it follows thus, CumCleri &" Populi mult it u dine nimerofa ; in GVr- 
 vafe of Canterbury almoft in the fame Words, Cum innumera Cleri iff Populi mul- 
 titudine. Now pray tell me ingenuoufly what could be the Doctor's Meaning 
 (who pretends to be fo exa£l in all his Quotations) to leave out this fo material a 
 Paflage in every one of thele Authors,with this&'c. unlels it were that he was afraid 
 his Readets Ihould take notice how numerous this Council was, both of the Clergy 
 and People i which if he had done, it would have quite overthrown and deltroyed 
 his Notion of Tenants m Capitc, and let the World have known that this Council 
 confifted of a far greater Number both of the Clergy and Laity, than 17 Bilhops, 
 and ^o Abbots. Now had fuch a Thing been done by Mr. Petyt , it would have 
 " been branded by the Dr. with the hard Terms of taking away, or leaving unre- 
 " cited fuch Words and Matters as he thought would either advance or deftroy his 
 " Aflertions, as he (how jultly, Heave it to you to judge) acculesMr. P. in his 
 *' Title to his firlt Edition of his Anlwer to him". But 
 
 'Purpe eji Do^ori, cum culpa redarguit ipfum. 
 
 ill. I cannot believe the Dr. had any finifter Meaning in leaving out this Paflage, 
 but did it either becaule (as I laid but now) he fuppoled thele ExpreflTions as only 
 Hyperbolical Phrafes, by which thele Monkifli Writers uled to exprefs all the 
 Ecclefiaftical or Lay-members of thofe Councils \ or elle becaufe he did not think 
 it worth while, fince he might not look upon this innumerable Company ol Cler- 
 gy and People here mentioned to have had any Share or Voice in this gteat Coun- 
 cil, but only to have come thither as idle Speftators, as the Dr. Ihcws us the Po- s. A. A. p. jc. 
 
 G g g pulus
 
 4-10 BlBLTOTHECAPoLlTlCA. 
 
 /?»/ax did at the making dL Lanfranc kxc\iM^o^ di Cunterhury \ nor yet that 
 they, or the Bilhops and Noblemen chofe him, but only all applauded the King's 
 Choice. But that the Di. was not afraid to take notice of the great Multitude of 
 People that in thofe hofpitable Days were wont to ftock to fuch Affemblies , pray 
 fee what he fays in his Series of Englijh Great Councils, or Parliaments, at the 
 End of his Introduftion to Englijh Hiltory •, where fpeaking of the Eleftion of 
 
 p. 54; j\rchbifliop Anfchn, he recites this Paflage out of an Epiftle in haimerm, Huic 
 
 EkBwm affuerunt Epifcopi, Abbatcs 65" Principes Regni, & ingens Fopuli mulutuio. 
 The ordinary People (fays the Dr.) came to fhout and make a Noife at fuch 
 Meetings, and only for good Vi£\uals and Drink. 
 
 J' Very well : I think I (hall eafily anfwer your and the Dr's learned Obfervati- 
 cns. Fiift, as for the Monkilh Hyperbolical Phrafes cX'mnujnera or nimerofa Oe- 
 ri, t^Tofuli mihitudo: I confefs, you might fuppofe there was fomewhat in them, 
 if they had been peculiar only to one or two of them ^ but when all thele Writers 
 do with one Confent agree, in almoft the fame Words, to exprefs all the Mem- 
 bers of fuch Councils ; I cannot lee how they could have writ thus, unlels they 
 intended to be underlfocd literally, that there were great Numbers both of Clergy- 
 men and Laicks, who appeared as Members of thole Affemblies, far more than 
 the Dr's Tenants in Qpite. And that they had alfo Votes therein, appears by that 
 PafTage in the Conclufion of King 5/ <'//?/fff's Charter, which I quoted but now out 
 of Su/ccirdM i when fpeaking of this very Council in the Third of Kii,g Stephen^ 
 which we laft mentioned, that not only the Comites, t!f Barcnes Regm, but the in- 
 mmeru mulutudo Cleri iS/ Topuli, were not only prefent, but Re/igiofo javore vo- 
 luntaiem, iff AJjenfim Authoritat't noflrs paglnx, &* Privi/egio prabuerunt, i. e. 
 yielded their good Wills and Confents to this Charter of Privile'3;es to the Abbey 
 of Wefitfiinjhr. And to Ihew you farther that this infinite Multitude of Clergy- 
 men and Laics were alfo part of this Council, pray remember the PafTage 1 but 
 now cited out of Florence, 0? the Council held at London, cum innumeraQcn 'J 
 Populi Miu/niudine, who all alike gave their Confents to the Conftitutions, ^y p/ac-a, 
 placet, placet -, und confider what the lame Sukardus has faid in the next Council of 
 the Fourth of King Stephen •, when after Concilia adunato Cleri y Populi, and a 
 Recital of the Bifhops, he concludes with Ahnachorum &' Oericorum Plehijq^ue 
 I inf.nitx multituXir.is, as all alike Members of it. 
 
 Now I fhall leave it to your felf, or any fober unprejudiced Perfbn, to confi- 
 der, whether it != likely that fo Grave and Auguft a Thing as the Royal Charter 
 cf a Prince flioui 1 take notice of the frothy Content and Applaufe of rhe meet 
 Rabble or Mob, (whether of the Clergy or Laity) -, or fo judicious a Writer as this 
 Author, and the rcf> of the Hiftorians (now erred) fhould have nothing elfe to 
 do, but to record ro Pofterity tor a very remarkable Tranfaftion, That a great 
 Multitude of tl>: fdinary or vulgar Sort of People came to thele Affemblies on- 
 ly to fhout and nu.ke a noife, for good Victuals and Drink : And therefore the Dr. 
 and vou, I hope, will pardon me if 1 Itill keep my former Opinion, that both the 
 Archbifhops lanfranc and Anfelm^ were not only named or propofed by King 
 William the Firff and Second, in liie Common or General Council of the Kingdom, 
 but were alfo theresi EleQed or Chofen by the C/f/v^x and P()/«//^x, according to 
 the Manner of tiiat Age , arid the literal Meaning of thofe Ancient Authors, 
 whole Words the Dr. either leaves out, or Itrives to wreft to quite another Senfe. 
 Nor are his Obje£lions againft the Elefiion 0^ Lanfranc at all confiderable. For as 
 
 B.A.A. p. ?cc. ^^ ^j^^ ^^^ Objection againft rhe literal Senfe of the old Author, printed at the 
 End of Tr/v/o;-'s Gavelkind, " That he could not beelefted conjenfu totius Fopuli 
 " A7:gli£, becaufe, who can believe that all the People of England, or the Hun- 
 " dredth'Part of them, ever knew or underltood of Lanfranc s being made Arch- 
 " bifhop"? Now pray let me ask you this Cipeftion •, fuppofing this Ele£lion had 
 been made in a General Synod of the Clergy alone, and the Words had been in- 
 ftead oUctius Populi, totius Clert Angl'u, would it not have been meet cavilling, 
 to afk how all the Clergy of England could leave their Livings, and come up to 
 give their Confents at this Eleftion, or that the Hundredth Part of them ever knew 
 of it? Since every Body is fenfible thole Words are not be underflood in a literal, 
 but legal Senfe ; that is, tlie whole Clergy are faid to give their Confents to a 
 Thing, when they do it by their lawful Reprefentatives, the Bifhops and Procura- 
 tors of the Inferior Clergy ^ And why may not the whole People of England 
 be as well faid to give their Confents to this Eleftion by their lawful Reprefenta- 
 1 lives
 
 Dialogue the Eighth. a\ 
 
 lives at that Time > But that we are not fingular in this Opinion, pray fee what 
 kiz\\ya\[\\o^?(trker fays in \vs,AntiquUatesBritann'K£^o'ix\\\%\\tdC\ox\ o^Lanfranc\ 
 Cclebcrnma eft aurem hujtn, pr.e ceteris E/e&io, &c. E/eni/s eft erum a Mijoribus 
 Cantuarienfis Ecc/efu, turn acccjjit Frocenm, at que Trafuhm, totiiifque quafi Po- 
 fuli confetififs in Aiik Kegii, qiioi fane eft inftir Senaius feu Pnrliammi Anglican}. 
 As for the next ObjeSlion againit this Ele£tion oi'Lanfmnc's, it is vet weaker than 
 the forn^^r, beaufe the Dr. has aniwered this Queltion himlelf. How the F.nglilh 
 Saxon BUhops, Barons, and the whole People fhould chufe a Stranger, a Perfon 
 they had never known, and poftpone all their deferving Countrymen ? Now pray 
 read a very good Solution to this Difficulty (if he may be believed) in his Anfwer 
 to Mr. P. wherein he tells us, that King William had taken away from the Englifl) ^- '4. 'S- 
 their Fftates, and gave them to his 'Kormans ;■ and that this he did from his very 
 fiift coming in •, and then reckons up the Earldoms he gave to his j^orman Fol- 
 loweis. Now if the Englifl} had then no Eftates, they could fure have no Places 
 or Votes in that great Council when Lanfranc was chofen. But if to fblve this 
 you will fay as the Dr. does in his Anfwer to Aminormannicim, that this Coun- 
 cil was held about the Fourth Year of the Conqueror, Ibme Years before he had ^- ?°0' 
 made an abfolute Conqueft, and that the Englijh^ Bifhops, and Barons, and Free- 
 men had Itill fome Eftates left, and therefore might then make the ma'jor Part of 
 this great Council, \Nh.Gn hanfranc was made Bifhop, vj\\o would never have'elefted 
 him had it been left to tlieir Choice : Pray tell me if the bare Fear of refuling be 
 a fufficient ObjeQion that he was not elefted, whether or no it will not be asftrong 
 an Objeftion againft his being elefted by tlie Senior Monks of the Church of 
 Cimerbi/ry.zs Gervafe exprefly tells us he was," Becaufe (lays the Dr.) they did it by Gervaf. Dmb. 
 " Order and Direftion from K. William-^ and their Proceeding being no other than it '" ^4//. Povet! 
 " is now by the Chapters of other Churches upon the ihnge d'Ejlire, they could '^'""•Col.i6$i. 
 *' not refufe him". And now fuppofing his Power to have been as great in the ^^°-^'^^^- P- ?*» 
 Common Council of the Kingdom, as in the Chapter of Canterbury, why may ^^* 
 we not lay almoft in the lameWords, They could not, they durlt not' refufe him 
 (who was akeady elefted bv the Prior and Chapter oi Canterbury) for fear of lofing 
 their Eftates. But if an Eleftion that cannot be refufed, is none at all, the Dr. 
 may do well to confider whether there was then, or is now, any Canonical Elefti- 
 ons of Bifhops in England at this Day. 
 
 M. I fhall not farther difpute this Matter at thisTime ; therefore pray go on 
 to the reft of your Authorities out of our Englifl) Hiftorians, proving that any 
 Knights, Citizens and Burgefles appeared in Parliament before the Times we al- 
 low them to have been there. 
 
 F. Tho' I think I have fufficiently proved at our laft Meeting, from the Charters 
 of King John, and Henry III. as alfo from the Words Commumtm and le Com- 
 mune, that the Common Council of the Kingdom confifted of many more Mem- 
 bers than your Tenants in Capite r, yet to let you fee that the Hiftorians and Anna- 
 lifts of thofe Times did comprehend all thefeveral Orders under the general Titles 
 oiClerus and Popul/^, or Magnates aniProceres, you may fee in the Chronicles of 
 Thomas Wikes, Anno Dom. 1237. Where it is only faid in general, that the Clerus 
 and Pcpulus Regni did in that Year (being the Ninth 0^ Henry III.) grant the King 
 a 30th of all their Moveables for the Confirmation of Magna Charta ; and which 
 js more remarkable, the Parliament which was held in the Yeari264. being 49th of 
 this King, (and in which you grant the Commons were prefent) is only thus 
 briefly mentioned by this Author, in an Hiftorical way, tranfaUo fiquidem vicefimo 
 die h'ativitatis Dominica faSa eft London, per Comitem (fcil, Leyceftria:) Convoca- 
 tio non minima Prccerum Anglicorum, &c. Where in the Annals of Waverly in ^''"•«'- ^<neT' 
 this Year, it is only laid, Fa&um eft Parliamentum magnum Londonix, ^c. Now '-*'' P'^'7« 
 pray obferve, that either the Commons are mentioned by Wikes under the Name 
 of Proceres, or not at all •, and that under the Word Parliamentum the Commons 
 were then comprehended, appears by the Agreement between the King and the Barons 
 there extant, which is faid to be made, de unanimi affenfu, C voluntate noftra 
 {fcil. Regpi) Edwardi tilij nofri Prflatorum, Comitum, iS> Baronum, iS> Communita- 
 tii diUi Regni noftri : Now it mult be granted, fince it appears by the Writs of 
 Summons of 49th Henry III. that theCommons were there, and conlequently muft 
 be crmprehended under this Phrale oi Commit nit at k Regni ; and if this had been the 
 firft Time they had been fummoned, 'tis ftrange none of thefe Authors fhould 
 
 G g g 2 take
 
 412 
 
 BlBLIOTHECA PoLlTICA. 
 
 take any notice of ib remarkable an Alteration and Change of the conjlituent 
 Parts of our Ens,lijh Parliaments. 
 
 But that the Knights, Citizens and Burgeffes were alfo fummoned in the next' 
 Year, in a Parliament of the 50th of this King, you may fee in the fald Wilies's 
 P. 88. Chronicle, Amio Dom. 126'). where he lets down all t\\QconjVituent Ellates of Par- 
 
 liament, which were fummoned to meet at Wepmnficr, at the Tranflation of St. 
 Edward's Reliques, in thefe AVords, Ccmwc/Jtis umverfis Anglne Fralatis iS Mugna- 
 tihus nee non cunliayiim Regmfui Civhatum piiriter, tf Burgorum potentioribus itt 
 Uranjlat'ionh Solemua Cclebiius illujlrarent ; where the Knights of Shires are coni- 
 prehended under Abgmites, and the Citizens and Burgeilea are here ftiled Volenti- 
 ens Civitdtum £?' Burgorum. And that this was not only for a meer Ceremony, 
 but for Parliament Buiinefs alfo, lee the next Page, where he tells us, Celebrata 
 tandem tantx tranjlat'tonk folemmtate caperunt J^obiles (i. e. all the Eftates above- 
 mentioned) ut iiijoknt, Yurhmentat'iom'S gcnere de Regis & Regni negotik pertrar 
 Bare, ?ic. And in which Parliament the King fo far prevailed as to obtain a 20th 
 Pan of all the moveable Goods of the Laity. And yet the Continuator oi' Max. 
 Farii in the Aftairsof this Year takes no Notice of this Parliament, but only 
 lays in general, that St. Edwards Body was this Year tranilated into its new 
 Shrine. And the Annals oilViiver/y under this Year make mention of this Parlia- 
 ment in general Terms thus, Ea^a Convocatione Epifcoporum, Comitum, Baronum, 
 Abbdtum, Trioriim, iff multorum ahorum. So uncertain a Thing it is wholly to de- 
 pend upon the general ExprelTions of Monkilh Writers, without comparing them 
 and the Records together, and confidering the Subjeft Matter about which they 
 treat. Nor can we luppofe, that the conjiituent Parts of our Parliament were chopt 
 and changed as often as they did their Phrafes and ways of exprefling 
 the Parts of them. For they not forefeeing the Differences that might ari(e about 
 thefe Matters, had no Realbn particularly to recite the Conflit.ient Members 01 
 Eftates of Parliament, as often as they had occafion to mention them, it being very 
 well known who they were at that Time. But to prove further, tliat it was not 
 likely there was any Alteration in the Confihuem Parts of the Parliament, from 
 what it was in the 49th, may appear by this Writ ftill extant among the Patent Rolls 
 of the 54th of this King •, where it is exprtfly recited, That it not leeming fafe to the 
 Trxlatis, Miignattbm, iS> Communitati Regm noflri , that Himlelf and his 
 Rot. Pat. <4. Son Prince Edward (hould be both out of the Kingdom at once in the Holy Land - 
 fi. 3. m. 7. gi^^ ^jjg^ therefore he gives the whole Subfidy of a aoch, granted him by the 
 whole Kingdom, to his faid Son. And that it continued fo in the beginning of El- 
 wardl. Reign, appears by a Protelhtion in the 4th of this King^ as it is found in 
 the Patent Rolls, wherein he recites a 15 th to have been granted him of all 
 Moveables, by the Comites, Burones, ac alij Magnutes^ & Communitas Regni 
 nofiri. So that unlefs the Senfe of thele Words Community Regni muft alter every 
 Y'ear, there is no Reafon for us to believe any Ctir.ige to have been in the Conjiitu- 
 ent Parts of Parliament fince the 49ch ol Henry III. This I think may be fuffici- 
 ent to fhew you that before the Time you mention, not only the Knights of 
 Shires, but the Citizens and BurgetTes did appear in Parliament both before your 
 49th oi' Henry III, and 18th di Edward I. 
 
 M. Perhaps indeed fince that the Commons might be comprehended under the 
 general Words Mjgnates & Proccres by W/kes's Chronicle in the 49ch of Henry 
 III. or elle not be mentioned at all, which I rather incline to believe 5 that the 
 other PafFages out of the lame Author concerning the Citizens and BurgelTes being 
 fummoned either to a gteat Council or Parliament in the Reign of Henry III. is 
 more than I before ever took notice of Yet this Author does not tell us, wlrether 
 it was to the one or the other, nor lipw many of them were there •, whether 
 one only, or more, for each City and Borough-Town ^ or whether they were eleded 
 by the People, or nominated by the King to appear there : But as for the Words 
 Community Regni mentioned in the Agieement of the 49th oi' Henry III tho' it 
 might fignify the Body of the Commons in tliat Record, yet if they vvete not 
 again fummoned to Patliament, till the iSthof Edward I. it fignified only the Bo- 
 dy of trie letier Tenants in C.ipite, till after the i6ih of that King. 
 
 F. I am forty to fee PrepolfelTi^n and Prejudice has fo much over-run you as to 
 hinder you from clofing with the Truth -, for pray tell me, if this Author laft men- 
 tioned could in rhe49th of Henry III. (when the Comnaoas were fummoned with- 
 out Difpute) comprehend all the Eftates of tiiat Parliament under the general 
 
 \Vords
 
 , T>iahgue the Eighth. 4.1::^ 
 
 Words of Yroceres and Magnates •, and the Knights of Shires are underftood by 
 the lame Word in the next Pallage cited out of the fame Writer •, why may not 
 others do fo too in other Parliaments ? As for your next Exception, it is a very 
 fmall Qvil •, for it appears that this Summons of the Citizens and'Burgeffes at 
 the Trandation of King Edxcjrd's Relicks, was to a Parliament, by the Words that 
 ibilow, Kobi/es ut ajjolent Varliatnemationis genere de Rrgfs, tif Regni negottii per- 
 traBare : And why thefe Citizens and Burgefles Ihould not be as well elefted by 
 their refpeftive Cities and Boroughs this Year as well as in the lall, as it appears 
 they were by that Writ to the Cinque Ports, which the Dr. and Mr. Pry/i has o . ™ 
 given us 5 I defire you would give me any fatisfaftory Argument to the contrary, p',),,'^ Pariit-' 
 As for your Objeftion againft the Words Communitas Rcgni being to be underltood ment Re^ijhr. 
 for the Body of the Commons in 54th of Henry III. it is altogether as unrealb- 
 nable, lince this is to make the Conflitiient Parts of tlie Parliament alter, not on- 
 ly when Writers fhift their Phrafes, but when they do not ^ and that without any 
 other Reafon, but becaule the Writ of Summons and Parliament Rolls of thole 
 Times are all perifli'd. And to deny the Commons were there, only for that Rea- 
 fon, is altogerher as unjuft as for any Court of Jultice to turn a Man out of the 
 aftual and long Poflfeflion of an Eftate, meerly becaule his Writings and Evidences 
 by the Catelefnefs and Roguery of his Servants have happen'd a great many 
 of them to be lolt or burnt. 
 
 But fully to convince you (if poflible) that Dr. Brady's Opinion of the Com- 
 mons not being again fummoned from the 49th o't Henry HI. till the i8th of fi- 
 ward I. is a meet Fancy of his own, and contrary to the exprefs Authorities 
 both of Hiftorians and Records ; and to come to plainer Proofs ^ pray in the firft 
 Place rake notice, that it appears by a Writ of the \\x.\\ 0^ Yiing Edward \. to 
 the Archbilhop of Ctf/z/f//'/y;7, acquainting him with the Rebellion o^ LeweUyn ^''^•^'''^'^■^' 
 Prince of Wales , that he had de Coficilio Prflatonm, Tracer urn ijf Magnatum ^' "' ^' '^'"•'''" 
 Regni, nee non tonus Commumtatis ejufdcm^ relblved (God willing) to put an end 
 to this Weljh Rebellion : So that this War leems to have been refolved upon at 
 the Parliament held the Year before, and now mentioned in this Record s a War 
 which that valiant and fortunate Prince efteftually concluded by the total Subdu- 
 ing of f^rf/w, and the killing of L«w//)''/?. whofe Head was cut off and fent to 
 London ; the Particulars of which War Knighton, as well as other Hiftorians relate 
 at large ; and alfo that prefently after, David, the Brother of this Lewellyn, the 
 Caufe of all thefe Mifchiefs, was (as this Author Ijiews us) in Magna Par/iamenio Co/. 24(73. 
 at Shrewsbury, condemned, and afterwards hang'd, drawn and quarter'd. 
 
 Walfmgham is more fhort in the Relation of this Parliament ; only fays, that in 
 the nth oi' Edward I. Habit urn eft Parliamentum at Shrewsbury, in which this '^J'^f"f\ ^'^' 
 David was condemned and executed as before. But Thomas Wikes, who lived tw xhom 
 at this very Time, in his Chronicle but now cited, will better inftruft us than ei- vvike's,/. m," 
 ther Waljingham or Knighton •, and his Account of this Parliament is as follows. 
 
 Anne 1289. Circa Feftum Sti. Michael is Rex convocari fecit apad Salopesberiam 
 Majores Regni fuiiS Sapientiores tarn de Civibus, quam de Magnatibus ^ fecit il- 
 luc adduci David, qui apud Rothe/an fiierat captivatus ut fuper exigentiam DeliUi 
 fid carpore fubiret Judicium, See. And then relates at large the Manner of his 
 Execution. From which Paffage we may obferve, that this Author makes it 
 plain who were the Qmmunitas Regni mentioned in the Record of the nth of 
 this Kingj and who conltituted this great Parliament at Shrewsbury, viz. Majores 
 i^ Magnates Regni, which lalt, as I have often proved, takes in the Knights 
 of Shires, and the wifeft of the Citizens. 
 
 M. But yet this Author fays no more, but that the Majores Regni ilf fapientio- 
 res tarn de Gvibus, quam de Magnatibus, were called to this Parliament where- 
 in LeweUyn was condemned : Now it doth not appear that thele Gives were 
 elected, or that there were any BurgelTes cholen for the Boroughs, or that there 
 were any Knights chofen by the Counties •, there were indeed Magnates called to 
 this Parlliament, but they might be all Tenants in Capite. 
 
 F. Well then, Cnce you will not be fatisfied without direft and evident Proof^ 
 fuch as neither yout felf nor Dr. B. can deny ; pray take this which Mr. Petyr 
 has not long fince communicated to me ; and which he has lately dfrcovered 
 in Rptu/o IValli.f, in a By- Roll not taken notice of" by any body as I know of 
 before. It is a formal Writ of nth oi'Eitmardl for fummoning the Temporal ^"'^ '^''"'*^,* 
 Lords to be with that King at a Colloquy, (or Parliament) apud Salop in Ga- "'" '"■■*' 
 
 3 Jlino
 
 4-14- 
 
 BlBLlOTHECA PoT. ITICA. 
 
 J}i?io St't. Michaelis -, and there is in the lame Roll a fecond Writ direQed to (e- 
 Veral Cities and Boroughs for elefting Two Citizens, and two Burgefles to this 
 Li ibiJ. Parliament with a void Space to infert more Names. And alfo a Third Writ is 
 there direfted to the Sherift' of every County in England to caufe to be cholen 
 Two Knights, fro Connnumtatc ejufdetn Comhatm. And laftly, there is a Fourth 
 Writ diiecled to the Juftices and other of the King's learned Council, 
 with the fame Preambles to each of them, all being commanded to appear at the 
 fame Time and Place. Now what can Dr. hraiy fay ,to this ? That he was fo long 
 Keeper of thefe Records, and fure ought to have peruftd them, (as he did many 
 others of the fame Reign,) yet has either wilfully or carelefly paffed by this fo 
 memorable a Record. And lb I hope this will convince you for the future of the 
 Danger of being over-pofitive in an Opinion, becaufe it could not prefently be 
 confuted ^ and let you lee -that it is not at all improbable, but that the like Writs 
 of Summons would appear as well before the 49th oi' Henry III. as in the reft of 
 the Years of his own and his Son's Reign, had not thofe Recotds been loft and 
 deftroy d : Which confidered, we have Reafon to thank God for thole that the 
 Iniquity of the Times have yet left us. 
 
 M. I muft contefs you have told me more than ever I yet thought could be 
 produced againft the Dr.'s Opinion •, and I fhould be throughly convinced, could 
 you fhew me any Writs of Expences for the Knights, Citizens, and BurgelTes, 
 who appeared at this Parliament. 
 
 Y. 1 hope you will not aver againft an exprels Record, tho' the Writs of Ex- 
 pences for that Year are loft (being never entred upon the Roll) by the Omil^ 
 v d.^thFart of {\on of the Clerks, who as Mr. P/j« acknowledges, oftentimes neglefted rhe En- 
 I'rdiamentKe- jj-jgg ^f "Writs of Summons themfelves, as well as of Expences. But if this were 
 ^ijkr, p. 12. ^j^y. j^jtej-jgi Objeftion, then there (hould have been no Commons fummoned to 
 any Parliament from the 49th 0^ Henry III. to the 28th oi' Edward I.-, when the 
 firft Writs of Expences (except thofe of the 49th of Henry III.) do firft appear 
 upon the Rolls •, and fo you muft then go from the Doftor's new Notion of the 
 Commons being again fummoned in the 18th of this King. But to (hew you that 
 thefe Expences for the Knights, Citizens and Burgefles could be no new Things, 
 Pray perufe the Claufe in this Second Writ de expenjis Militum C Burgenfmm, of 
 Ktt. ciauf.29. the 28th ofEdicard I. we have upon the Rolls : The Writ is to the Sheriff of &- 
 /■:. I. m. 12. ffierfetjhire to pay to the Knights of that County, Venientibm ibidem nobifcum 
 '^''' de diverfis negntiis nos, iff Fopulum Regni nofirijpecialiter tangent ibus rationabi/ei 
 
 expenfas fuas in veniendo ad nos ibidem, morando, & inde ad propria redeando 
 (and now obferve what follows) prout alias in Cafu Confmili fieri confuerit. Now 
 pray tell me, how this laft Claufe cculd ever be true, if the Knights of Shires, 
 Citizens and Burgefles, had never been fummoned to Pailiament lince the 49th 
 of Henry III. which was but 32 Years ; or the 18th of this King, but 10 Years 
 before this Writ was publifhed all over the Kingdom. 
 
 M. I confefs what you now fay, leems to carry fome Weight with it 5 but yet 
 in my Opinion falls far (hort of a Prefcription ^ fincea Thing might be (aid to be 
 done as in like Cales was accuftomed, tho' it had never been pra£tifed above 
 20 or 50 Times. 
 
 EI fee neither you nor your Dr. by Reafon of your different Employments, 
 had ever any true Knowledge of the Nature of Tenures and Prefcription ac- 
 cording to the Laws of England -, which he is not to be blamed for, had he not 
 taken upon him to be fo great a Maftei in both : Therefore to fet you right for 
 the future-, you mutt know, the Knights, Citizens and Burgeffcs have ever claimed 
 being fummoned to all Parliaments by Prefcription, as I lliall prove by and by j 
 but as for that Part of it called Cuftom, my Lord Coke tells us in his Notes upon 
 Littleton, " That in every Cuftom there be Two Effential Parts, Time and Ulage, 
 " Time out of Mind, and continual Peaceable Ufage without lawful Interruption". 
 Now the Commons have in all Times beyond the Memory of Man, challenged 
 to have enjoyed both thefe effential Pans of Common Law or general Cuftom. 
 So that thefe Words, Prout Caju Confmili confuevit, muft be by Implication 
 of Law extended beyond the Times oi Henry III. and Edzcard I. 
 
 And for Proof of this, I (hall (hew you what Claims the Commons have made 
 to this Ufage from Time immemorial. Therefore I (hall begin withMr.P's firfi Ar- 
 gument in his Rights of the Commons afferted, wheie the Burgeffes of'St. Albans 
 in their Petition to King Edtcard II. in Parliament,il/?/7i? Regni 8, (er forth, that they 
 
 Sicitt 
 
 p. 106.
 
 dialogue the Eighth, a \ tt^ 
 
 Sicut cjiter'i Biirgenfes Regni ai tarliamentttm Regis (when it fliould happen to ^'f- ^'"'- 8- 
 be fummoned) Fer duos comhurgcnfes juos venire debeanr, front tctii rctroa[lis^''^' "" *?.?* 
 tetnporibus venireconfueverunt^ Uim tempore Domwi Edwardi, nuper Regis hn^'^x tk S''!h^i'no! 
 patris Regis, tif Yrogenitorum fuorum, as in the Time of Edvcari II. Semper ante ' " ' 
 inftans Farliamcntim, &c. ^ and farther declare that the Names of fuch Burgefles 
 coming to Parliament were always enrolled in the Rolls of the Chancery ^ not- 
 withftanding all which, the Sheriff of Hertford, at the Procuration, and in Favour 
 of the Abbot of St. Albans and his Council, refufed Biirgenfes prxdiBos prxmitnirc 
 feu nom'tna eorum retornare prout ad ipfun pertinuit. Sec. and therefore they pray 
 Remedy.The King and Cc>uncirs Anfwer whereunto was thus,5rr«/^w»r Rotu/i, ^'c. 
 de CinceUaria ft temportbM Progenitorum Regis Burgenfis pradiBi folebant Venire 
 vel non ? &" tunc fiat eis Juper hoc Jujiitia vocatisevocandisfi necejje fuerit. Where 
 by the Words totis retroa^is temporibus, &V. muft be underftood that they and 
 their Predeceffors were always accuftomed to lend two Burgefles to Parliament in 
 all former Ages, not only in the Time of Edwardi. but his Progenitors ; therefore in 
 King Johns Time, his Grandfather, at leaft,and fb long before the 49th of Hen. III. 
 
 M. I confefs the Gentlemen of your Party make a great deal of Noife with 
 this Quotation, but if it be Itriftly lookt into, I believe it will prove of no 
 fuch great Confequence as you would make it. For Mr. P. hath concealed the 
 main Caufe of theie Burgefles pretending a Right of fending Members to Par- 
 liaments; and therefore 'twill not be amifs to give you the relt of it at large. 
 
 Ad Petit ionem hurgenfium viU.e de SanBo kXhxno fuggerentiu7n Regi guod licet ip- ' 
 fi tenent villam prxdiBam de Rege in Capite & ipfi ficitt cxteri Burgenfes Rrgni ad 
 Parliament a Regis cum ea fummoniri contigerit per duos Comburgenfes fuos venire ^' ■^•^•'^•'i^- 
 debeant prout totis retroaBi^ temporibus venire conjueverunt pro omnibus fervitiii 
 Rrgifaciendis, SCc. By which Words, as the Dr. very well Ihews us, it is evi- 
 dent, that the BurgefTes of St. Albans claimed not, nor prefcribed to come to Par- 
 liaments as meetly from a Borough, but as from a Town that held in chief of the 
 King ; and this Service was incident to their Tenure, and was fuch as the King's 
 Progenitors had accepted in lieu of all Services due by reafon thereof 
 
 And farther, the Anfwei to thi':' Petition is remarkable, which amounts to no 
 more than this, That if it did appear by the Rolls of Chancery , that the Bargef- 
 fes of St. Albans were wont to come to Parliaments in the Time of the King's 
 Progenitors, then fuch as have been called (i. e. to Parliament) fhould be called 
 when there was neceflity for it. Hence 'tis clear the King and his Council were 
 equally Judges when it was neceffary to call them, and for them to come j as 
 they were of their Rights and Pretences to come. 
 
 F. I very much wonder a Gentleman of your Underftanding fhould be fb much 
 impofed upon by fuch weak Inferences :_ For in the firfl Place it is a great Miltake 
 in Matter of Faft, that thele BurgefTes of St. Albans claimed to come to Parliament 
 no otherwife but as Tenants in Capite •, for tho' the laid Petition recites, that they 
 held the faid Town of the King in Capite, yet they do not likewife fay, that they 
 claim'd to appear there only by that Tenure, for then they fhould have recited 
 that they fait cateri Burgenfes Tenent es in Capite, and not ft cut Cctteri 
 Burgenfes Regni ad Parlian.enti Regis venire debeant. And tho' it is 
 true they fet forth , that they appeared there for all Services , yet do they 
 not fay, that their Tenure in Capite was the only Caufe of their Appearance in 
 Parliament •, fince divers Towns and Boroughs of the Kingdom, which held not in 
 Capite at all, had the like Privileges before •., of which I can give you divers In- 
 Itances, which I Ihall read to you out of this Note, which a Learned Friend of 
 mine, fince deceafed, hath taken out of the Rolls in thtTowcr, tho' when he fent 
 it me, he through Hafte or Inadvertency, hath forgot to fct down the number of 
 the Roll to moft of fuch Boroughs who never held in Capite, and yet have always 
 lent Burgeffes to Parliament by Prefcription -, as firtl. The Borough of Arundel, 
 which always held of the Earls, and never of the King, being granted by Henry I. 
 to Hugh Montgomery Earl of Arundel. Secondly, The City of Bath appears to 
 hold of the Bifhop of Bath and Wells. Thirdly, The City ofWeWs it feU; which 
 always held of the Bilhop, and never of the King, and is therefore called VtlU 
 Epifcopi in all publick Writings belonging to that Church, and was made a Free 
 Borough in the Third of King John. Fourthly, Beverly was made a fi-ee Borough 
 hyThurfon Archbifhop of Torli, which was confirmed by King iir-^/j III. Fifthly, ;.;,. ^^^ ^ , 
 Bodmin, which always held of the Earls of Cornwall. Sixthly, Bridgwater ; for iVin.'is.' ' 
 
 King
 
 4i<5 
 
 B I B I. 1 T H E C A P L i T I C aJ 
 
 Chart. Anttq. King Joh;! granted it to WMam Bremer, ^uod Br//£Vi\iter, fit liher Burcui. 
 2. JoL M. 1 3. Seventhly, Coventry, which was always held of the Earls of CbeJJer, and pleaded 
 in the Reign of Edicard I. to have "never been taxed with the King's Demeliies, 
 but with the Body of the County. Eighthly, Bi/Jjops-Li/ine, tor King John 
 Carh Anno6. granted to Jisftw Bilhop of A>nr;f/», ^uod Bur^us de henna Jit Liber Buj-^us in 
 Joh' perpetuum: All which by the Writs we have left us, fent Burgefles to Parliament 
 
 as early as any that held in Capite. Thefe I give you only for a Tafte ; bur I doubt 
 not, but, if I had Time, I could give you Three Times as many, elpecially in 
 Cornwall, where the Boroughs did almoft all hold of the Earl of Cornwall, 'and 
 not of the King. But befides the Doftor's Error in fuppofing that no ancient 
 Cities or Boroughs had any Right of fending Members to Parliament, but only 
 as they held of rhe King in Capite, his Miftake is yet much more grofs in his con- 
 firuing thofe remarkable Words in the King's Anfwer to the Burgefles of St. Albans, 
 Et tunc fiat eU fuper hoc Jujiitia, evocatk evocandiifi necijfe fuerit, thus, " And 
 " then let them have Jiijiice in this Mitter •, and fuch tu have been called, may be 
 " called, if there be J<ecejfity. Upon which W^ords you have alfo from the 
 Do£lor put this plealant Glofs: " Hence 'tis clear the King and hk Council mere 
 " equally Judges vohen it was neceffary to call them, andjor them to come ; as they 
 " were of their Rights and Pretences to come. But I muft needs tell you, I think 
 nothing can be more abfurd, and contrary to the genuine Senfe of this Record, 
 than the Doftor's Conftruclion, who will needs have the Words evocatis evocandis^ 
 only to mean a Calling, or Summoning to Parliament, which is quite contrary to 
 the true Senle of the King's Anfwer to this Petition ; for if that had been his 
 Meaning, that thofe only Ihould be Summoned to Parliament whom the King 
 pleafed to call, to what Purpofe were thefe Words, fcrutentur Rotuli, &:c. de 
 Cam ell. ft temporihus frogenitorum Regis Burgenfes prfdiffi folebant venire vel non ? 
 For if their coming to Parliament had been a Matter of meer Grace and Favour, 
 and not of^Right, and fo wholly left in the King's Breaft whether they (liould come 
 or not-, it was in vain for him to command the Rolls of Chancery to be fearched, 
 whether any BurgelTes us'd to come to Parliament or not, in the Times of his Pro- 
 genitors. Or if it had not been a Matter of Right, why fhould it be here faid, that 
 upon fearch of the Rolls, Tunc fiat Jufiitia, Let Julfice be done, if there never was 
 fuch a Right of Prefcription by which they claimed ? But I much wonder that the 
 Dcftor ( lb great a Critick in Records ) fhould ever conflrue them evocatis 
 evocandis, a fummoning or calling to Parliament ; and I defue you would fhew me 
 in what Parliament Roll, or Ancient Record you can find evocare ad Parliamentum^ 
 to fummon to Parliament : But I more admire that you, who are a profefs'd Civilian, 
 fliould no better underttand the Senfe of your own Terms ; whereas if you would 
 have but confulted any Civil Law Dictionary, you might have found evocare Tcjles 
 always fignifies to fummon WitnefTes •, and I can (hew you by Twenty Precedents 
 both from our Common Law Records, as well as your Canon Law Forms, that 
 evocatis evocandis, does alvCays fignify the Summoning fuch WitnefTes as are to 
 he fummon'd in a Caufe^ and in this Senfe it is to be underltood in this Record, 
 that not only the Rolls fhould be fearch'd, but alfo Witnefles fummon'd to prove 
 their Claim, if any Difpute or EX)ubt fhould arife about the Matter of FaQ. 
 
 M. I fliall no longer contend with you about the genuine Senfe of thefe laft 
 Words, fince perhaps you may be in the right ; but yet tor all that, it does not 
 appear, that the King and his Council did by this Anfwer allow this Petition of 
 the Town of St. Albans to be true. That they had fent BurgelTes to Parliament in 
 the Time of his Predeceflbrs ; much lefs that any other City or Borough in England 
 were then allowed fuch a Right by Prefcription. 
 
 l. I grant indeed that this Petition doth not abfblutely allow the Matter of 
 Faft (as it concerns the Difpute between them and the Abbot) to be true, as it is 
 there fet forth •, neither yet does it condemn it lor falle. But whether it were tiue, 
 or falfe, it matters not ; for both the Petition and the Anfwer do fufhciently prove 
 the Point for which we make ufe of it? {viz.) that it was then received for a ge- 
 neral Cuttom, or Law, Time out of Mind, That the Cities and Boroughs had fent 
 Members to Parliament according as in the Petition is fet forth -, otherwile it can 
 P.K.c. p. 10. fcarce be fuppofed (much lefs believed) rhat the BurgelTes of St. Albans, or the 
 Penman of this Petition, Ihould dare to tell the King, and his Learned Council, in 
 the Face of tlie Parliament, fb ridiculous a Novelty, to be recorded toPoiferity, as 
 that they anl their PrciecelT^rs in th- Tims of King Edward \. and his Pioge- 
 
 nitors,
 
 Dialogue the Eightk zj.r7 
 
 filters, had lent two BurgefTes to every Parliament, or that the King and his Coun- 
 cil (hould have ever received this Petition without Indignation, and a ftvere Rebuke 
 lor their Impudence •, if all the World then knew, (as certainly they muft, were 
 it true) that there was never any Eleftion of Burgefles to Parliament before the 49th 
 of Henry III. (which was but Fifty Years before the 8th o{ Edward II.) from thence 
 had appeared no more till the iSth of Edwardl. which was but 24 Years before the 
 Delivery of this Petition, a Time which mult have been then frefh in the Memories 
 of moft of the King's Council there prefent : Whereas they allow rhis general 
 Claim of Prefcription. And every Perfon, (tho' but meanly skilfd in our Law) does 
 underftand a general Prefcription, viz. a tempore cujus contrar'iuni memor'u hom'i- 
 num non exifit, what it was then, and fo remains, by the Law of England at this 
 Day, as appears by our Ancient Records, Law-Books, and Judicial Proceedings. 
 
 And (urely the BurgeflTes of St. Albans did not ground their Petition of Right up- 
 on hare Affirmation, but thejullice and Certainty of their Claim, as they very well '^'^- P- "• 
 knew, wherefore fo they prayed it might be examined by uncontroulable Prooft 
 the Rolls oi Chancery. And the King, Chancellor, and all the Council, did no lefs' 
 know there were fuch Entries on the Rolls, and therefore ordered their Search. 
 Whereas if the very Ground of their Petition had been notorioufly falfe and idle (as 
 it muft have been, if neither this, nor any other Borough had fent Burgefles to Par- 
 liament before the 49th oi^ Henry \\\.) then inftead ol recording this Petition and 
 Anfwer^ to future Ages, they would with Contempt and Indignation have rejefted 
 it 5 nor would the Abbotof St. i4//»(/«s Council, and ih^Sh^u^i 0^ Hertford, againft 
 whom this Petition was exhibited, have been wanting in their own Delence to have 
 (hewed that this Ancient Prefcription, not only of this, but of all other Boroughs, 
 was a meer Chimera and Fable. But inftead of this, we do not find they made any 
 Oppofition againft it, becaufe they knew they had been fummoned and appeared at 
 divers Parliaments before that Time ^ as you may fee in P/7«'s Parliamantary Regifter parl.2. p. 20a. 
 they were in the 28th of Edwardl. which is almoft as early as we have any Writs 
 of Summons left us to the Commons of this King's Reign. And tho' it is true, the 
 Sheriff of Hertford in this 28th Year, returns that the BailiflFs had made no Return 
 of the Precept lent them •, yet this plainly proves that they were then look'd upon 
 as a Borough, and that it was very well known that it was wont to fend BurgefTes 
 to Parliament, or elfe it had been a vain thing for him to have fent them any fuch 
 Precept at all. And tho' it is alfo true, there are no more Returns from St. Al- 
 bans left us till the 35 th of Edward I. yet that is no good Argument againft their 
 Appearance in rhe former Years ; fince the Writs and Returns upon them being in 
 loole bits of Parchnjent, might very well be loft, as well as they are for many other 
 Places. But that the Burgefles o{' St. Albans were fummoned, and appeared in Par- 
 liament in the 35th of Edward I. appears (tho' the Returns be loft) by the Writs of 
 Expences of this Year (being the firft we have left us in Prin's Parliamentary g""'" 4 P- ?*• 
 Regifter) for the Cities and Boroughs-, in which Lift, the BurgefTes of St. .^/- ''* 
 bans are firft upon the Roll. And that they were in Parliament before this 
 Time, may further appear by that Claufe at the end of the Writ which I have 
 already taken notice of, viz. That they were to have their Expences for coming, 
 flaying, and returning, /'/w^r in cafu confmili fieri conjuevit -, which words re- 
 late to Ancient Cuftom, and extend to St. Albans, as well as to any other Bo- 
 rough there mentioned. And that they alfo were fummoned and appeared in 
 prima iff Jecundo of Edivard II. (in whofe Reign this Petition was exhibited,) you 
 may lee in Prins Parliamentary Regifters, both Third and Fourth Parts-, in thelalt „ 
 of which you may find the Names of the Burgefles return'd in the Firft and Fifth ^°°'^' ^°^' 
 of this King; as they might have been feen alfo in the Second, had not the 
 Return (as Mr. Prin then acknowledges) been torn off; tho' it is plain that they 
 appeared there ^ and fo may be likewile loft for all the reft of the Years of this 
 King, till the Second of Edward III. when we find they appeared again , 
 and lb continue to lend Burgefles to this Day. And if it be a good Argument of 
 their Non-appearance from the deleft of Records, Til undertake to prove that 
 London and feveral other Cities did not fend any Citizens to Parliament in feve- 
 ral Kings Reigns, as you may lee in this Lift of Towns (whofe Writs of Expences 
 we now mentioned) of the 35th of King Edward I. where London, and 
 moft other great Cities are omitted, and yet St. Albans is in. To conclude, 
 it is certain, that this was no new Claim of this Borough •, as appears by a 
 
 H h h ^rit
 
 4i8 
 
 B I B L I O T H E C A P O L 1 T I C A^ 
 
 rid. Breve 'i. g Writ of the 5th of Edward II. to the Sheriff of hcrtjcrd^ that the Bailiffs of 
 Ed. 2. In Bun- ^^^ Abbot having refufed to levy the Expences for Rulfj}? and Vetcr ?icot, who 
 had ferved as Burgeffes for the laid Town in the laft Parliament-, whereupon the 
 faid Ralph and Feter let forth before the King, that the faid Town uled not to be 
 taxed with other Boroughs of the faid County for the Expences of Knights, r^^/w/f/*- 
 poribia retroaUii ^ but that it is a Free Borough, and uled to be fummoned to Par- 
 liaments, which have been fummoned by the King and his Progenitors temponbus 
 retroaUis ; and that the Burgeffes of the laid Town ufed to receive their Expences 
 as the Burgefles of other Boroughs of the Kingdom. To which Plea and Petition 
 of the laid Burgeffes, when the King had appointed a Day both to the faid Burgel^ 
 fes and Bailiffs of the Abbot, to appear before him in Chancery, they failing at the 
 Day appointed, the King therefore iffued out this Writ to the Sheriff of Hertford 
 to liimmon the faid Abbot and Bailiffs to appear again before him, rofhew Caule 
 why the fjid Ra/ph and Peter Ihould not receive their Expences as aforefaid. 
 
 M I will conlider further of this Argument; for I muft ingenuouily confefs I 
 revet heard or underftood lb much of this Matter before : But pray proceed to 
 the reft of your Authorities. 
 
 F. But that it was not only the Opinion of the Borough of St. Albans, and ad- 
 mitted by the King and his Council, but that alio that it was the Belief of fuc- 
 ceeding Parliaments, that the Commons were part of the great Council of the 
 Kingdom long before the 49ch o'i Henry III. for Proof of which, I defire you to 
 
 v'idm^t Parit '■^^^ ^° "^'"'^ ^^^^ '^^"S ^''^" ^" ^^^ ^"^^^ °^ ^'^ ^^'S" ^^^^ himfelf and Crown 
 
 Anno 1213. tributary to the Pope. 
 
 Rot. Purl. 40. But Anno 40 Edward III. when the Pope demanded the Arrears of this Tribute 
 
 Ed.i- n. 7, 9. from the King; the Prelates, Dukes, Counts, Barons and Commons,! upon their 
 full Deliberation in Parliament, relolved with one Accord, that neither the King, 
 nor any other could put the Realm, nor People thereof into fuch Subjeftion, funz 
 affent de eiix, without their Affent, ws. as well of the Commons as of the Lords j 
 and that it appeared by many Evidences, that if he had fo done, it was done fanz 
 lour ajjent, and contrary to his Coronation Oath, tS'c. Now what can be more 
 plain, than that above Three Hundred Years ^0 there was not the lealt Difpute 
 that the Commons of England, (of which the Citizens and Burgeffes were then 
 undoubtedly a Part) ought to have been prelent in the Commune Concilium Regni, 
 or Parliament of King Johns Reign, and to have affented to that King's Refigna- 
 tion, to make it legal and valid, as well as the Prelates, Earls, and Barons. 
 
 M. As for this Argument, I need trouble my felf no farther than to give you the 
 Dr's Anfwer in his own Words, viz. " All that the Relblution of this Parliament 
 " in this Cale proves, is, that King John could not fubjeft himfelf, his Realm or 
 " People, without their Aflent ; but proves not who they were that in fuch Cales 
 *' at that Time gave or denied their Affent, or how they did it ; or whether 175 
 " Years before this Relblution, the Commons were repreienced by Knights, Citizen?, 
 " and Burgeffes as at this Day. The Prelates and Barons gave their Anfwer firit, 
 " that fuch a Subjeflion could not be made without their Affenr, and then the 
 " Commons were alked what their Thoughts were, and they anfwered in the lame 
 " Manner, and in the fame Words the Barons had done, and when they anfwer all 
 " together, they do it in the fame Form of Speech, conceived firft by the Barons, 
 " without any Confideration whether the Commons were the lam.e Body of Men, 
 " at the Time of executing the Charter of King 7o/;«'s Subjection, Cf. as. at that 
 " prefent, or no. 
 
 h I muft tell you, I am not at all fatisfied with this Reply of the Dr's. For if 
 there is no heed to be taken of the Houfe of Commons Anllver to the Pope, given 
 in fo folemn a Manner as this was, there is no Credit to be given to any Thing 
 they could fay, if they are once fuppos'd to fpeak like Parrots by rote, and only 
 as they were taught by the Lords, without any Confideration of the Truth or Fal- 
 fliood of what they averred. And tho' the firft Propofal of this Matter was by the 
 King to the Lords, yet the Pope then threatning to excommunicate the King, and 
 put the whole Realm under an Interdict; it was certainly the Intereft as well of 
 the Commons as the Lords, to avoid the Blow by a wary and true Anfwer to the 
 Pope s Demands. For had their Anlwer been fo idle and frivolous, as you would 
 make it, it would have been Ad\antage enough for the Pope to have returned in 
 Anlwer to thi' Letter, (had what the Dr. alledges been true) that the upftart 
 Houfe of Commons had nothing to do to meddle or treat of any fuct Matter, 
 
 fince 
 
 B.A.P.V' 70.
 
 Dialogue tie Eighth. . • /j. i p 
 
 fince they were none of the Parries to the Agreement, nor one of the Eftates, at 
 that Time when King John refigned his Crown, and made himftlf and Kingdom 
 tributary to his Holinefs's Predecefibrs. Nor was the Space of an Hundred Fifty 
 Three Years, ftom the Time of King John^ to the 40th 0^ Eimtird III. lb far be- 
 yond the Memory of Man, as that fo memorable a Tranfaftion could not be well 
 known to the Pope, as well as to the Houfe of Commons then in being ; fince the 
 making them a Third Eftate, fell out bur in the Time of their Grandfathers^ (0 
 that it is fcarce poflible rhat the Memory of ib remarkable a TranOclion, of whicli 
 the whole World then rang, fhould be loft in Two or Thiee Generations. 
 
 But I (hall now proceed to Ihew you, that as it was the exprefs Judgment both 
 of the Lords and Commons, that King John could not make the Kingdom Tribu- 
 tary to the Pope without their Confents in Parliament 5 ib was it the Judgment 
 alfo of the whole Houf; of Commons in the Second 0^ Henry V. and admitted ^'-P- c. p. 39, 
 by that Noble Prince and the Houfe of Lords, that they ever had been a Member 
 of Parliament, and that no Statute or Law could be made without their Aflent; as 
 appears by a Petition or Proteftation preiented by the faid Commons to the King 
 in Parliament, a Copy of which I fhall now read to you, as far as it concerns 
 the Matter in Queftion ; " Our Soveraign Lord, your humble and trewe Lieges, 
 " that ben come from the Comiine of your Lond, byfechin unto your riht twifsnefs, ^"'^ /'•'/•.a. 
 " that loo as it hath ever be thair Libertie and Freedom, that their fhould nooSta- ■'^•5- P's. 2. 
 *' tute, noo Law be made, of lefs than they yaf thereunto their Aflenr, confide- "' **» 
 " ring that the Comune of your Lond, the which that is, and ever hath be a Mem- 
 " ber of your Parlement, been as well Aflentirs as Petitioners, that fro this Time 
 " forward by Compleint of the Omune oitny Mifchief, asking Remedy by Mouth 
 *' of their Speaker for the Commons, outher elle by Petition wrirten, that there 
 *' never be no Law made thereupon and ingrofed as Statute and Law, neither by Ad- 
 " dirions, neither by Diminutions by no manner of Term, ne Terms, the which 
 " that ihould change the Sentence and the Intent asked by the Speakers Mouth, 
 " or the Petitions by fbrelaid yeven up in Wryteing by the tbrefaid without Afienc 
 *' of the forelaid Comune, Sec This Petition is fo plain that it needs no Com- 
 ment, therefore pray tell me what you think of it. 
 
 M- In the firft Place give me leave to tell you,that I do not find at all by the King's 
 Anfwer to this Petition, that. the King allowed the Matter of FaO: therein fet forth 
 to be true, but rather the contrary, as you may lee by the Anfwer it felf in thefe 
 Words ^The King of his Grace efpecial granteth, that fro hensforth nothing be en* 
 a^led to the Petitions of his Comune that be contrary of their asking, whereby they 
 Ihould be bound without their Affent, laving alway to our Leige , (i. e. Royal 
 Lord) his Real Prerogatyf to grant, and deny, what him luft of their Petitions, 
 and Askings atbrefaid. 
 
 And I fliall farther give you the Dr's Anfwer to this Argument, which is to 
 this Effeft •■> " The Defign of this Petition was not to let forth the Antiquity ofg^ ^^ p.n.%6. 
 " their Exiftence, but their Right, that nothing might be enafted without their 
 " Aflent contrary to their Intent and Liking ; and to fhew you it was never done 
 " fince the Commons were a Third Eftate, or (as they fay) a Member ofParlia- 
 " ment, therefore 'tis needlefs to prove that which no body denies, that the Al- 
 " fentof theCommons was then and is now required to the making of all Statutes 
 " and Laws. But pray give me leave ro ask you (with the Dr.) What, were the 
 " Commons of England as now reprefented by Knights, Citizens and BurgefTes, 
 " ever an eflential conftituent Part of the Parliament from Eternity, before Man 
 " was created ? Or have they been fo ever fince Adam ? Or ever fince England was 
 " Peopled ? Or ever fince the Brirans, Romans, and Saxons inhabited this Uland ? 
 " Certainly there was a Time when they began to be fo reprefented. And that this 
 " is the Queftion between us, concerning which, whether you or my felf be in the 
 " Right, I durft leave to any impartial judge. 
 
 F. But notwithftanding your Dr.'s Anfwer, I think the King and Lords did here 
 allow the Subttance of this Petition or Claim, as the main Ground and Foundation 
 on which it was built, viz. That the Commons had ever been Members of Farl'i- 
 ament •, and therefore that no Law, or Statute fhould be made without their Af- 
 lents (which Encroachment upon their Liberties, it feems had been before endea- 
 xouredby the King and Lords ^)and therefore let me tell you, that the Anfwer of the 
 King in Parliament, is rather a full Conceflion of the Truth of theCommons Claim ; 
 otherwife it is not to be imagined that the King and Lords would have left fuch 
 
 H h h 2 a Claini
 
 +'^ 
 
 20 
 
 B 1 B L T O T H E C A P O L 1 T 1 C A. 
 
 a Claim as of ancient Right, without any Denial or Proteftation againft it. But in- 
 fttad of this, the King and Lords allow the whole to be true ■, only the King re- 
 lerved to himfelf his Negative Voice of granting or denying what he plealed; 
 which the CoiTimons themfelves do alio allow him in the Conclufion to the Petiti- 
 on it felf, as you may lee, it you pleafe to read it at large. And farther, that this 
 Affirmation of the Commons was no other than a Renovation,or Memorial of the anci- 
 j ent Law otthe Land, in that Point, is more fully explained and confirmed by a Peti- 
 Rykys'pi'Jit. " tion 10 King Edicard IL in Parliament, ot all the Biihops, Prelates, Counts, 
 Part. p. 61 p. " Barons, and others of the Commonalty, in the 18th of his Reign, about an 100 
 Pet. Paii.\S. " Years before this of the 9th oi Henry V. letting forth. That they held their Ma- 
 E. 2. n. 2. « i^Qj-g of ^j^g YJr\g in Capjte, as well within the Forefts as without ^ to which 
 " Manors they held G^/s (i.e. Wafl) Appendant, and of which the Seignories 
 " had been rented out by the Acre, halfAae, and Rood, in improving their laid 
 " Manors, and that thereupon the Officers of the King had made Seizure thereof^ 
 *' becaulb they had not the Kings Licenfefo todo j and therefore pray tliey may 
 " improve their faid Manors, 6V'. To which Petition it was anfwered by the 
 King and his learned Council in Parliament, That this could not be done without 
 a new Law ^ to do which the Commonahy of the Land will never Atient-, and con- 
 cludes. Infra coram Rege. From whence I make thefe Obfervations, That the King 
 and his Council do hereby declare it, (as the ancient Cvii\om of England,) that no 
 new Law could then be without the Affent of the Commons or Commonalty of 
 the Land -, and alfo, that this Commonalty was a diitinB: Body from the Com- 
 monalty of the Tenants in Capite before-mentioned, who were the Perfons that 
 put up this Petition. 
 
 And befides this, 1 can (hew you divers Precedents to the fame Purpole ^ and 
 , g particularly a Declaration or Proteftation to Edward III. by the Commons in Par- 
 Ed.'j. m.'s^. li^nient, that they would not be obliged to any Statutes or Ordinances, without 
 the Aifent of them the faid Commons. Which is alfo farther confirmed by another 
 Petition of Right, or a Proteftation of the Commons to King Richard II. as it is 
 to be found in the Parliament Rolls of the 6th ofRichardlL (?t. i.m. 52.) where- 
 in they pray againft a pretended Statute made by the King and the Lords, againft 
 thofe who in the Statute of Henry IV. are called Lollards ; in which rhey let 
 forth, that the laid Statute was never aflented to by the Commons ; and therefore 
 pray that it may be annulled. And pray obferve the Realbn, for it was not 
 their Intent to be juftified, nor to oblige themfelves, or their Succeffbrs, to the 
 Prelates, more than their Anceftors have been in Times paft. 
 
 From all which we may obferve, that the Commons do by all thele Petitions 
 and Proteftations, make as ftrong a Claim by Prefoription for themielves and 
 their Anceftors not being hound by the Atls of the Biihops and Lords, ai the King 
 could make for himfelf and his Anceftors, touching his own Prerogacive by 
 Prelcription. But as for your Qiieries on this Petition, fince they are not your 
 own, give me leave to tell you, I look upon them as impertinent: For who ever 
 fuppos d that the Commons claim d a Right by Preicripcion ever ti:^ce rhe Crea- 
 tion, or e\er fince the fiift Peupling of this llland ? Since any Body may fee, 
 that this Word ever is to be underftood according to the Nature of the '^nbjeft 
 in hand, viz. from rhe firit luftuucion of the Saxon Government in this liland. 
 Now pray give me leave to put you a Caie •, Suppole you Ihould affirm, that the 
 Crown of England hath ever been fuccelfive, and not eleftive-, would it not be meet 
 cavilling, to ask you, whether it was fo, jure Divino, ever fince Adatn > But as 
 you will leave it to any impartial Judge, who is in the Right, you or I, fo (hall 
 I likewife leave it to them to confider, which is moft likely. That your felf, your 
 Dr. and lome of our Modern Antiquaries, Ihould make the Houfe of Commons 
 no ancienter than about the latter End oi Henry III. or middle of Edioard I.'s 
 Reign •, or the conftant Judgment of both Houles of Parliament, with the Affent of 
 the King, and his learned Council, who have infifted upon the Confent of the 
 Commons, as their ancient and undoubted Right, beyond all Time of Memory. 
 
 ylL I muft confels you have proved it plain enough, that it was the conftant 
 Opinion of more than one Parliament, that the Commons have been before the 
 49th q1 Henry III. Members of the great Council of the Nation •, but how long 
 before that, they do not fet forth. But fince Parliaments are no more infallible 
 than general Councils, I hope you will pardon me if I do not give abfolute Cre- 
 dit to their Teftimonyi fince in an illiterate Age, a> that was in which the Com- 
 mons
 
 T>iaJogue the Eighth, a 21 
 
 mons make this Petition , it might happen that not only they but the King him- 
 felf, and his Council at that Time, might not certainly know, how long and how 
 little a Time the Commons had been fummoned to Parliament. Therefore fince 
 all the Writs of Summons to them before the 49th of Henry ill. are lolt, I pray 
 jhew me ftom this general Right of Prefcription you fo much talk of, that there 
 mull have been Commons fummoned to Parliament before that Time ; for I have 
 now fomewhat very material out of Mr. ?ryn\ Parliamentary Regilter, to objeO: 
 againft Mr. Lamhard's Argument from the Plea of the Tenants in ancient De- 
 mefne being exempted by Prefcription, from paying to the Wages of Knights of 
 the Shires ; (as you told me at our latt Meeting but one.) But firlt let me hear the 
 reft of your Arguments from this Prefcription of Knights, Citizens and Burgeffes 
 appearing in Parliament, before the 49th o^ Henry III. For fince you have now 
 proved they were there by an undeniable Record in the nth of Edward I. 1 (hall 
 now confine my felf to Sir Henry Spelmans and Sir William Du^da/e's (as well as 
 the Dr.'s firft) Term of the 49th oi' Henry III. 
 
 F. I fhall obferve your Defires, and in performing of which, I fhall purfue 
 this Method ; I fhall firft give you a general Definition of Prefcription, and fhall 
 then prove, that the Knights, Citizens and Burgeffes, have always claimed to ap- 
 pear in Parliament by vertue of this general Right of Prefcription. Now the 
 Terms of the Law tell us, " That Prefcription is, when a Man claimeth any Thing 
 " for that he and his Anceftors and Predecefibrs, whofe Eftates he holds, had, or 
 " ufed any Thing in all Times whereof no Memory is to the contrary": Now 
 pray let us fee to what Time this is limited, that fhall be faid to be within Me- 
 mory, and what was anciently counted beyond time of Memory in a Prefcription: /j^f. p^^/. 4?. 
 Which may be beft learnt from a Petition of the Commons to King Edward III.£. j.n. 16. 
 in the 43d of his Reign, which is to be found in the Parliament Roll of that 
 Year ; wherein among other Petitions of the Commons, this is one, which I fhall 
 render and abridge out of French. " Item, becaufe the whole Time of King 
 " Richard I. is held for temps de Memorie, that it would pleafe the King fatther 
 " to limit this Time ; fb that it do not pafs the Coronation of King Edward, 
 " Grandfather to the King that now is. But mark the King's Anfwer to this Peti- 
 tion, " Let the Law continue as hath been hitherto ufed, until it be otherwife 
 " ordain'd ", So that fince there has been no Alteration in this Point from the 
 Reign o^EdwardWl. then the Time beyond Memory, or whereof there is no 
 Memory to the contrary, continues ftill beyond the Time oi" Richard I. ; for Little- 
 ton tells us, that all the Time ofRichardl. is Time of Memory, and therefore^'*" ^•^^'•'^' 
 S\T Edward Cooke in his Comment upon him, fays, " That this was intended''"'* ^''^^' 
 " from the firft Year of his Reign, for (from that Time) being indefinitely, doth 
 " take in all the whole Time of his Reign, which is to be obferved. 
 
 Having fixt a certain Time of a general Prefcription beyond Memory, I fhall 
 now proceed tofhew you, that the Claim of the Commons appearing at the Com- 
 mon Council or Parliament of the Kingdom is beyond that Time. Which fince I 
 cannot do directly, (by Reafon of the Lofs of the Records of Parliament of 
 thofe Times) any farther than has been already in the Cafe of the Burgeffes of 
 St. Albans (which alone is, I think, fufficient to fatisfy any reafonable Man) we 
 mult therefore make ufe of fuch Collateral Proofs and Records, which tho' they do 
 not direftly, yet by undeniable Confequence will prove the Point in Queltion. \interCtimmunia 
 (hall therefore in the firft Place make ufe of a Writ in the Exchequer of the 94th'" /£"«'"'''' ^'- 
 o^Edviardl. direaed to the Barons thereof, reciting, " That whereas the Men q^Co-""^""""'"'''^- 
 " ventry fet forth in their Petition to the King, that the faid Town is not a City, Bo- 
 " rough, norDemelhe of the Kings, fothat theTownfmen were not wont to betax- 
 '* ed as Citizens, and Burgeffes, or Tenants in ancient Demefne, in any Taxes granted 
 " to the King, and his Progenitors, but only with the Community of the faid 
 " County o{ Warwick:, and yet that the Taxers and Collectors of the faid County 
 " have endeavoured to levy a 50th of their Goods (towards an Aid granted by 
 ♦' the Communities of the Cities and Boroughs to the King) to their Damage 
 *' and Impoverifliment ; and therefore pray remedy : The King therefore orders, 
 " that the Rolls be fearch'd concerning fuch Taxations in the faid Town ; and it 
 ** it evidently appear by them, that it is as they (et forth, and that the (aid Men 
 " were always taxed with others without the Towns, Boroughs and Manors afore- 
 •' faid, in all Payments of this Sort •, that then they fhould not permit the faid Tax- 
 " ersand Collectors to diftrain the faid Inhabitants to pay the King by reafon of the 
 
 3 ',' faid
 
 42 2 B I B L 1 O T H E C A P O L 1 T I C A. 
 
 " fuid Conceflion of a ;orh, otherwife, qiiam in totjs temporibus retroaBfi in hujuj- 
 " ccmodi cafu fieri confueverit, &:c '. From which Record we may draw thele 
 Condufions, Firft, That this Town o{ Coventry did not hold of the King, and yet 
 was a Borough, and as fuch fein Members to Parliament in the 26th, 28th, and 
 Vid.Vvyn's Par- -^01^1 o{ Edward I. as appears by the Return of Writs of that Year. Secondly, 
 li.im. Kegifl. That yet it prefcribed, fotis temporibus retroaBh, in all Times paft, to be taxed 
 Ao^s^s ' '^' *^'^^ ^°^y °^ "-'^^ County, and not with the Communities of the Cities and 
 °' " Boroughs, in all Taxes granted to the King and his Progenitors •, which plainly 
 
 (hews, that the Cities and Boroughs granted Taxes by themfelves in the Times of 
 his Progenitors, that is, in the Timj of King7(?/7« at the leaft. Laftly, That the King 
 orders the Rolls to be fearched :, which had been idle Direftion, had it then been 
 known or believed, that the Cities and Boroughs never gave any Taxes for them- 
 felves ill Parliament before the 49th of henry III. but little above Forty Years 
 before the Date of this Writ. • 1 •'.'' . 
 
 I (hall (hew you a like Writ ('which is to be found in the fame Place) for the 
 Towns-men and Tenants oi Beverly in rhe County ofTork, in the Sth oi Edw^irdU. 
 letting forth in their Petition, that they had been taxed to the 20th lately given 
 to iheKhg per Communit at es Comitatuum^ (i. e. the Commons of the Counties) 
 by the Taxers and Colleftors of a Subfidy of the 20th in the fard County ^ altho' 
 they and their Anceftors had been accuftomed to be taxed to all Aids, as well to 
 the King, as to his Progeniors, granted per Communitatcs Comitatuum cjufdcmReg- 
 Tti^ with the Community of the County, and not with the Communitates Cwita- 
 tum^ Burgorum ; yet that the Taxers and Colle8:ors of the 15th, latjy granted 
 by the Commons of the Cities and Boroughs, dogrievoufly diftrain them, to their 
 great Damage, and therefore pray remedy. Whereupon the King commands that 
 the Rolls be fearched of fuch like Taxations ; and if it appear that the laid Town 
 has been always hitherto taxed, as they in their Petition lee forth, that then they 
 Ihall be difcharged from the faid 15th. 
 F'rom which Record we may conclude, that this Town 0^ Beverly, tho' an an- 
 Vid.VxynsPai- cient Borough, (and as fuch was fummoned to lend BurgefTes to Parliament in the 
 
 I'ar't f p' 4^. ^^^^ °^ ^^^'^ ^"S-^ y^'' ^^^ "°^ ^^^^ of the King in Capite^ nor in ancient Demefne. 
 Secondly, That Aids had been given the King and his Progenitors per Communi- 
 tates Co7tmatuiim, i. e. by the Commons of the Counties ^ which could not be 
 done but by their lawful Reprefentatives, and that in Parliamenr. But how far 
 thefe Progenitors muft extend, I need not repeat to you ; the Ground of which 
 Petition being admitted by the King in Parliament. 
 
 M. Thefe Authorities tho' material, yet do not in my Opinion reach the Point 
 you were to prove, viz. That the Knights, Citizens and BurgefTes appeared in 
 Parliament before the Reign of Richard I. for both thefe Authorities, (tho' ad- 
 mitted for good) yet reached no higher than King John^ Time, which is within 
 Memory, as your felf have now fet forth, fince the Word Progenitors need not be 
 extended any farther than the Time of that King, who was great Grandfather to 
 Edward the Firlt and Second, to whom thele Petitions were made by thefe 
 Towns- men, and fo do not clearly amount to your full Time of Prelcription, viz, 
 before the Reign oi Richard I. 
 
 F. Well, if yon grant this, you have loft your Caufe, fince certainly the Reign 
 of King John is long before the 49th cA' Henry III. but fince you will be fo over- 
 critical, I will (hew you fome Claims by Prelcription beyond all Time of Memory, 
 made by the Tenants in ancient Demefne, from being taxed to contribute to the 
 Wages of Knights of Shires •, and if they thus prefcribed, it is plain there muft 
 have been Knights of Shires chofen, againft paying whofe Wages they prefcribed to 
 have had this Privilege. Now this Prefcription muft be very ancient, fince as Mr. 
 Ldmbard Ihews us in the Place I have quoted, there has been no new Tenants in 
 ancient Demefne, fince the Time of WilUdtn I. But pray fee the Writ it ielf in 
 
 Fj1.:<Si. the old Regiiter of Writs, (which by the Bye is there put down only as a Form 
 for drawing all other Writs of this kind, there to be found, for other Towns, and 
 particularly the Tenants ofOdiham in Humpjhire, whenever there was occafion and 
 therefore it is not to be wonder'd that neither rhe Name of the King, nor of the 
 Place be exprelTed in Words at length. The Writ it Ielf is not verj^ long, there- 
 fore I (hall give it you in Latin zs far as is material : Rex Vicecomiti L. falutem 
 monfiravcrunt nobis homines, ^ lenentes de Manerio de E quod cjj de Antique 
 Do/ninico Coronx AngUae itt duitur quod licet ipft ^ eorum Ar.teceffore's Tenemes de 
 
 odetn 
 
 I'
 
 Dialogue the Eighth. a 27 
 
 eoAem Minerie a tempore quo mn extat memona fempcr haUem^ qu'ieti effeconfue- 
 vcrunt Ae expenfis Militum ad Yarliamenta nofira iSf Frcgenhonitn rmjlrorim Rcgnm 
 hn^\xpro CommuTtitdte diffi ComitaiM venientium, &fc. and then proceeds " That 
 " whereas the Sheriff diftrains the faid Tenants to contribute to the Expences of 
 " the Knights that came to the laft Parliament, to their great Damage, otherwife 
 " than tot^ retroafffs temporlbus fieri eonfuevit ; therefore commands him that he 
 " defift from his faid Diftrefs, and do not compel the faid Tenants to contriluue 
 " otherwife quam ornnibm temporibm rctrouBk. And now tho' this Writ be 
 without any King's Name or Date, yet it appears at the Bottom it was ifTued 
 by G. L. Eferope then Chancellor, and William de Herlflon, Clerk of the Chance- 
 ry •, and this muft hive been before the 15th of that King, becaufe it appears by 
 the Clofe Rolls of that Year, that in December the Great Seal was delivered to 
 William d' Ayremyn, m\<itx x.hQ?>d!is 0^ William de Clyffe, and the ^MWiHiam J^ ^'t-Clauf. i^. 
 Herlpn, Clerks of Chancery ^ who are often mentioned in our Records to have dirfoi^s-cVul 
 been Keepers of it pro Tempore, till the Second of Edward III. when the faid Rotcu" "^ 
 William de Hcrlflon had the fble Cuftody thereof committed to him. £12.^^-2. 
 
 But there is yet a perfe£ler Writ of this kind in the 50th of Edward III. extant "'o>-Jo. 
 in the Rolls direfted to John de Cobham, and Four other Knights therein named, ciau^. 50. £. ?. 
 reciting that whereas Simon ArchbifhopofC?/7/lr;•^///7 claims as well for himfelf ''■-•'"■ '^•'^'''^^• 
 as his Pxedeceflbrs, and their Tenants, hitherto a tempore quo non extat memoria, 
 for certain Lands held in Gavel-kind in the County of Kent, which ought to be 
 free ftom the Expences of Knights coming to our Parliaments, as well as thofe of 
 our Progenitors •, and concludes with a Superjedeas to the faid Sheriff not to mo- 
 left tlie faid Tenants, until fuch Time as the King be further informed, and that 
 He by the Advice of his Council has ordained what is to be done in the PremilTes. 
 From both which Writs we may draw thefe-Conclufions ; Firft, That there was 
 at the Time of the granting thefe Writs, a Claifti by Prefcription, Time out of 
 Mind, allowed for all Tenants holding of the Archbilhop in Gavelkind, to be 
 exempted from contributing to the Wages of Knights of the Shire j or eUe thefe 
 Petitions, and the Writs upon them, had been idle and ridiculous. 
 
 Laltly , That this Claim of being thus exempted Time out of Mind (which as I 
 have already proved, extends beyond the Time of Richard I.) is allowed by the 
 King himfelf for good in both thefe Writs •, only in the laft the King will be in- 
 formed whether they are Tenants in Gave/kind or not. So that the Conclufion 
 muft be. That if thefe Tenants in Ancient Demefne, and Gavel-kind, were always 
 exempted from paying to the Wages of Knights of the Shire beyond Memory, 
 i. e. by Prefcription, then certainly thofe Knights muft have been chofen Time 
 beyond Memory. I could give you feveral other Writs of like Nature, but I 
 will not overcharge you. Now certainly if the Knights of Shires were thus 
 eletled Time beyond Memory, the Citizens and Burgefles muft have been fo too, 
 fince in Scotland where there were for a long Time no Commiflionersfor the Shires 
 yet the Cities and Boroughs ever fent Delegates to Parliament, as your Dr. himfelf 
 allows. 
 
 Al I muft beg your Pardon if I cannot come over to your Opinion, concern- 
 ing this Prefaiption of Knights of Shires, Citizens and Burgeffes appearing in 
 Parliament before the 49th of Henry III. fince Mr. Pryn in his Second and Third '''^- obftrvj- 
 Part of his Parliamentary Regilter has proved, i. That all the Words you infift [^°^^^''" ^^■■'" 
 upon to prove this Prefcription, are to be underttood in another Senfe than what part^il^p!""?-? 
 you will now put upon them ; fo that tho' Mr. Lambard and others of great Part ^j. Seft. s! 
 Note lay the Original Title and Right of all our Counties, ancient Cities and ^''■ '<"'"". 
 Boroughs eleQing and fending of Burgeffes to Parliament, to be by Prefcrip- 
 tion Time out of Mind, long before the Conqueft •, yet againft this Opinion Mr. 
 Ffyn argues thus (whole Arguments 1 fhall contraft, becaufe it would be tedious 
 to recite them dWverbatim.) That as for the Wages of Knights of Shires (which is 
 the Principal Thing you infift on in this Argument) the ancientelt Writ extant for 
 their Wages, are thole of 28th and 29th of Edvcardl. and no Records or Law- Pin 2. p.175. 
 Books I have feen, derive their Title higher than the Reign oi" Edward I. The firft 
 Statute concerning them is that of the 12th of Richard U. which only enafts, cap. 12. 
 that the levying Expences of Knights fhall be as hath been ufed of old Time. 
 
 The next Statute ot I he 1 uh oi Henry W. enaQs that Knights of Shires unduly Cap. i. 
 returned, fhall lofe their Wages of the Parliament of old Timeaccuftomed, not at, or 
 before the Conqueft accuitomed .• Yea no Man can prove there were any Knights for 
 
 3 Counties
 
 4H 
 
 B I B L 1 O T II E C A P O L 1 T I C A. 
 
 Counties elefted, and lent to Parliannents by the King's Writs, before the 49th of 
 Henry 111. not to the Reign of the Conqueror, or before the Conqueft, as Mr. l^im- 
 btvd would (train it. Now as tor the Words Anteceffores & Trcge nit ores in the 
 Writs you havecited, the former may very well figniiy the Anceftors of thofe Inha- 
 bitants of Boioughs or Towns, and the latter the t'redeceflbrs oftheKinR that then 
 was, which in the Time 0^ EdwardW^ snd Edward 111, when thofe Writs were 
 granted, need extend no higher than the 49th ot hemy III. ; and as for thofe other 
 Words in thefe Writs, ■A%totis tcwporibus rctroaBis, and a tejiipore quo non extat 
 friemoria, they muft have the like Interptetation, or what is equivalent to it, viz. 
 in all Times pafled, or Time out of Mind ; i. e. before there were any Knights 
 elected for the Counties, they were always free tirom contributing to their Wages ^ fo 
 that this Prefcription need not extend higher than the 49th of Henry III. above- 
 mentioned ; fince which Time it is true (as they there let forth) that they and 
 their Anceltors in ail Times, or Time beyond Memory, have always uled to 
 be quit from luch E>;pences of Knights : Now there were many Prefcriptions and 
 Culfoms in ule in Edivard Illd's Time, and fince, which may be well laid to be 
 Time out of Mind, yet certainly had their Original not before, but long fince the 
 Fol. 58. 113. Conqueft, as you may read in B/W/^x, Eirzherhert, and other Law-Books, Tide 
 Cuflom, and Prefcription ^and Cr^^^^'s fiiit Inliit. My Lord Hubbard in his Reports-, 
 /". 117, 118, j-j^^^^ which bcith been ujed, or prefcnbed in but Two or Three Ages only ^ or out 
 ip ' '^^' of the Memory or Mind of Men then beings is reputed a Legal Cufiom, or E'reJ- 
 cripticn, ■^^Wtw.'^l.Bxook'sTit. Prefcnpiicn. Therefore this Prefcription of Te- 
 nants in ancient Demefne to be exempted from contributing to Knights Wages, 
 will no ways warrant Mr. hambard s Conclufion from it ; Ergo, there were Ele- 
 £fions of Knights of Shires before the Conqueft. 1 am certain that at this Day- 
 Tenants in ancient Demelhe can plead, that both rliey and their Anceltors, Timeout 
 of Mind, never were accuftomed to pay Excife for any thing for which Excife is 
 now paid-, will it not therefore follow, f/^^j, all other Places now fubjeft to pay 
 Excife, were liable to it before the Conqueft, when it is a Duty impoled but fince 
 the late Wars ? So that Mr. P;j« here proves, that your and Mr. Lambarfs Argu- 
 ment from the Tenants in ancient Demefne, and Gavel-kind, not paying in all 
 Times paft, or Tim^e beyond Memory, to the Wages of Knights of tfie Shires, is 
 altogether fallacious, and inconclufive. 
 
 F Pray Sir give me leave to reply to your Anfwer before you proceed to 
 fpeak of Boroughs. Firft let me tell you, Mr Fryn very much forgot himfelf 
 when he here fays, that the firft Writs for Wages of Knights of Shires are but 
 of the 28th or 29th of Edivard I. fince you know better ^ for your DoQor has 
 printed the Writs of Expences for the Knights of Shires that ferved in this Parli- 
 ■ ■^■''*'- ament of the 49th of iii?«/7 III. and you your felf have urged it to me, that 
 this was the firft Time that thele Knights had their Expences allowed them, becaule 
 there was no Claule of /';w/r in Cafu fimili, exprefied therein ^ which I told you 
 might only be through Inadvertency of the Clerks ; fince the Doftor there gives us 
 another Writ of the42d of that King, whereby it appears that the Four Knights of 
 Counties who had appeared before the King and his Council at the foregoing Parlia- 
 ment, were ordered their Expences, fot going, returning, and ftaying at the faid 
 Patliament : Which (liews that thefe Writs were no new Things -, and if lb be thele 
 Knights had their Expences allowed them only for their Attendance at a Parliament, 
 it is much more reafonable and likely they had their Expences allowed when 
 they made a Part of it. 
 
 But to put this out of all doubt, Mr. Tryn himfelf has cleared this Point, not 
 only by piinting this very Writ in the 4th Part of his Parliamenrary Regifter, 
 but by declaring in the very firlf Section of that Volume, that tho' after this ' 
 Writ no more are to be found of this Sort extant upon the Rolls of Henry III. 
 till the 28th of Edvcard I. yet they were conftantly iffued out at the End of every 
 Parliament held after the 49th oi^ Henry \\l. till the 28th of Edward I. (being 
 ?5 Yeats Spacej as this Claufe in the Writs of the 28th, 29th and 33d 
 of Edccard I. prout alia* in Cafu conjimli fieri con/uevit, affures us. But all 
 the Bundles of Writs from the 49th of Henry III. till the 29th of Ed- 
 vcard I. being loft -, and no Writs of Summons from the 49th of Henry III. 
 entred in the Clauie Rolls till the 22d of Edvrard I. tho' returnable into Chan- 
 cery, no wonder that thefe Writs de Expenfis (then not returnable at ali^ were 
 
 no 
 
 Pi
 
 "Dialogue the Eiglnh, . 4.25 
 
 nor enrolled till the 28th of Edward I. after which they were ufually endorfed on 
 the Claufe-Roll till the Second oi" Henry V. So that by Mr. Pryns own ConfeflTion 
 the Lofs of tiie Writs from the 49ch ot' Henry III. till the 28th of Edward I. is 
 no Argument at all to prove that there were no fuch Writs before the 49th ot 
 Henry III. unlefs you could prove to me, that the Writs and Records of all thole 
 Parliaments had been fb well preferved, that there are noneloft orembezled, which 
 Mr. Pryw acknowledges to the contrary; for if thev were loft after the 49th of 
 Henry III. pray give me a Reafon why the like Writs of Summons and Expences 
 might not be loft as well before that Time. 
 
 Having, I think, fufficiently anfwered Mr. Pryns Argument from the not finding 
 any Writs of Expences before the 28th 0^ Edward I. from what he himfelf faid. 
 afterwards upon better Confideration ; I (hall now proceed to reply to that other 
 Part of his Argument, from the equivocal Ufe of the Words, old Times accu flamed, 
 and in a tempore quo non extnt mcmor'ta -, which he will have to fignify a Space of 
 Time only beyond the Memory of any Man living: Whereas the Words Cultom 
 and Accuitomed, when u(ed of any general Cuftom or Ufage all over the Realm, 
 is ftill to be taken in much larger Acceptation, as all our Lavv-Books will teach you! 
 But I (hall not dwell upon this, but Ihew you that thole Authors, whofe Works 
 you have read, had no true Notion of this Expreflion in our ancient Records and 
 Pleadings -, viz. a tempore cujus contrarij memoria non exijiit ; which has been al- 
 ways underftood (as Littleton here tells you) tor a Time beyond the Reign of 
 King Richard I. So that wherever you find thefe Words, tot/s temporibus retroa- 
 Bis, or de Temps dont memorie des Horns ne curge al contrarie, in any Records, 
 they are always to be underftood of a Time older than that now mention 'd. You 
 may prove a contrary Ufage, but before that Time no Deed can be given in Evi- 
 dence, nor Cuftom alledged beyond it : And that this is not the Senle of Littleton 
 alone (who indeed makes a Query about this Time beyond Memory) I appeal to 
 all our Year-books •, and if you pleale to fee all the confiderable Law-Learning at 
 once about this Point, pray confult RoWs Abridgment (or Common-place-book) p 
 Title Prefcription ; where he gives you thefe Conclufions, from the Year-books ' ^ ^' 
 which I Ihall here read to you in Englijh. 
 
 1. " It is clear enough, that there was a certain Time called Time of Memory 
 " in a Prefcription •, and for this he cites the Year-books of 19. H. S.-j'y.perKewton 
 " I £'.4. 6. Brook. 9.H.-J. II. 14//. 7. I. 
 
 " The faid Time of Memory in a Prefcription was from the Time of King 
 " Richard I. 20//. 6. ?. Dyer Mar. 119. 5. 3. 4. 9. B. The Time of King >/;« 
 " is within Memory, Lit. Se&. 170. 54 H. 6. 36. B. 47. So that the laid Time 
 " of Memory was from the Beginning of the Reign of King Richard I. (who 
 " was Brother to King John, who was Father to Henry 111.)^ for the whole Time 
 " of his Reign was within Time of Memory, 20 H. 6. per Newton again, 17.H. 
 " 4. 9. B. where the Seilin of King Richard is allowed for a good Title, and fb a 
 '' Warranty in his Time. 
 
 " So it leems by thefe Words a tempore cujtts contrarij memoria non exiflit, is 
 " properly and generally intended tor all the Time before that ; and before the 
 " Statute of Limitation, was meant of that againft which no Proof could be made 
 *' to the contrary, either by Teftimony or Evidence in anjr Time before, without 
 " any Limitation of Time. The 54 H. 6. 7,6 .B. 37. leems to prove this ; fb that 
 the Time of all Prefcription was in thofe Days the lame with the Time of Limita- 
 tion of Seifin in a Writ of Writ, as Littleton tells us. 
 
 And finceyou have not as yet brought any confiderable Proofs (but only bare 
 negative ones which have been anfwered,) againft this Prefcription of the Election 
 of Knights of Shires Time beyond Memory ^ what you have faid to the contrary- 
 is little to the purpofe s for all the Modern as well as Ancient Law-Books are againft 
 this Notion of Mr.Pryw s. For in Judge Telvertons Reports, Gib/on :ind Holcroft's P. jr, 32. 
 Cafe, you will fee that whereas Unity of Pofleflion is by the Statute of the Dif^ 
 folution of Monalteries a good Difcharge of Tithes -, yet if the Monaftery 
 were founded deins Temps de Memorie (as this Abby of Vale Royal was in the 
 Time of Edward I.) a conftant Unity fince the Foundation, was held by the 
 whole Court for no good Difcharge of Tithes by Prefcription as the Plaintiff" 
 had laid it ; for the Defendant Ihewing that the laid Abbey was founded 
 fince Time of Memory (tho' above Three Hundred Years old) was a fufficient 
 conieflfing and avoiding. 
 
 I i i So
 
 426 
 
 B I B L 1 O T H E C A P O L 1 T I C A. 
 
 Ti II?. 
 
 So that Mr. Fryns Arguments whereby he would have the Words , all Times 
 paffed, and Time of which no Memory is to the contrary , to fignify a much lefs 
 Space of Time in thefe Writs I have now cited, and to be reftrained within the 
 49th of Henry the Third, will not fignify much , fince they are exprefsly againft 
 all our Law Books : Neither doth he cite any Cafes for his Opinion out of Brook 
 or Fitzherberr, tho' he quotes their Titles. But as for this Quotation from Cook's 
 firft Inftitutes, there is nothing there to countenance his Notion, more than he tells 
 us that from Br a & on and f'/eta, (upon the Words de Temps dont tne7norie, tTc.) do- 
 cere oPortet longum temp us ^ longum tifum •, viz. qui excedit memor'uvn hominum^ 
 P. 113. tale eriimtempus ftifficit pro Jure \, but without telling us what was then under- 
 
 *' flood by this tnemoria hominum ; ard a little after upon theft Words, Afcun proof 
 " al contrar'te : For if there be any fufficient Proof of Record or Writing to the 
 *• contrary, albeit it exceed the Memory, or proper Knowledge of any Man living, 
 " yet it is within the Memory of Men ; For Memory is twofold : Firft, by Know- 
 " ledge by Proof-, as by Record, or fufficient Matter of Writing. Secondly, By 
 " his own proper Knowledge ; and for this he cites divers Year-Books in the Margin". 
 But as for all that long Quotation Mr. Pry/i has here given us, I know not whence 
 he had it •, for there is not any Thing in Hobarfs Reports to that Purpofe, in the 
 Places he has cited. And as for the Year-Book of 34th of Hemy the Sixth, and 
 Brook, they are both dire£\ly againft his Notion, as you may lee by what Rolls has 
 been already quoted from the lame Places. And though it is true in Prefcriptions 
 of Ways, and Commons, and other fuch petty Things laid Time beyond Memory, 
 the Judges or Jury are not fo exaO:, as to make the Plaintiffs prove their Prefcripti- 
 on beyond the Time of any Man then living : Yet if they prelcribe for never lb long, 
 it is Itill in the Power of the Defendant to prove that there was no fuch Prelcri- 
 ption i and this as high as before Richard the Firft, but no higher. And thus high 
 we aflert the Coming of Knights of Shires to Parliament ^ for I do not pretend to 
 lay it as high as the Conqueft, or before, as Mr. Lombard does. If it prove beyond 
 the Time now fpecified, it is fufficient to difprove Mr. Fryns Notion. 
 
 But to let you fee I am a fair Adverfary, I will admit for once, that this Time 
 beyond Memory (hall be taken in a ftrift literal Senfe, for only as far as is beyond 
 the Memory of any Man living : Now, pray, lee what you will get by it ; if you 
 remember that the Writs I but now cited from the Regifter, for the Tenants in an- 
 cient Demefne their being dilcharged from contributing to the Wages of Knights 
 of the Shires, was laid, a tempore cujui contrnrii memoria non exifiit : And thele 
 Writs are proved alfo to have been iffiied within the i^th of Edward the lid ^ and 
 if lb, pray reckon backwards, and fee if the 49th of Henry the Hid, ( when you 
 fuppole Knights of Shires to have been firft cholen) does not fall within the Memo- 
 ry of moft Men then living •, for Henry the llld reigned Ibmewhat more than Se- 
 ven Years afcer this 49th ^ to which Seven Years, if you add the almoft 35 Years 
 Reign of Edward I. it makes 42 Years ; then add thefe 15 Years of Edward II. and, 
 if you pleale, fee if the whole makes above 57 Years; which certainly was within 
 the Memory of many Men then living : And it had been a lenlelels Thing for the 
 Chancellor, and Clerks of Chancery, that then were, to have granted thefe Writs of 
 Exemption for a Time beyond Memory, when they themlelves might have remem- 
 hted when Wages for Knights of Shires firft began. 
 
 M. As for what you'have faid for this Prefcription of Knights of Shires, I will 
 not difpute it farther with you, fince it is a Point of your Common Law, (in which 
 I confcfs my fclf but meanly skilVd) ; but I ftiall take farther Time to advife with 
 thofe that know better. In the mean time, as for the Cities and Boroughs, let them 
 have appeared when you will, their coming to Parliament could not be fo ancient 
 as before the Time of Richard I. much lefs the Conqueft, as you fuppofe -, fince 
 Mr. Pryn hath, in the lame Second Part of this Parliamentary-Regifter, traced the 
 Summoning of the Boroughs to their very Oiiginal -, and proved it could not be an- 
 cienter than the 49th of Henry the Illd. I fhaJl here contraft his Arguments, and 
 give you them, as I did the former. Firft, He here proves , that there were never 
 Parts, p: 214. but 170 Cities and Boroughs, who fent any Members to Parliament; of which 
 170 (in his Catalogue) Nine of them never had bu: one or two Precepts, and 
 others but four Precepts of this Nature fent them •, upon none of which Precepts 
 the Sherilis made any Returns of Burgefles, as thefe Ballivi Libertatis nullum mihi 
 dederunt refponjum, or nihil inde jtcerunt, atteft: Whereu{X)n they never had any 
 more Precepts of this Kind fent them to this Day, Chnjl-Church in Hump/hire only 
 
 excepted i
 
 Dialogue the Eighth. A27 
 
 excepted •, which of late Years hath fent Burgefles to Parliament ; ^o that in Truih 
 there were only 16 1 Cities and Boroughs in England that ever fcnt Members to 
 Parliament, during all the precedent Kings Reigns.; viz. From the 26th o)i Ei- 
 toard the lit to the 12th of Edward the IVth. Secondly , That 22 more here 
 named of thele t6i, never eletted and returned Burgefles but once, and no more 
 during all the laid Time. Thirdly , That many more of thefe ancient Boroughs itid. p 22? 
 here named, never fent Members, fome of them more than Twice, others Thrice 226. 
 others Four, others Five, others Six, others Seven, others Eight Times : And Lan- 
 caftcr has but 1 3 Eleftions and Returns of Burgefles, and no more, during all the 
 above-mentioned Reigns. Fourthly , That altho' fome of thefe Boroughs here 
 named, who feldom fent any Burgefles, though they were fummoned by the She- 
 riffs Precepts to eleft Burgefles, without any great Intervals of Time, to Six or 
 Seven fucceeding Parliaments, yet mottof them had a long Dilcontinuance of Time j 
 fome of above 200, others above 300 Years Diftance, between thole few refpcQive 
 Returns : Of which, he here gives you ieveral Inltances, and refers you to his pre- 
 cedent Catalogue of Returns for the Proof of ir. So that there were but 1 1 2 
 Cities and Boroughs ( taking in the Cinque-Forts and all ) who fent Members to 
 Parliament in the Reign of Edward the lit : Seven of which made only one Return, 
 and no more, for ought I can dilcover, before or after Edward the Ift's Reign, till 
 of very late Years. 
 
 Yet that in Edward the lid's Reign, there were Precepts iffued by the Sheriffs, {I'g ^' *^^' 
 and Returns of Burgefles for 19 new Boroughs there named, which (for ought I 
 can difcover) never elected any Burgeffes before. Fifthly , That under this long 
 Reign of Edtcard the Illd, there were Sheriffs Preceprs iffued to 19 more new Bo- 
 roughs, and Returns made upon them to ferve in Parliamencs, or great Councils, 
 who never fent any Members before •, and Precepts to more, that made no Returns 
 at all thereupon. As tor the Cinque-Porrs o^ Dover, Ro7nney, Sandwich, Winchei- 
 fey, Hajlings, Hythe, and Rye, though there be no Original Writs for, or Returns 
 of their electing and fending Barons to Parliament now extaiit, before the Reign of 
 Edward III. yet it is apparent, by the Claufe-Rolls , that they fent Barons to Par- 
 liament in 49th of Henry, and during the Reign of Edward I. and II. Of which 
 more anon. Sixthly, That King Richard II. Henry IV. and Henry V. created no 
 new Boroughs at all, neither were there any Writs or Precepts ifllied to, or Ele- 
 £tion of Citizens or Burgefles by any new Cities or Boroughs, but fuch as elected 
 them before their Reigns. Seventhly, That about the midlt of King Henry the 
 Vlth's long Reign, there were Precepts iflfued to, and Returns made , by Five new 
 Boroughs, and no more, which never fent Burgefles to Parliaments before , viz. 
 Gatton in Surrey, Heytesbury, Hyndford , Wcjibury , and Wootton-Bajfet , all in 
 Wiltjhire ; yet very poor inconfiderable Boroughs , though they ele£t Burgefles at 
 this Day. That during Edward the IVth's Reign, there was one new Borough, 
 (here named) which began to fend Burgeffes to Parliament under him , though it 
 never lent any before. 
 
 F. WeU, but how came this about, that fb many new Boroughs were made in 
 fome Kings Reigns, and few or none in others ; and fo many omitted, that had 
 lerved before in other Parliaments? 
 
 M. Pray read on, and you will fee, this Author gives us a very good Account of ^ 
 that ; and imputes it to Two Caufes. Firfl,The Partiality and Favour of the Sheriffs, 
 and the Ambition of the Neighbouring Gentry, who defired to be elected in iiich 
 new Boroughs. Secondly, The meer Grace and Favour of the King, who by di- 
 vers Charters to new Corporations have given them the Privilege of fending Bur- 
 gefles to Parliaments. For Proof of which, pray fee what this Author here farther 
 lays. It is evident by the precedent Sections, and Catalogue of ancient Cities, Bo- 
 roughs, Ports, and their Returns of Writs and Eleftions before fpecified with 
 thefe general Claufts after them , Konfunt alix, or uILt Civitates nee Burgi in Bal- ib]d. p. 228, 
 Iwa mea, or in Comitatu prtediHo, prxter Wycombe, iSfc. As you may fee by the 2^?> 234- 
 Return of the Sheriff of Bucks, Anno 26. of Edward I. vviiere he denies there were 
 any Cities or Boroughs in his whole County •, and yet the very next Parliament 
 but one, within Two Years after, the Sheriff" of Bucks returns no lels than Three 
 Boroughs •, VIZ. Agmondejham, Wycombe, and Wendovcr, with the Burgeffes Names 
 that were returned : So that the 78 new Boroughs, here named, were lately let up 
 in the Counties fince Edward the IVth's Reign, by the Practice of Sheriffs, and the 
 Ambition of private Gentlemen feeking to be made Burgeffes for them , and 
 
 li i 2 Con-
 
 ^'28 B 1 B L T O T H E C A P O L 1 T 1 C X] 
 
 Confent of the poor Burgeffes of them, being courted and feafted by them for 
 their Votes, without any Charters from the King, and are all mean poor inconii- 
 derable Boroughs, fet up by the late Returns and Praflices of Sheriffs. 
 
 And tho' others may conceive, that the Right of our ancient Boroughs or Ci- 
 ties elefting and fending Burgelles and Citizens to our Parliaments, proceeded 
 originally from fome old Charters of our Kings heretofore granted to them, and 
 to which Opinion 1 once inclined •, yet the Conlideration of the new Difcovery 
 Ibid. p. 25c. ^£- ^j^g ^j^ Original of Writs for elefting Knights, Citizens and Burgeffes, I 
 found in Cffars Chappel, hath reQitied my former Miftake herein, and abun- 
 dantly fatistied me that neither bare ancient Ciiftom or Prefcription before or 
 fince the Conquefl", nor our King's Charters ; but the Sheriffs of each County's 
 Precepts and Returns of F.leftions of Burgeffes and Citizens for fuch Boroughs 
 and Cities, as they thought meet by Authority and Power granted to them, 
 in and by this general Claufe in the Writs of Summons iffued to Sheriffs, for 
 Ibid. f. 231, every County before every Parliament, enjoining them in thefe Words, Tibi pr£- 
 23=' ciphnifs fa-nincr injiingentes, quoi deCo/mtaiu pi\id'jBo duos militei, ^ de qua' 
 
 Itbet Civirate duos Gives; 6?" de quolibct Burgo duos Burgenfes de dijcre- 
 tiaribus, Stc. Jifie diljtione Eligi , i^ eos ad nos ad diBos dtem, C locum 
 venire facias^ ^c. By virtue of which general indefinite Claules ufed in 
 all Writs of Summons ever fince the 23d of Edward I. without defigning 
 what particular Cities or Boroughs by Name within each County the 
 Sheriff (liould caufe to eleft, or fend Two Citizens or Two Burgeffes, but leaving 
 it wholly to each Sheriff's Liberty and Difcretion to fend the Writ dire£led to him 
 to what Cities and Boroughs he pleafed-, thereupon every Sheriff uled a kind of 
 Arbitrary Power in the Execution of this general Claufe, according as his Judg- 
 ment diiefted, or his Affe^Stions, Favour, Partiality, Malice, or the SoUicitations 
 of any private Boroughs to him, or of Competitors for Citizens or Burgeffes 
 Places within his County, fwayed him. This is moft apparent by fome Sheriffs 
 in ieveral Counties returning more Boroughs and Burgefles than their Predecel^ 
 Ibrs, others fewer •, fome omitting thole Boroughs returned by their Predeceffors-, 
 others caufmg Eleftions and Returns to be made for fuch new Boroughs, which 
 never elefted or fent any before, nor after their Sheriffalties, as is evident from 
 the Returns Annk 28. 33.fi. i. and 34. of £. 3. for Devon. Anno 26. E. i. for 
 Yorkjhire. Anno 33. E. 1. for Oxfordjhire. Anno 28. E. i. for Hampjhire. Annn 
 33 and 34 of E. 3. for Somerfet. Annis 25. 27. and 28. ti. 6. for Wilts, &c. 
 
 So that the firft Writs or Memorials of any extant on Record for eleding 
 Knights, Citizens, and Burgeffes to come to Parliament, are thole of the 49th 
 of Henry III but thefe Writs only commanded that the Sheriffs (hould caufe to 
 come Two Knights, C^c. of each County •, and the like Writs were directed to the 
 Cities of London, Lincoln, and othet Boroughs of England, to eleO: Two Citizens 
 and Two Burgeffes for each of them, and the reft of the Cities and Boroughs in 
 England:, the like Writs were alio ifliied to Sandwich and the reft of the Cinque 
 Ports, without exprefling their Names, or Number in each County : And this 
 Form 1 conceive (fays Mr. P/7«) continued till the 23d o{ Edward I. when the 
 afore-cited general Claufe authorizing and intrufting every Sheriff to caule Two 
 Citizens and Two Burgefles to be elefted, (yc. out of every City and Borough in 
 his County, was firft put into the Writs, by Authority and Colour whereof every 
 Sheriff feiit Precepts to what Cities and Boroughs of his County he pleafed. 
 
 F. I have with Patience heard this long Hiftory of Mr. Pryn\ concerning the 
 Eleftion of Citizens and Burgeffes, from which I muft notwithftanding make bold 
 to differ. For tho' I own him to have been a Man of great Learning and Induftry 
 in Matter of Records, yet I doubt he was often too quick in taking up of Opini- 
 ons upon flender Grounds. Tlieretbre for the anfweting of him , I (hall firft 
 fhew you the Improbability of his Suppofitions, and in the next Place fliail make 
 ufe of no other Confutations than what his own Book will afford us, as to the 
 Writs of Summons, Returns, and other Things he lays fo much ftrefs upon. In 
 rhe firft Place, for rhe Notion of Sheriffs fending Precepts to what Cities and Bo- 
 roughs they pleafed, and confequently making as few or as many fend Members 
 to Parliament as they would ; that this was not lb at firft is evident from thofe 
 very Writs of the 49th of Henry III. by which it appears that they were not 
 then direfted to the Sheriffs, for any more than to the Counties •, but as tor 
 the Citizens and Burgeffes, and Barons of the Cinque Pons, they were then 
 I direSted
 
 T>ialogue the Eighth, ±26 
 
 diref\ed to themlelves-, and healfo confefles, that this continued (b from that 
 Time till the 2?d of Edvoard I. So that all this while (being about 28 Years) it 
 feems the Nomination of what Cities and Towns Ihould llnd Members to Parlia- 
 ment did noc depend upon the Will of the Sheriffs, but upon fomewhat elle. 
 And I have asked you once (tho' without receiving any Anilvcr) what Rule Si?noA 
 Montford went by, to tell what Cities and Boroughs were to fend Members and 
 whatnot, fi nee the Words are only in general, de quofibet Burgo^^c. And there- 
 fore pray anfwer me now if you can. 
 
 M. I conceive in the firft Place, as for the Cities, Simon Momford fent to thofe 
 that were anciently efteemed fo, viz. fuch as had Bilhops Sees annext to them, 
 fuch as London , Lincoln , particularly narrted in thefe Writs , and others of 
 the iame Rank •, and as for the Boroughs, tho' we have not the Returns of them 
 lett us, yet I fuppole they were i'uch walled or other Towns, as were of fomc con- 
 fiderable Note in England-, fuch a, he thought were molt jiroperfor his Turn. 
 
 F. That this could be no Rule, appears by this dear Proof Firft, That nei- 
 ther Coventry and Litchfield^ tho' the Sees of the Bifliops, vvere counted Ci- 
 ties in the Time ot Edtcard I. nor long after j nor yet E/y -, for it appears by the 
 Lifts that Mr. Pryn hath given us,^ that it never fent Burgeffes but only once, and 
 that only to a great Council, till of late Years. So that the Sees of the Bifhops was 
 it feems no general Rule to make Places capable offending, or not lending of Ci- 
 tizens to Parliament. 
 
 And in the next Place as to Boroughs, that is pure Imagination, that none 
 but confiderable or walled Towns fent any Burgeffes at firft : Whereas in the firft 
 Lilt of Returns which Mr. Pr>77 has here given us of the 26rh and 28th o{ Ed- 
 toiirJ I. which are the firft extant, for ought I know, (excepi: thofe of the 23d, 
 which 1 have never yet feen) befides the Shire Towns of the Counties, there are " 
 Returns of a great many fmall Boroughs, which 'never had any Walls, nor yet 
 (for ought as we can find) had any Thing remarkable to make them be pitched 
 upon to fend Burgeffes more than others. But of thefe I (hall fpeak more by and 
 by ■■, only (hall remark thus much, that there muft have been lome other Rule 
 befides Montfords own Will, for all this'i and what this Rule could be, unlefs an 
 ancient Ptcfcription in thofe Towns to fend Members, I delire you or your Doftor 
 would fhew any good Reafbn or Authority to the contrary. 
 
 And after the 23d oi' Edward \. when Mr. Tryn fuppoles that the Sheriffs by 
 this general Claufe in the Writs began to take upon them this new Authority of 
 lending Precepts to, and making Boroughs of what Towns they pleaftd- : This 
 could not in the firft Place extend to futh as were before that. Counties of thera- 
 felves, fuch as London, Tork, Briflol, &c. nor yet fuch as were ancient and opulent 
 Cities, fuch as Canterbury, Lincoln, Exeter, &c. who were not made Cities by- 
 having Bilhops Sees annext to them, but were fuch long before Chriftianity was 
 preach'd to the Englijh Saxons, as I have already proved. Nor could this Power 
 of the Sheriff extend to the Cinque Ports, whole Right of lending Two Barons 
 for each Port was fure very well known and fettled in the 49th of Henry III. as ap- 
 pears by thefe general Words at the Foot of the Writ, fimiincr mandatum ejifm- 
 gulis Fortibus pro fe, without naming them in particular j fb that if it had not 
 been fufficiently known what Ports were thus to fend, ' all the confiderable Sea- 
 Port Towns in England might have had Precepts fent them as well as the Cinque 
 Ports •■, who had at firft their Summons directed to the Barons and Bailiffs in geiie- 
 tal. Nor is there any Writ found direQed to the Warden of the Cinque-Ports 
 to funrunon each of them to fend Burgeffes, till the 17th of Edzvard II. as Mr, 
 Tryn here fJiews you : So that in all thefe EleQions and Returns, (being above ^^"'- P' ^4^- 
 Twenty)) the Sheriff could have no Power, and therefore did not depend upon 
 his goodwill and Pleafure alone, as this Author would have it. • 
 
 But to come to that which Mr. Pryn chiefly infifts on, viz. the putting in and 
 leaving out divers of the fmaller Boroughs in fbmnny King's Reigns, and which he 
 attributes wholly to the Favour or Partiality of the Sheriffs. I (hall firft argue againft 
 the Improbability of the Notion, and (hall then confute it by plain Proofs from 
 Mr. Pryn himfelf Firft, It is not at all likely, the King f hould ever truft the Sheriff 
 Veith this great Prerogative ot making what, or as many. Boroughs ashe pleated in 
 a County ; fince that could not be then done without fbme particulat Writ or Charter j 
 fbrotherwile this had made the Power of the Slreriff more arbitrary thin that of the 
 King himfelf^ if he had in thofe Reigns you treat otj no other Rule to go by than 
 
 hi^
 
 4^0 B I B L 1 O T H E C A P L i T I C A." 
 
 
 hi? own Humour, Paflion, or Intereft : Nor would the King have ever endured fuch an 
 Innovation, lince it would have been in the Fewer of the Sheiiftsto bavemade as ma- 
 ny Boroughs as they pleafed, and tohaveincreafed theHoufe of Commons toan un- 
 reafonable Bulk, which was againft all Rules of Policy for him to fufier. Lalfly, Nei- 
 ther would the Houfe of Commons themfelves have fuffered this Encroachment : For 
 fincemoftof the Cities and Boroughs of £>7^/d«^ fent Members to Parliament before 
 this Innovation of the Sheriffs began, they would never have quietly permitted new 
 Men to be fent in among them, from obfcure Places they never heard of, without either 
 turning them out themfelves, or complaining to the King in Parliament of Co great 
 an Abufe. Nor yet would thefe fmaller Boroughs themfelves have thought it a 
 Privilege in thof^ Days, when they paid their Burgefles Wages all the Time of 
 their Service in Parliament, to be tliius forced to elea and fend BurgelTes to Parlia- 
 ment, whenever the Sherifl' pleafed to lend them a Precept fo to do. 
 V'L^f'' ^^^' J^l But what can you fay againft direft Matter of Fj£t ? Has not Mr. Fryn here 
 ^ ' ' plainly proved to you, that the Sheriffs did in thofe Times excrcife an Arbitrary 
 
 Power in this Matter, returning feme Towns out of Ill-will only, to charge them 
 with ele£ling Burgeffes, to make them liable to the Payment of Wages to them j 
 omitting of others alfo out of Spite, as appears by this Petition of the Towns- 
 Men of St. Albnns you have now cited ■, a great many of which were ^o long omit- 
 ted, that they came at laft to lofe all Right of fending any more, till it came to be 
 again revived of late Years ( as in the Cafe of divers Boroughs, whofe Names 
 Ibid. 2j8. j^r, 'Pryn has here given usj who by Orders of the Long Parliament in 1640, again 
 lent Members to Parliament after fome Ages Intermiflion ? Pray now tell me, what 
 other Satisfactory Account can be given, tor the miakirig of ib many new Boroughs, 
 and omitting fo many old ones, but the Arbitrary Power of the Sheriffs, who 
 then took upon them to do what they pleafed in this Matter ; as appears by io ma- 
 ny Inftances he has here given us ? 
 
 F. Well, fince the Improbability, ( I may fay Impoflfibility of the Thing ) will 
 not fatisfy you, I doubt not but to Ihew you, that though the Sheriffs might Ibme- 
 times abufe the Truft committed to them , in fending Precepts to the Boroughs 
 that were not liable to them, yet that for all this they never exercifed that Arbi- 
 trary Power you fancy, of making and unmaking what Boroughs (and confe- 
 quently as many Parliament Men ) as they pleafed. Now to prove this ftom 
 Mr. Pr>'/^'s own Inftances and Authorities , Ifiiall reduce all the Caufes of this 
 Abule to thele Heads : i. The Favour, or Malice of the Sheriffs. 2. The Am- 
 bition of the Neighbouring Gentlemen, who defired to get to be eleQed at fuch 
 Boroughs. Or, laftly. From the Defire of thofe Towns themfelves, to get this 
 Privilege among them of Fleming and Returning Members to Parliament. To 
 begin with the firft of thefe -, It could never proceed from, the Favour of Sheriffs 
 to lijch Towns, becaufe the Charge of Wages to the Burgefles was then fo great 
 (when Two Shillings a Day was more than Ten Shillings is now ) that they could 
 never look upon it as a Favour, to have this Charge impofed upon them •, unlels it 
 were fome few, who were very large, and in a rich and fiouriOiing Condition, and 
 thofe always fent Burgeffes to Parliament before the Sheriffs had this Power com- 
 mitted to them, as you fuppofed, by that general Claule in the Writ of fending Sum- 
 mons to the Cities and Boroughs. Nor could the Sheriffs (if they would j have long 
 continued to lay this Burthen uponany Town out of Malice; for if fuch Towns could 
 rot afford this extraordinary Charge of fending Burgeffes to Parliament, they might 
 have 'fcaped it whenever they would ; either by making no Returns at all to their 
 Precepts fent them, as Mr. Fryn here fliews, in the Lifts he has given us of Re- 
 turns, very many of them did ; or elfe they might have taken that Remedy againft 
 Ibid. p. 233. it;^ " vvhich (as this Author'here exprefsly acknowledges) divers Towns did ; who be- 
 " ing malicioufly charged by the Sheriffs to fend Burgeffes, when both unwilling 
 " and unable ; and who upon their Refufal to eleft, returned Burgeffes for them a- 
 " gainlt their Wills; whereupon they complained to the King or Parliament of the 
 " Abufe, and fb were eafed of this Charge and Trouble, or elfe eafed themfelves .• 
 " Other Boroughs growing very Poor, and unable to fend Burgefles to Parliament, 
 " and defray their Expences, were thereupon difcharged by the Sheriffs who made 
 ib}d.f. 2J3, " fpecial Returns in their Favour-, (and of thefe he gives you feveral Inftances, in 
 2i6. " his Colleffion of Returns for the County of Bucks, as alfo in the Cale of L^;?- 
 
 " caflt'f) ; whilft others procured perpetual, or elfe temporary Exemptions ffom the 
 " King and his Council from fending Burgeffes to future Parliaments •, and* upon 
 
 " fome
 
 Dialogue the Eighth. ao\ 
 
 " fome one or more of thefe precedent Grounds, they quitted, waved, or lofj 
 " their ancient Privilege of lending Burgefles, which they rather reputed a 
 " Charge, Burthen, and Oppreflion, than an Honour". And of this he gives 
 us a remarkable Inftance in Toriton in 'Devonjhire, which after having elected md. 
 and returned Burgeffes to no left than Thirty two Parliaments ; yet in the42d ' ^'^^^' 
 of EdwardlW. upon their Petition to the King in Parliament, obtained a Patent to i^ot.Pari. 42. 
 be exempted forever, which he here gives us, as alfo a temporary Exemption ^- ?• pa"i-' 
 ftom King Richard II. to the Town of Colchefler for Five Years, in regard of" ""'i' 
 their great Charge in building their Town- Walls : Which fhews that the Bur- ^' ^^'' 
 geffes Wages was then a great Burthen even upon Towns rich and flourifhing 
 in Trade, which were then able to wall their Towns at their own Expence. 
 And I could fliew you more fuch Exemptions as thefe, were it not too tedi- 
 ous ^ and I doubt not but there were many more fuch than what are entted 
 upon the Rolls, 
 
 Now that we »may apply what Mr. Tryn has here fuid, to our prefent Purpofe -, 
 it is granted, that tho' the Sheriffs might fbmetimes opprefs fome Towns by 
 fending Precepts to them to eleft, who ought not to have fent Members to Par- 
 liament at all j yet that he could not make new Boroughs without the Inhabi- 
 tants Confent, is plain by his own fhewing, fince they could be ealed of 
 that Charge whenever they pleafed. And I defire you, or any one elfe, to 
 (hew me any City, or confiderable Town in England, that thus began fiilt to 
 fend Citizens or Burgeffes to Parliament by the Sheriff's Arbitrary Power. Not 
 but that fome Towns might complain of this Abufe of the Sheriffs without any 
 yj& Caule, as in this Petition of Toriton now mentioned, where they fet forth 
 quod villa pr.fdi&a ad mitt end. ahquos homines pro diBa viUa ad farliamenta no- 
 fir a oncrari non debeat, nee aliquos homines frxiiBa villa, ad Parliament a no- ^^^i}^^^^^^.^^ 
 fira vel Yrogenitomm nofironm miferit , nee mittere confueverit ante annum on, pld^m 
 Regni noflri vicefmum frmum, &c. Now tho' this Petition was falfe in Mat- pare 2. " 
 ter of Faft, fince it appears by the former Returns that they had lent Bugeffes to 
 Parliament long before, in the Reigns of Edward I. and II. yet the Ground of 
 their Petition was right, that they ought not to fend any Men to Parliament, 
 unlefs they had been accultomed lb to do in the Time of this King s Pro- 
 genitors ; which had been a vain Plea, if it had been in the Sheriff's Power 
 (as of Right) to have fummoned what Towns they pleafed to Parliament, fince 
 then there could have been no Cuftom pleaded againfl it. 
 
 This being granted by Mr. Pryn, and proved from the Nature of the Thing, 
 we fhall come now more particularly to give an Account how feveral Towns' 
 might come to be put in or left out of the Sheriffs Lifts of the Boroughs, 
 without granting them this Arbitrary Power of making what Boroughs they 
 pleafed. Now thefe 170 Cities and Towns Mr. Pryn has given us, and which 
 have had Precepts fent them at any Time, may be divided into thefe Three Ranks: 
 The Firft is of thofe (who being nine in Number) which he fays never made 
 any Returns to the Precepts fent them, and fo continue to fend no Members 
 to this Day (except Chrift-Q)urch in Hampjhirc.) Now thefe Nine Towns either ^''"^- ^•"■- 
 had a Right to fend Burgefles to Parliament in the King's Reigns, in which ^l^'"' ^''^'^• 
 they received thofe Precepts, or they had not; if they had fuch a Right, the ^'''"^•P-"4' 
 Sheriffs did but their Duty to fend them Precepts as well as--to the reft of the 
 Boroughs of the County. For fure they had fome Rule for doing it, more 
 than their own private Fancies ; fince the very Writ of Summons (from whence you 
 would deduce this Power to the Sheriffs) only recites de qualibet Civitate, Sec. 
 G^ de quolibet Burgo, &c. which had been mighty uncertain, if had not been 
 then very well known what Towns were then Cities, and what Boroughs: And 
 fure thefe Nine Towns muft have then been Boroughs (in Reputation at lealt) or 
 elfe they could never have had one, two, or more Precepts fent them (as Mr. 
 Pryn here owns they liad) and they might have had many more fuch for ought 
 we know, had all the Sheriffs Precepts, and the Returns upon them been preferved, 
 as moft of them are ioft or miflaid, as I fhall fhew more at large by and by. Or if 
 thefe Townb had no Right at all to fend Burgeffes to Parliament, it was not in the 
 Sheriff's Power to impofeit upon them •, fince they might have refufed it if thev 
 pleafed. And fo take it either way, nothing can be argued from the Lofs or Omif- 
 fion of the Returns for thefe Boroughs, that they either had, or had not any 
 
 former 
 3
 
 432 
 
 B I B L I O T H E C A P O L 1 T 1 C A. 
 
 former Right to eleft -, fincethrs might happen from the Negligence of the Bai- 
 liffs, or Conftables of the Town, or elfe from their ownDefire to be excufed from 
 
 loid.p. 20I. the Charge. Thus in the 28th of Edward 1. the Sherift" returns, that the Bailiffs 
 of St. A/bans had made no Return of his Precept : Neither is there any Returns 
 of fuch Precepts to this Borough all the Reign of this King -. Does it therefore 
 follow, That this Town had no more Precepts lent them in all his Reign ?• When 
 I have (hewed you the contrary by the Writs of Expences in the ; 5th of Edward I. 
 Or that they had no other Right to appear in Parliament as a Borough, but what 
 the Sheriff" 's Precept firlt gave them -, when you fte they claimed by their Petition 
 to Edwtird II, to lend Burgeifes to Parliament in the Reign of this King and his Pro- 
 genitors. 
 
 The Second Rank of Towns are fuch for which are found, for fome one, for 
 fome three, and for others more Precepts, with Returns of Elections made there- 
 upon ; and yet thofe that have made the moft Returns do not amount during the 
 Reigns of Edvctu(fs I, II,,^and III. Richard II. Henries iV, V, and VI. to above Thir- 
 teen Returns. Well, gifting all this, will it theretoie follow, that they had no 
 other Right than the Sheriffs good Will and Pleallire ^ Since if they had a Right, 
 and weie willing tp prelerveit, they might have petitioned the King in Parliament 
 againft this Abuie of the Sheriffs. And if they were willing to give up their 
 Right, by Reafon of the great Charge and Trouble of fending their Members, 
 volenti ncnfit injuria. Now does it therefore follow, that no others had any other 
 Right to elfcft, but what the Sheriffs Precept gave them ^ only, forfooth, becaufe 
 no more Returns appear either in the loofe Bundles of Returns, or upon the Claule- 
 RoUs ? Or that therefore there were never any more Elections and Returns made 
 than what Mr. ?ryn has here given us ? Which is a very fallacious Argument, con- 
 fidering how imperfeft thofe Bundles of Returns are, out of which he has ex- 
 traQed them^ moft of the Precepts and Returns being no doubt loft and broke off 
 the Files, in the removing of the Records from one Place to another ^ befides the 
 whole Bundles of Returns of feveral Years in divers Kings Reigns, that are quite 
 loft, or fo miflaid , that no body can find them. And for the Truth of this, 1 ap« 
 peal to Mr. Pctyt, who affures me, he found the Returns of the Knights, Citizens, 
 and Burgeifes to Parliament of the 23d of Edward I. in an old Cheft in the FJxche- 
 guer, among other Things of a quite different Nature^ which Mr. Pryn never faw, 
 or elfe certainly he would have given us the Returns to this Parliamenr, as well as 
 
 Par/. Regift. j^g ^^^^ the Writs of Summons to it: And yet that even theie were not always en- 
 in I. p. 33. ^j.^^ ^p^^ ^j^g Claufe-RoUs, but lay fcattered up and down the Chapel of the 
 White-Tower^ Mr. Fryn alio himfelt confeffes, ( in his Introduction to his third 
 Part of his Parliamentary-Regifter) , " That he found no lefs than Ninety five loofe 
 " Original Writs for Eleftions and Returns of Knights, Citizens, and Burgeifes to 
 " Parliaments and great Councils , in the Reign of £'iit'W III. which were never 
 " entred on the Claufe-Rolls ; and lay there until he found them buried in Duft 
 " and Rubbilh, as well as Oblivion, in a confus'd Chaos, fcattered from each other, 
 " and intermixed with many Hundred Thoulands of other Writs and Records of 
 " various Kinds". Now what if thefe Writs and Returns had nt'ver been -found > 
 So that by his own Shewing , it is no ways certain that there were never any other 
 Writs iffued, or Returns made for the Counties, Cities, and Boroughs, than thofe 
 he had beibre found and publifhed. And he himfclf alio here confeffes, " That by 
 " realbn of the Negligence of Record-Keepers, there are more Writs and Returns 
 " of Eieffions extant from Ibme Counties than for others, though all had the like 
 " Writs fent them ". And if this was lb as to the Counties, it might be likewife lb 
 as to the Cities and Boroughs ; the Returns of which are commonly indorfed on the 
 Back of the Precepts j and where they were not fo indoried, were much more likely 
 to be loft. And farther, that the Claufe-Rolls are no exart Rule fbr the Summons 
 of Knights or Barons of the (inque-Ports and Burgeffes, appears by Mr. Pryris 
 own fliewing; viz. That there are no Writs of Summons to the Cinque-Ports en- 
 
 Srt f '''?■ ^^^^ ^" ^^^ Claule-Rolls, for moft Part of the Years of the Edwards I, II, and III. 
 P'^'*?" in the Lift he has here given us of thofe Years. Now if lb many confiderable 
 Boroughs, as the Cinque-Boroughs, could be rhus omitted, what can we expeO: 
 for moft of the fmaller, and moft inconfiderable Boroughs in England ? 
 
 To conclude this Head -, If by Mr. Pryn\ovm Confcffion, the Entries of Ele^li- 
 ons, and Returns upon the Claule-Rolls, are io very imperfecf ; and that thcloole 
 Bundles ot Summons, Precepts, and Returns, are far more impertecl (,fo many of 
 
 them
 
 Dialogue the Eighth, 4.05 
 
 them being loft) pray tell me, How can he, or any one elfe, frame any Argument 
 from thefe that remain, that there were never any more Precepts to, and Returns 
 irom Cities and Boroughs, thin thofe he has publilhed. 
 
 Bur to come to his Third Rank of Boroughs •, viz. Such as for whom there ap- ihn p. 2n. 
 pear no Precepts nor Returns, till the Reigns of Edwards II, and III. and other 
 fucceeding Kings ; all which Boroughs he therefore fuppofes to have been 
 newly made in thole King's Reigns, becaufe there are no Precepts or Returns 
 from them found Iboner. It muft therefore follow that the Sherifts made all thele 
 Boroughs at their Pleafure-, but Mr.P/;y/z has done well here to add, that they never 
 elefted or returned any before, for ought he can find to the contrary •, fince it 
 might appear to the contrary ffor ought he could tell) if the Returns of the She- 
 riffs in the Reigns of the former Kings had been ftill prelerved ; as appears by 
 the liiltance of the Cinque Ports I jutl now mentioned : Or how could Mr.P/^w 
 tell, but divers of thele Towns might have been created Boroughs by the 
 King's fpecial Writs or Charters, tho' now loft, or perhaps unknown to this Au- 
 thor, who could not be iuppoled to underftand the Original of all the Boroughs 
 in England, their fending Members to Parliament ? But that he is certainly mifta- 
 ken in making feveral Boroughs to have been but new, becaufe no Returns 
 are to be found from them before the Reign oi^ Edward II. may appear by thefe 
 for Example. Firft, Litchfield, which was long before that Time a Bifhop's See 5 
 and fure then if not a City, yet an ancient and confiderable Borough. Secondly, 
 Old Sarum^ which was in the Reign oi' Henry III. a Bifhop's See (till it was re- 
 moved) and if not, was certainly a very ancient Borough, and as fuch fends BurgeJ^ 
 fes by Prefcription to this Day, tho' the Town be quite deftroyed. The like I 
 may lay of Gatton in Sitrry., which tho' Mr. Fryn will have but to be a new Bo- 
 rough , becaufe no Returns appear to have been made for it by the Sheriffs 
 till the Reigns oi' Henry VI. yet this is no certain Rule ; fince it was a very old Bo- 
 rough, and had ancienrly been fo confiderable, as that we find feveral great Coun- 
 cils held at it in the Saxon Times, tho' it be certainly now reduced to a fmall 
 Hamlet of half a fcore Houfes. Now I will leave it to your lelf tojudge,whether the 
 Sheriff would have pitch'd upon ib fmall and inconfiderable a Place as this to 
 make a Borough of, had it never lent any BurgefTes to Parliament before that 
 Time. And I doubt not, but thofe Gentlemen that know the reft of the fmaller 
 Towns Mr. Pryn has there mentioned with Gatton, could fay as much for their 
 Antiquity as Boroughs, if you pleafe to enquire about them. 
 
 But I have held you to3 long upon this Point, and therefore fhall proceed 
 to thofe Two that remain, viz. The Ambition of neighbouring Gentlemen to make 
 as many Boroughs as they could, that they might be chofen at them •, and the 
 Defite of fuch Towns to be made Boroughs, to receive the Advantages of the Mo- 
 ney fpent among them at fuch Elections. The firft of thefe, in the Times we are 
 now fpeaking of, could be no Caufe of their fending Members to Parliament -•• ' 
 Since it is certain, that before the Reign of Henry VIII. none were elected for any 
 City or Town, but Perfbns fi:ee of, or aftually refident in fuch Cities and Bo- 
 roughs j as appears by the Statute of the Firft of Henry V. which does but recite 
 and confirm this ancient Cuftom. So that this Trick of chufing Members for Beef 
 and Ale has been introduced but of late Times, viz. fince the Reign of Henry 
 VIII. when Gentlemen began firft to be chofen for Cities and Boroughs .• And if 
 that is fo, the laft Caufe falls of it felf, viz. The Defire of fuch fmall Towns 
 to eleft i fince if they could get nothing, but rather lofe by their fending Bur- 
 gefTes to Pailiament, and paying them their Wages (as they muft do as long as 
 they chufe from among themfelves) it is unreafonable to believe, that they ever 
 Ihould defire this as a Privilege •, and therefore it is only fince the Negle£t of this 
 good old Law for Wages, that fo many Boroughs (which Mr.P/jw.here mentions 
 to have had Precepts again lent them of late Years to elect Members after fome 
 Age's Intermiffion) defired to have this Privilege renewed to them, as was done 
 in the Cafe of thofe Boroughs he here mentions ; which yet certainly had been ve- 
 ry grofs, and contrary to all common Right, if the Houfe of Commons had not 
 then believed thofe Boroughs to have had higher Right by Prefcription than the ^*"^' ^' ^^^- 
 Sherifts Precepts gave them. As for the laft Rank, viz. thofe Boroughs created 
 by the Writs or Charters of our Kings, I need fay but little, fince this Author 
 here' grants fuch Creations to have been good before the Statute of the 5 th oi' Ri- 
 chard II. but not fiiice j tho' I cannot fee any Reafon for it why he fhould give 
 
 K k k the
 
 43+ 
 
 B I B L 1 O T H E C A P O L 1 T I C A. 
 
 the Sheriffs fuch Power of making new Boroughs afrer this Statute, in the Time 
 of HemyVl. as he does in the Cafe o^Gation, and thole other Boroughs he there 
 mentions with it ; and yet deny this King the lilie Prerogative. And I find no 
 fuch Grant rill the Reign of Edvcari VI. But yet for all this, as I will not fay 
 there were none j fo are there but very few Examples of Charters, that confer 
 upon any City or Borough, a Power to fend Members to Parliament, who had it 
 not before by Prefcription -, tho' I grant that Privilege may be mentioned in the 
 Charter, and fo put it in the Power of the Mayor and Aldermen to eleft for the 
 future -/when it was the whole Populace, or all the Inhabitants of that Town thac 
 were to ele£t before : Of which I could give feveral Inftances, were I not Itreight- 
 ned in Point of Time. 
 
 But to fliew you from the verv Statutes themfelves thatMr.Pryw has here cited, 
 that the Right of the Cities and Boroughs to appear in Parliament, was not anci- 
 ently looked upon to have had no other Original than the Favour of the Sheriffs j 
 pray read thefe Claules of the Statutes he has here quoted : The firft is that me- 
 morable Statute of the 5th oi Richard II. 2 Par/, c. 5. (now mentioned, and which 
 lb.p.240,241, J j,3^:g gijggjjy citcd) which cxprefly enafts, " That all and fnigular Perfbns and 
 " Commonalties which from henceforth Ihall for Time to come have Summons of 
 " Parliament, (hall come from henceforth as before to Parliaments, in the Manner 
 " as they be bound to do, and hath been accuftomed within the Realm oi' Enghmi 
 " of old Time. And whatever Perfon of the faid Realm, which from henceforth 
 " f hall have the faid Summons (be he Archbifliop, Bifhop, Abbot, Prior, Duke, 
 " Earl, Baron, Banneret, Knight of Shire, Citizen of City, Burgefs of Burgh, 
 " or other fingular Perfon or Commonalty) do abftnt himfelf, and come not at 
 " the faid Summons, (except he may reafonably and lawfully excufe himfelf 
 " to our Sovereign Lord the King) he fliall be amerced, and otherwife punifhed, 
 •' according as of old Times hath been ufed to be done within the faid Realm in 
 " the faid Cafe. And if any Sheriff of the Realm be henceforth negligent in ma- 
 *' king his Returns of the Writs of the Parliaments, or that he fhall leave out of 
 " the laid Returns any Cities or Boroughs which he bound, and of old Times were 
 " wont to come to Parliament, he Ihall be punifhed in the Manner as was accu- 
 " Itomed to be done in the faid Cafe oi^ old Time, in the french (d' Amieme'".) 
 From which Statute we may draw thefe Conclufions : Firft, That the Knights, Ci-' 
 tizens and Burgeffes, are fuppofed by this Statute to have a like Right to have 
 Summons to Parliaments as hath been accuftomed of old Time, as well as the Lords 
 Spiritual and Temporal here mentioned. Secondly, That by thele Words, have 
 been accuftomed of old Time (or d' Ancieme, as it is in the french Record) we 
 are to underftand a general Cuftom of the Realm, Time out of Mind, that is, by 
 Prefcription : So that if the Bifhops, Abbots, and Temporal Lords, are here ac- 
 knowledged to have had a Right to fit in Parliament by Prefcription ^ lb have the 
 Commons likewife by the fame Words equally applied to all the Orders here men- 
 tioned. Laftly, That if any Sheriff (hall negleft in making Returns of any fuch 
 Cities and Boroughs, which were thus bound to come to Parliament of Old Time, 
 he (hall be punilhed, as hath been accuftomed to be done in all Time palt (or d" 
 Jincieme.) Now pray tell me with whatColour of Juftice,the Sheriffs could be thus 
 punifh'd, if there had been no certain Rule to know what Cities and Boroughs 
 were bound to come to Parliament of Old Time, but it had been wholly left at the 
 Sheriff's Dilcretion which they Ihould fummons, and which they Ihould omit ? Let 
 us next compare this with the Statute of the 2^doi^ Henry VI. c. 15. (which Mr 
 Tryn has here alfo given us) reciting, " That divers Sheriffs of Counties have. 
 " fometimes returned none of the Knights, Citizens and Burgeffes lawfully chofen 
 " to come to the Parliaments -, but fuch Knights,Citizens and Burgeffes have been re- 
 " turned, which were never duly cholen, and other Citizens and Burgeffes than 
 " thofe which by the Mayor and Bailiffs were to the faid Sheriffs returned, and 
 " moreover by no Precepts to the Mayors and Bailiffs, or to the BaiUift' or Bai- 
 " liffs, where no Mayor is, for the Electing of Citizens and Burgeffes to come to 
 " the Parliament ; and then appoints the Penalties for the faid Abufes and Neglefts. 
 Now pray tell me, whether this bare Abufe of the Sheriffs, and Negle^^l: of the 
 Duty of their Office, here condemned by this Statute (and lor which the Statute 
 of Richard II. declares them punifhable at Common Law, as this Aft makes 
 them liable to it by Statute-Law) could give them llich an Arbitrary Power, as 
 this Author fancies j much kfs can ferve to corroborate " his Opinion (as he here 
 
 " fuppoles
 
 Dialogue the Eighth. 
 
 435 
 
 " fuppofes it does) concerning the true Original, Continuance, Difcontinuance, 
 " Reviving and Antiquating Parliamentary Cities and Borouglis, not by Charters,and 
 " Patents from the King, or Prefcription Time out of Mind, but by the Sheriffs 
 " Power and Arbitrary Returns, by the forecited general Claufes in their Writs ? 
 
 But (ince I confefs I have dwelt toolongonmyAnftvcr toMr. P;j;7's Arguments, 
 I (hall conclude with only giving you one Record, which I hope v\'ill futficiently 
 fatisfy you, that not only St. Albans, but leveral other aiicient Boroughs claimed 
 to fend Burgeffes to Parliament by Prefcription : Which appears by aWrit or Com- pjrt i. m. 
 mifTion from the King, reciting a Petition of the Town of Biinijlip/e to King Ed- dorjo. ' 
 zuiird III. and his Council in Parliament, which is alio to be found in the Patent- 
 Rolls of the 17th of this King, fctting forth , Tiiat the faid Town hath been a 
 Free Borough a tempore cujus contrarij mcmoi-'ia ncn exijlit ; and as fuch, enjoyed 
 divers Liberties, and Frec-Cuftoms, by a Charter of King Athelfian : And this 
 among others, ac quod adfmguk '^arl'umcnta nojl/tt., iif diUorum Antecefforuvi no- 
 flrorum, (among which the laid King Athelftun mult ceitainly be reckoned for one) 
 duos Burgenfes pro Cummunhate ejufdem Burgi mittcre folebant :, and therefore that 
 Charter being loft, they defire a Confirmation of it from the King. Whereupon he 
 by this Commiflion direEls a Writ of Enquiry to feveral Gentlemen and others 
 therein mentioned, to enquire if the faid BurgeflTes had enjoyed all thofe Liber- 
 ties fo granted by the faid Charter of King Athelfian, or not. Which would have 
 been ridiculous, if the King and Council had been fatisfied that no Cities and 
 Boroughs fent any Members to Parliament under the Saxon Kings, or at leaft 
 before the 49th of Henry IIL And this Authority is the more remarkable, becaufe 
 Barnflapk is one of Mr. Fryns modern Boroughs, for which he can find no Pre- 
 cepts or Returns earlier than the 26th 0^ Edward IIL tho', no doubt, as appears 
 by this their Petition, in the 17th of this King, it had lent BurgeflTes to Parliament 
 many Ages before, tho' the Precepts and Returns upon them be all loft. 
 
 And that not only the Cities and Boroughs do thus claim by Prefcription, but that 
 the Knights of Shires have always claimed the fame Privilege, may appear by ano- m. 5.^45, 
 ther Pecirion of the Commons Houfe, extant on the Pa Xiamen r-Rolls of the 51ft 
 oi^ Edward III. which I (hall contract and put into Englijh out 0^ French, reciting 
 thus, '^ Becaufe of Common Right (in the Roll de Commune droit) of the Realm 
 *' there are, and fhall be elected Two from every County of England to come to 
 " Parliament for the Gnmnne of the faid Counties .• And alfb the Prelates, Dukes, 
 " Barons, Counts Barons, and fuch as hold by Barony, which are, and fhall be 
 " fummoiied by Writs to come to Parliament, except the Cities and Boroughs 
 " who ought to elecl from among themfelves fuch as ought to anfwer for them. 
 
 Whence we may conclude, that the Commons then claimed to come to Par- 
 liament of Common Right, (that is, by Common Law, or general Cuftom of 
 the Realm, Time out of Mind) as much as the Bifliops, Abbots and great 
 Lords. 2. That neither the Bifhops, Lords, nor Tenants in Cipite, had any Au- 
 thority to impofe Taxes, or make Laws for the Commons of the Counties, or 
 thefe for the Cities and Boroughs, without their Confents •, becaufe they had each 
 of them Reprefentatives of their own Order to anfwer for them in Parliament. 
 
 M- Imuftconfefs this would have been abfolutely convincing, could we havefeen 
 this Charter of King Atheljians-, but fince the Towns-men o{ Barnjhiplc do only in 
 theii Petition (among others) fet forth this Privilege offending Burgelles to Parlia- 
 ment i now who can tell whether there were any fuch Thing in their Charter or 
 not i fince they confefs they had loft it ? Or granting it was as they fet forth, yet this 
 will fufficiently evince, that the Right of Cities and Boroughs to fend their Repre- 
 fentatives to Parliaments, was not, as you fuppofe, as ancient as the Government, 
 but had its Original from the Grants and Charters of former Kings. 
 
 E As to thele Objeflions, we can have but all the Proof that this Subjef^ is 
 capable of at fuch a Diftance of Time : But if I were a Jury -Man in this Matter, 
 I fhould rather believe that the Town of Barnftaplc had fuch Charter not long be- 
 fore they made this Petition to King Edward III. and that there was fuch Claufe 
 therein as they here fet forth ; than that thefe Towns-men fhould be fo impudent 
 as to deiire a new Charter of Confirmation from him of all their Privileges (of 
 which this of dealing BurgefTes was one) if there had never been any fuch Claufe 
 in ix at all. But as for the other Objetfion, That if it were fo, then it appears 
 that all the Right of Cities and Boroughs fending Members to Parliament, is deri- 
 ved from the Grams and Charters of former Kings ^ it is very fallacious ^ as you will 
 
 K k k 2 "find 
 
 29.
 
 43<^ 
 
 BlBLTOTHECA PoLlTlC 
 
 find if you confider and compare the ancient Right of the Bifhops and Abbots, as alio 
 of all the Temporal Nobility, to come to the great Council of the Kingdom. Which, 
 as to the firftof them, I proved to be as ancient asChriftianity it felf, among the En- 
 glifh Saxons : And as for the Priefthood and Nobility in general, to have been as old 
 as thelnltitution of the Government it felf Now, though you grant that long before 
 theConqueft our Kings had the Nomination of Bifhops and Abbots, and alio the ma- 
 king of Aldermen, Earls, and Tljancs, who made the Temporal Nobility in thofe great 
 Councils ; will it therefore follow. That becaufe our Kings were thus entrufted by 
 thePeoplewith this Prerogative of naming and invettingBilhopsand Abbots/;fril;z- 
 nuhm ^ Baculum, and alio of creating thole great Men now mentioned \ that there- 
 fore all the Right either Order had to appear at thole Councils, not only pro- 
 ceeded from, but depended wholly on the King's good Will andPleafure^ and that 
 he could have chofen whether he would have named any BKhops or Abbots to va- 
 cant Sees and Abbeys, or made any Aldermen, Earls, and Thanes, or not •, but have 
 changed thewhole Frame of the Government into an Ablolute Delpotick Monar- 
 chy, by deftroying or omitting the Members of the great Council of the Kingdom j- 
 whether you believe the Clergy, Nobility, and People would have fuftered any of 
 thofe Kings to have madefuch an Innovation ? Apply this to the Right of moft of the 
 ancient Cities and Boroughs in Englani, and fee if it do not exactly agree with this 
 parallel Cafe of the Bifhops, Abbots, and Temporal Nobility; fince as there were 
 Frielts and Nobles, who from the very firft Inftitution of our great Councils did not 
 owe their Original to the King, but brought it with them out o^ Germany, and to 
 whole Suffrages the firft Saxon Kings owed their EleQions ; fo no doubt were there 
 divers Cities and Towns in England lb confiderable from the Time of the Expulfion 
 of the Britons, that it was thought fit to pitch upon them as moft able to fend 
 Reprefentatives to the great Councils of the Nation, that lb they might imitate 
 their old Government in their own Countrey, in which the great Cities and Towns 
 had always a confiderable Share, asthey have in the Gf/7/w« Diets tothisDay; tho' 
 the King might then (as he is now) be entrufted with the Prerogative of making 
 new Cities and Boroughs with like Privilege with the old ones •, tho' this was but 
 rarely praftifed till the Reign o'l Ja7nes\. The Two Univerfities being Ibme of the 
 firft Corporations on which he conferr'd this Privilege by Charter of elefting and 
 fending Burgelfes to Parliament -, which Power has,l confels, been exercifed even to 
 a Grievance in the Reigns of his Son, and Grandlbns ^ fo that it were to be wifh'd, 
 that there was a Law paflTed, that no new City or Borough Ihould be made for the 
 future without an exprefs AQ of Parliament. 
 
 Now I would very gladly hear what you can farther lay to lb many weighty Au- 
 thorities, which I have now given you; for evident it is, that if they are compared 
 and confidered in Series of Time, that neither Edward lid or Illd, nor their Judges 
 or learned Councils,no nor the Parliaments of their,and fucceeding Times, had ever 
 heard any Thing of Di. B'-ad/s Annus Mirabi/is, or 49th of Henry III. which was 
 but 45 Years before the Reign of Edward II. his Grand-child, and little above 60 
 Years before that of Edward his great Grandlbn. 
 
 M. Well notwithftanding all this, whofoever will refleO: upon what the DoQor 
 hath writ, may fufpeft that the Judges (nay Parliaments) were very ignorant in the 
 B. A. r. p. 1 3. Hiftory of this Nation, or that they fpoke out of Defign. And it is a great Argu- 
 ment that the Lawyers ftudied and knew only Popular and Lucrative Law,and not the 
 Conftitutions of the Nation before their own Time. And tho' I muft confels what 
 you have now faid may leem to me to carry fome weight with it ; yet fince I do 
 rot eafily change my Opinion, upon the firft hearing of a new Argument or Autho- 
 rity ,give me leave better to confider what you have faid. But in the mean Time,fince 
 you have now mentioned the German Diets,. pray Sir, before we leave off, Ihew me 
 what you undertook to prove at the firft Entrance on this Subjeft ^ viz. That in 
 all the great Councils, or Affemblies of States in Europe, which are derived from 
 xfieGermans and Goths, there are found Reprefentatives for the Plebeians or Com- 
 mons, diftin^: from the Clergy, and greater and leffer Nobility. 
 
 F. I readily agree to your Defires, but fince my own Notes concerning this Mat- 
 ter are very long, and that I have them not about me; Pray give me leave to make 
 ule of the Authority ofDt.Heylin, an Author you have no Reafon to look upon as 
 partial, lince he was not only remarkable for his great Skill in Hiftory, but alio 
 as being a great Friend and Dilciple to Sir Robert lilmer in Politicks, was a ve- 
 hement Affertorof Abfolute Monarchy, and an utter E-nemy to the Power of Par- 
 liaments 5
 
 dialogue the Eighth. aqj 
 
 liaments; yet this very Perfon in his Treatife called, The Stimbltni ofDif obedience 
 and Rebellion, &c. printed 1658. in his 5 th Chapter (I have already quoted for the 
 Inferior Clergy being anciently a Part of the great Council or Parliament of the 
 KingdoBi ) proves the Uniformity of the Three Eftates to have been the 
 fame in all the Chriftian Kingdoms on this fide 0? Europe. He runs through them 
 all, beginning with Germany^ which I fhall conrraft, becaufe he there fays a great 
 many other Things not fo material to our prelent Purpofe. 
 
 And firft, beginning (as ol" right) with the German Empire, T/;«^;?«f gives this Auguft. Ttman. 
 Note in general, Imperium in trta omnino membra dividitur, that the Empire is di- ^'Ji- ''*• i- 
 vided into Three Folates, over all which the Emperor is the Head orSupream Prince. 
 Of thefe the firit Eltate is ex f aero Ordine, of the holy Hierarchy,compoikd ofthe three 
 Spiritual E/effors, together with the Refidue of the Archbifhops and Bi(hops, and 
 many Abbots, Priors, and other Prelates. The iecond is of the Nobility, con- 
 fifting of Three Temporal Ekclcrs, the Dukes, Marqueffes, Lantgraves, Burgraves, 
 Earls, and Barons, of which there is no determinate Number ; the Emperor having 
 Power to add daily to them, as he fees Occafion. The Third EJiate is of the free 
 ov Imperial C'mcs, in Number Sixty, or thereabouts , who reprefent themfelves at 
 the General Diets, by fuch Commiflioners or Deputies as are authorized to that 
 Purpofe. 
 
 Next pals we over into France, and there we find the SubjeQs marfhalled in- 
 to Three Ejlates, whereof the Clergy is the firft. Rex coaBis tribus Ordinibus, Sa- 
 cerdotio, Nobilitate, Plebe, fubfidia rei pecuniari.e petiit. So Pau/us JEmilu/s doth 
 inform us. Out of thefe Three are cholen certain Delegates or Commiflioners, 
 fome for each Ejlate, as often as the King's Occafions do require their Meetings the 
 Time and Place whereof is ablblutely left unto his Difpofing : And thefe thus met 
 do make up the Conventi/s Ordinuni, or VAJfemblie des EJiats, as the Frenchmen 
 call it, in Form much like the. En^lijl? Parliament : [And of the Meeting of thefe 
 Three EjJates, not only this Author, but all the other French Hiftorians ; and in 
 particular Phil, de Commines make frequent mention."] 
 
 Pafs we nexr over the Pyrenees, to the Realms of Spain , and we fliall find in Bodin. di r.c- 
 cach the lame TJjrce EJfates, whofe Meeting they call there by the Name of Curia, lub. lib. 3. 
 (in Spanipthe Cortuz)or chief Court, ya.r''cJto')Si', by Way of Eminency ; confifting 
 cf the Clergy, the Nobility, and the Commiffioners of the Provinces, and moft An- 
 cient Cities. For Proof of which, we need but look into the General HiJIory of 
 Spain, tranllated out of French by Grimflon, and we (hall find a Court of Parlia- cen. Hifl. of 
 ment for the Realm of Aragon, confifting of the Bifhops, Nobles, and Deputies of Spain, 1. 14. 
 Toir^ns and Cotnmonalties, having Place in the /aid EJiates, convened by King James 
 at Saragojjj , Anno 1325, for fettling the Succeflion , and declaring the Right Heir. 
 Alio for Cajlile, we find a Parliament of Lords, Prelates, and Deputies of Towns 
 fummoned azToledo by Alfonfo the Noble, Anno 1210, upon Occafion of an Invafi- 
 on made by the Aloors : Another before that at Burgos, under the fame King, An- Ulib. 10. 
 no 1179, for levying of Money on the People to maintain the Wars. Alio that 
 great Convention of the States held at Toledo by Ferdinand the Catholick, 1479, 
 Jor fwearing to the SuccefTion of his Son Don John ; in which the Prelates, the ^'" ''^^ 
 Nobility, and almoft all the Towns and Cities which fent Commiflioners to the 
 AlTembly, are exprefsly named. Thus do we alfo find a Meeting of the Deputies 
 of the Three EJiates of Navarre at the Town oi'Tafalla, Anno 148 1, for preierving 
 the Kingdom in Obedience to King Francis Ph£bus, being then a Alinor, under '*' '^* 
 Age : And for Portugal, that the Deputies of the Clergy, Nobility, Provinces and 
 good Towns of Portugal, alfembled at Tomara, Anno i;8i , to acknowledge Philip 
 the lid for their King , and to fettle the Government of that Kingdom for the 
 Times to come. W.//A. jo. 
 
 Now let us take a View of the Northern Kingdoms, and ftill we find the Peo- 
 ple ranked in the felf fame Manner ; and their great Councils to confift of the 
 Clergy, the Nobility, and certain Deputies, lent from the Provinces and Cities, as in 
 thole before. In Hungary, before that Realm received the Gofpel, we read of none Bonfinlus in 
 bnr Nobiles ^Plebeii, the Nobility and Common People, who did concur to tlie yf'/'l"^"* 
 EleQion of their Kings •, but no fooner was the Faith of Chrijl admitted , and a 
 Clergy inftituted, but inftantly we find a Third Eftate, Epifcopos i!f Sacerdutum i^{ j,,jj^ p^,^. 
 Collegia , Bifhops and others of the Clergy fuperadded to them, for the Eleftion of 2. l.i. 
 the Kings, and the Difpatch of other Bulinefs, which concerned the Publick, as it 
 continueth to this Day. In Denmark we Ihall find the fame, if we mark it well. /,/. p^.,.,/ j. 
 
 For 
 
 ?•
 
 43« 
 
 B I B L 1 O T H E C A P O L I T I C A. 
 
 Vontan. in Vo- Fotthough Tontunus feem to count upon Five Ef cites , making the Regal Familv 
 ru iii nipt. U ■iQ ^e tlie tiift, and fubdividing the Commons into Two ; whereof the Yeomanry 
 
 '" '^'^Dif^Ty-''^^^^^ ^"^' ^"^ ^^^^ Tradefman or Citizen the other : Yet in the Body of the Hi- 
 rum ante. •7* £^Qj.y ^,g^j^^ Q,ijy -j^.^^^ which are the Bijh-fs, the ?\ob!liry, znd Cro'itatiimDele- 
 
 gati, the Deputies or CommidriOners of Towns and Cities. For Sweden^ it comes 
 near the Government and Forms of Denmark^ and hath the fame Eftatcs and De- 
 grees of People, as amongft the Dtf/7t^j ; that is to fay, Procrrest> KJii/es^ the greater 
 and thelef, Nobility •. EpifcopiiS/ Eccle/iaftid, the Biiliops-and Inferior Clergy \Croita- 
 tes ^ Vniverfitotcs, the Citiesand Towns Corporace, (forfb Ithink he means by Uni- 
 ■ ' ' ' ^ ' ■ verfitdtes,) as Thieanits muftereth them. [To which we may alfo add (tho' here omitted 
 by this Author ) the Delegates of the Rufticks or Huilandmen, who make a 
 Fourth Eftate in the Aflembly of Eftates in this Kingdom.] Where the Bifhops 
 and- Clergy enjoy the Place and Privileges of the Third Eitate (notwithftanding. 
 tiie Alteration of Religion) to this very Day •, the Bifhops in their own Perfons^ 
 and a certain Number of the Clergy out of every Sochen, ( a Divifion like our 
 Rin-alDcanries,) in the Name of the reit, having a neceflary Vote in all their 
 Parliaments. [And this Sw^c^i/Z' great Council is the more remarkable, becaufe it 
 comes very near our Conftitution in England^ in which I proved the Inferior 
 Clergy, and the Commons (not excepting the meaneft Freeholders) anciently- 
 had their Reprefentatives. 
 
 So that it had been the ftrangeft Thing that could have been obferved in all the 
 Political Conftitutions on this Side of Europe, if that of England, tho' defcended 
 from the fame Gothick Original, and founded according to the fame Model, 
 fhould have had no Reprelentatives for the Commons or Plebeians in their great 
 Councils, or Parliaments. Dr. Heylin here concludes witli Scotland and England -, 
 the former of which, fince you agree to have had from all Times, Citizens and 
 Burgefles in iheir great Councils or Parliaments, I need not repeat what is there 
 faid, fince it is no more than what you your felf have granted ; and as for England^ 
 he owns, (as appears by the Paflages I have already cited out of this Chapter,) 
 Page 191. *^3f ^^^ Clergy, Nobility, and People were called to a Parliament held under 
 Henry II. at ClerkcmxeU. 
 
 JSi. I will not deny, but there were -Reprefentatives of the Cities and great 
 Towns, in the great Councils or Aflembly of Eftates of all thole Kingdoms you 
 have now mentioned out of Dr. Hcylins Treatile-, yet whether they were there 
 from the very firft Inftitution of thofe Governments is much to be doubted. But 
 fince I have not now Leifure to enquire into the Original of all thefe Kingdoms j, 
 nor at what Time each State began to come to thefe great Councils 5 give me 
 leave in the mean Time to remark, That ail thefe Kingdoms (except Sweden) 
 came nearer to that Conftitution which we fuppole to have been anciently 'm 
 England and Scotland, and alfo other Kingdoms where Feudatory Tenures were 
 B.A.P. p. pd.oblerved, and confequently none but the Chief Lords or Barons by Knights Ser- 
 Service, and that held of the King -, fo that all thofe Foreign Councils, or 
 .' Dyets, ifc. at firft were all the lame, as confitting of Emperors or Kings with 
 their Earls and Barons, Bifhops, and great Officers •, as is evident from all the old 
 Vid.Recoldus German and French Authors. And fince Cities fent Deputies in Germany and Italy^ 
 Difcurfus Polit.xiiQy were only from Imperial Cities j the like I believe would be found in France^ 
 p. 125. gj^jj j.|^^jg (j^-j^Pf Kingdoms you have now mentioned ; but you cannot fhew me, 
 
 (unlefs in 5ar(^r/7) any Reprefentatives elected by the Common People, or Ru- 
 fticks, diftinft from the Nobility and Gentry ;, like our Knights of Shires in 
 England. So that I ftill doubt., whether all the Reprelentatives of the great Lords, 
 and other Nobility that appeared in the Councils of thefe Kingdoms were not all 
 Tenants :n Capite, and no other. 
 
 F. That this is a meer Surmife of yours, I think I can eafily prove •, for in 
 the firft Place, as for the Bifhops, Abbots, and Clergy, who ftill made the firft 
 Eftates in all thefe Kingdoms ; nothing is more certain, than that they never any 
 of them held of the King by Knight's Service, and therefore could not fit 
 in rheir great Councils by that Tenure -, that Inftitution being for ought as I know,^ 
 peculiar to England, and introduced by your Conqueror, as you your felf 
 acknowledge. And as for the Temporal Nobility, you will find, that in France, 
 not only thofe Noblemen that held of the King by Military Service, but thole 
 Hfho held in I'lbero Alodio, without any fuch Service at all, had Places, either by 
 themfelves or tlisir Deputies, in the Aflembly of the Eftates. So likewife for the 
 
 3 Cities
 
 Dialogue the Eighth. ac>9 
 
 Cities and Towns that fent Deputies to it, I believe you wiil not find that any 
 of them held of the King inCdpite. And to come to Germany ^ you are likewife as 
 much miftaken, in fancying that all the Imperial Cities were fubjeft immedi- 
 ately to the Emperor before they became fo. For Hamburgh and Lubec were once 
 fubjeft to their own Princes ; the former to the Duke of Ho/ftem and S/efiuic/c, and ^''^•7- ^'^'^l- 
 the latter to Earls of its own 5 till at laft they either purchaftd their Liberties 'J''''*'';*-*;^'" 
 they enjoy from their Princes, or elfe calf them off, and were after received into Luc^'civ' 
 the Body of the Diet by the Bulls or Charters of leveral Emperors. And fb like- 2. p. 30. 
 wile Bninfvcuk was always a free City, till it was united to the Empire by its 
 ewn Conlent. I could fhew you the like of feveral other Cities, now called Im- 
 perial, who held anciently not of the Emperor, but either of their own Earls, or 
 Bifhops ; though I grant it was the Charters of the Emperor with the Content of 
 the Diet, that gave them a Place in thofe AlTemblies. And though it is true, that 
 in all the reft of thefe Kingdoms, the meer Ruiticks or Pealants have no Re- 
 prelentatives in their great Councils; yet this makes no Alteration in the Cafe, if 
 you pleafe to confider it ^ for the Nobility and Gentry are the only true and pro- 
 per Owners of the Lands of thofe Kingdoms ; all the Ruiticks or Pealants being 
 meer VafTals, and in Yrance almoft Slaves to their Nobility and Gentry, who (as 
 I have aheady faid) had all alike Votes in their AfTembly of Eltates, as well 
 thofe who held of the King in Chief by Knights Service, as thofe that did not. 
 Whereas it was always far otherwife in England, where the meaneft Freeholder 
 was always as free as to his Perfon and Eftate, as the greateft Lord of whom he 
 held. And hence it is, that we have had from all Times thofe of the Degree of 
 Yeomen, fo peculiar to England, as fortefcue in his Treatile de LaudibusLegum 
 Anglic takes Notice, who if they lived on their own Lands, had no more Depen- 
 dance on the Noblemen and Gentlemen, than they have now •, and therefore it 
 was but Reafon, that thefe fliould have their Reprefentatives in Parliamenr, as 
 well as the Inhabitants of the Cities and Boroughs, who had moft of them a &: 
 lefs Share in the Riches and real Eltates of the Kingdom. Secondly, Pray take 
 Notice, that in the reft of the Kingdoms of f'/z/v/e, except England and Scot/and^ 
 there was no Difference in Point of Privileges as to being Taxed, or having Voices 
 in the great Council of the Kingdom, between the higher Nobility, fuch as had 
 the Titles of Dukes, Marqueffes, and Counts ; and fimple Gentlemen. Whereas 
 in England it has been always otherwife (at leaft fince theConqueft) ; and the Earls, 
 and Barons had by their Tenures, Places as Lords or Peers in the great Council 
 of the Kingdom, and fo made a diftin£t Body firom the reft of the People ; where- 
 as in other Countries, the higher Nobility and Gentry are reckon'd. as all one 
 Eftate i and therefore it was but Reafon, that the reft of the Inferior Nobility or 
 Gentry, fhould have their Reprefentatives in this great Council, or Parliament, 
 or otherwife they would have been as very Vaflals as to their Eftates, to the great 
 Barons and Tenants in Capite, as the Boors in Germany, or the Pealants in France 
 wete to their Lords, by whom they were taxed at their Pleafures •, which they 
 never were in England, as we can find either from Hiftory or Records. So that 
 though I grant that it is the municipal Laws of each Kingdom or Nation, that 
 muft determine what are the governing Part of the People in thofe Countries ; yet 
 though that was not abfolutely the fame in all of them as it is in England, yet we 
 find it fo in the main-, and the Reprefentatives of the Cities and Towns do fuffi- 
 ciently affert the Right of the Plebeians or Common People, who make the Third 
 Eftate in thofe great Councils. But I muft here except Sweden, in which it is 
 certain, that the meer Rufticks or Boors had always their own I)eputies in their 
 Diets, as well as the Cities and Towns \ and \i Sweden had this Privilege, I cannot 
 fee why the Englijh Gentry and Yeomanry ( who with us make but one Body of 
 Commons) might not have had the like, till you can ihew me more fufficient 
 Proofs to the contrary. 
 
 M. Well, Sir, 1 fiiall confider of what you fay. But fince it grows late, that we 
 may wind up this Converfition as faft as we can, give me leave to tell you, that 
 though I Ihould admit all that you have hitherto averred for Truth, and that we 
 fhould grant the Common'i of England to have been as Ancient a Part of the great 
 Council, or Parliaments, as any of the other Two : What is that to the main 
 Point in Queftion between us, viz. that of Non-refiftance of the King upon any Ac- 
 count whatfoever ? Or how can you ]uftily thofe of the Clergy, Nobility, and Gen- 
 try of the Church of England, for uking up Arms againft tfjeprefent King, and con- 
 
 3 tributing
 
 440 
 
 B I B L I O T H E C A P O L 1 T'l C A. 
 
 tfibuting fo much as they have done to the driving him away, and in bringing 
 Things to this Confufion they are now in? Since, let your Conttitution of Great 
 • Councils and Parliaments be never fo Ancient, lee us alio for once fuppofe them (as 
 you do) to have a Share in the Legiflative Power of the Nation, yet how can this 
 Authorize them (m.uch lefs any private Perfons out of Parliament) to take up Arms 
 againft the King, or thofe Commiffionedby him? Since the whole Current, both of 
 Common as well as Sratute-Law runs direftly againft you •, and all with one Con- 
 fent affert. That the Difpofal of the Militia, or Military Force of the Kingdom, has 
 been even fo abfolutely in the King's Power, and at his Difpofal, that no Man 
 can without being guilty of Treafon, take up Arms (whether oftenfive^ or defen- 
 Cve ) without his Commiflion to authorize him to do it. So that no Government 
 in the World is more averfe to all forcible Refiftance than our own ; the King 
 having been even from your Time beyond Memory fo fully poffefs'd of the whole 
 Militia, or Power of raifing offenfive or defenfive Arms in this Kingdom, that it is ex- 
 prelly forbidden by the Statute of the 7th oi' Edward I. againft coming to Parliaments 
 and Treaties with Force of Arms •, in which the King fets forth. That in the Lift Parlia- 
 ment, the Prelates^ Earls, Barons, and the CommonsHiy, ( in Lai in Communhas, or 
 Body of thePcalm ) have /aid, that to us ( i. e. to iheKin^ ) it belongeth, and our part 
 it is through our Royal Seigneury, to defend (that is, in old Fremh, to forbid ) Force of 
 Armour, and all other Force againft our Peace, at all limes when it fhallpleafc us^ 
 and to punijh them according to our haws and Ufages of our Realm ; and hereunto 
 they are hound to Aid us as their Sovereign Lord, as oft as ncedftkill lie. From 
 whence you may obferve, that it is the King s Prerogative to forbid all manner of 
 Arms, or Ari^ied Force within the Realm ; fo that no Man can lawfully Arm him- 
 lelf without his Authority. And this is further confirmed by the Statute of 25 
 Edward III. concerning Treafons ^ wherein it is declared, (without any excepted 
 Cafes to the contrary ) That to levy War againft cur Lord the King in this Realm^ 
 cr to he adherent to the King 's Enemies in his Realm, giving them Aid or Comfort in 
 the Realm, or elfewhere, is Treafon. And '$i\x Edward Coke upon this Statute faith 
 thus, That this was High Treafon before by the Common Law ; for no SuhjeB can 
 Levy War within the Realm, without Authority from the King ^ and if any Man Levy 
 War to expulfe Strangers, to deliver Alen out of Prifons, to remove wicked Coun- 
 fellors, or againft any Statute, or to any other End, pretending Reformation, on their 
 own Heads, mthout Warrant, this is Levying cf War againft the King, becaufe they 
 take upon them Royal Authority. From which Statute, as alfb from your own 
 Oracle's, (Sir Edward GjAy's) Interpretation of it, you may obferve that ic was not 
 only Treafon to make War againft the KingsPerfbn, but to take Arms to make any 
 Reformation or Alteration in Church or State, without the King's Authority. Nor 
 can any Subjtft of England juftify the taking Arms upon any Account whatfbever, 
 unlefs it be by the King's Commiflion. And therefore all the Judges oi England, in 
 Vide Dyer' J- the Cafe of Dr. Story, who -was Executed for Treafon in the Reign of Queen Eli- 
 Reports, zabcth, did with one Confent agree, that the very Confultation concerning making 
 War againft the Queen, fhall be interpreted a making War againft her Perfon, and 
 fuppotes a Defign againft her Life. So that nothing feems plainer to me, than that 
 by the Ancient as well as Modern Laws oi England, all defenfive as well as oftenfive 
 Arms, are exprefly forbidden and condemned. 
 
 Fl I think 1 (hall be able to make out, notwiihftanding what you have now faid. 
 That all Refiftance of the King, or thole Commifiioned by him, is fo far from be- 
 ing Treafon, as you fuppofe, that it is every Man's Duty to oppofe him, in Cafe 
 he goes about to fet up, inftead of a Legal Monarchy, a Tyrannical Arbitrary- 
 Power in this Nation, fince this is but to preferve the Original Conftitution of 
 Parliaments, which in fome Cafes cannot be maintained without fuch a Refiftance 
 he allowed. But to proceed to the Authorities you bring from our Statutes ; As for 
 the firft you urge, from that 7th of Edward I. I think that can by no means do 
 the Bufinefsfbr which you delign it •, for in the tirft Place, this is only a Declaration 
 ofthe Bifliops, Lords and Commons of the Land, that it belongs to the King to 
 defend (/. ^. forbid) all Force of Arms : But mark. Sir, vv^hat Force: Sure it is 
 only meant of fuch Force as belongs to the K.ing's Prerogative to forbid 5 viz. 
 Force of Arms againft the Publick Peace, and fuch as he might punhh according 
 to the Laws and Ufages of the Realm ; and therefore the Statute exprefly declares, 
 that ( as Subiefts ) they are hereunto bound to Aid him their Sovereign Lord the 
 King at all Times, when Need fhall be •, but does this AQ anv where fay, that 
 
 he
 
 ^Dialogue the Eighth, aa\ 
 
 he hath an irrefiftible Power to difturb this Peace by his own private Illegal Commif^ 
 fions, or that any Men are bound to affift him in it ; or becaule (for ExampleJ he 
 hath Authority to punifh all Men according to Law that (hall come to Parliaments 
 with Force of Arms, that therefore he hath an unlimited Power of raifing what 
 Forces he would, and imprifoning ordeftroying the whole Parliament it' he plealed, 
 and that no body might refift him, if he had gone about fo to do. The like may be 
 iaid, if the King (hould notorioufly and infupportably by Force invade all the Civil 
 Liberties and Properties of his Subie£ls,by levyingTaxes, or taking away their Eftates 
 by downright Force, contrary to Law. Now can any body in his Senfes believe that 
 the A£l of 25th oi Edward 111. was made to prevent all Refiftance of fuch Tyrannical 
 Violence, and that the Refittance of thole Forces (whether Foreign or Domeftick) 
 that might be fent by the King's private Commiffion to murder or enllave us, is 
 making War againit his Perfon, or that it comes within any of the Cafes expreP' 
 fed in that Statute ? And therefore cannot tall within the Compafs of Sir Edward 
 Cc)ke''s Comment upon this Statute-, all the Uftences therein Ipecified being Trea- 
 Tons at Common Law before that Statute was made-, nor is the Reformation there 
 mentioned, to be underftoodof a juft and neceffary Defence of our Lives, Liber- 
 ties, Religion and Properties, as iettled and eftablifhed by the Laws of the Land, 
 to be looked upon as making War againfta weak or leducedKing ; but is rather in 
 Defence of him and the Government, by oppofing Tyranny, which will certainly- 
 bring both him and us to ruin at lift ^ fo the Reformation he there mentions is on- 
 ly to be underftood of fuch Infurrections and Rebellions as have been made under 
 the meet Pretence of Religion, or obtaining greater Liberties for the Common Sort 
 of People than they had by the Law of the Land -, fuch as were the Rebellions of 
 JVat Tyler in King Richard II. and Mortimers in Henry VFs Reigns -, not to mention 
 the other Rebellions raifed by the PapilVs in the Times of King Henry VIII. EdwardVl. 
 Q. E/izabeth's Reigns -, all which being begun by feditious or fuperftitious Men, were 
 certainly rank Rebellions, and fo are and ought to be elteem d by all good Subjetts. 
 Al 1 grant thefe Pretences leem very fair and fpecious ; yet notwithftanding this 
 your pretended Right, or a Neceflity of Refittance of the King,or thofe commiflioned 
 by him, in Cafe of Tyranny, has been ftill looked upon as Rebellion in all Ages 
 and the Actors dealt with accordingly vvhereever they were taken. 
 
 F. I do not deny but as long as Arbitrary and Tyrannical Princes could get the 
 better of it, and keep the Power in their own Hands, they Itill executed for Tray tors 
 whofoever oppofed or refitted their wicked and unjuft A£lions,tho' they were never 
 fo near Relations to them : Thus both Edward and Richard II. put their Uncles the 
 Dukes o{' Lancajlerzn^GlouceJler to death, meetly becaufe they joyned with the relt 
 of the Nobility and People to prevent their Defigns. So that it is not the Execution 
 of the Man, but the Qufe that makes the Tray tor ^'jince Princes are feldom without a 
 fufticient Number of Judges and Jurymen to condemn whomfbever they pleafeto 
 611 upon. 
 
 But that the Clergy, Nobility and People o{ England have always afferted this 
 Right of Self Defence, in Cafe their Liberties and Properties were unjullly inva- 
 ded by the Tyrannical or Arbiaary Practices of the King, or thofe about him, I 
 think I can prove, by giving you the Hiltory of it in fb many Kings fince your 
 Conc^ueft, as will render it indifputable, if you pleafe now to give me the hearing, 
 or elle to deter it till the next Time we meet. 
 
 ill. I contefs I was fo weary of fitting up fo long at our laft Converfation, that 
 I made a Relolution not to do (b any more ^ and therefore firKe it grows late, 
 let us leave off now ; and I promife to meet you here again within a Night or 
 Two, and then I will hear how weH you can vindicate your Right ot Refittance from 
 Law or Hittory. But it you have no better Proofs for it than the Rebellion of 
 the Barons in King John and Henry Illd's Reign, you will fcarce make me your 
 Convert; fince Impunity does never fanctifya wicked Action, or render it the more 
 lawful i and you have already given it me tor an Axiom, that u FaRo adjits non va- 
 xt conjfequemia. 
 
 F. I accept of your Appointment with Thanks -, but pray do not tbrejudge my 
 Arguments till you hear them -, and as for the Axiom, I allow it for good, pro- 
 vided I may urge it in my Turn : But in the mean Time I fhall wilh you good night. 
 M, And I the fame to you. 
 
 L 1 I j5a)Uotl;cm
 
 44-2 
 
 2i5ii)Uotj)eta ^olitica. 
 
 DIALOGUE IX, 
 
 Whether by the ancient Laws, and Conjiitntions of this King- 
 donty as weU as by the Statutes of the i '^th and i i\th of King 
 Charles the Second^ all Kcfijiance of the King, or of thofe 
 commiffiomdby him, are expre fly forbid, upon any Tretence 
 whatsoever. And alfo, Whether all thofe who ajjlfed his late 
 Majefty KiftgW I LLi AM, either before, or after his coming 
 over, are guilty of the Breach of this Latp. 
 
 J^^i^;^^5^IR, I am glad to fee you again fb fbon •, for I was juft now looking 
 ^r^ "^^ over Ibme of our old Hiftorians, that lie here upon the Table, ro rub 
 ^L ^ j^ "P ^y Memory for fufficient Inftances and Author! tes, that it hath 
 ^^^"^^g been always the received and conftant Cuftom and PraQ:ice of the 
 a6tea> o <^K Qergy^ Nobility, and People of this Nation, to defend the ancient 
 Government of this Kingdom by general Councils or Parliaments ^ as alio their juft 
 Liberties and Properties, not only by Remonftrances and Petitions, but by 
 Force too, againft the King, and thofe commiffioned by him, in cafe they found 
 them evidently and violently invaded, beyond what any fair or gentle Means, as 
 Petitions andlnterceflions, were able to redrefs. And for Proof of this, I fliall go 
 as high as tlie Times of the Kings of thsU^eJi Saxons, from whom all the Kings of 
 Enghmd before the Conqueft were defcended, after the Kingdom of the Wejl Sax- 
 ons had prevailed over all the reft, I fhall therefore begin with the Reign of Sige- 
 bert King of the ll^eji Saxons, who, as I told you in our 6th Converfation, break- 
 ing the Laws and Conftitutions of the Kingdom, and tyrannizing over all Sorts of 
 People, was in a General Council of the whole Kingdom depoied, and expelled into 
 the¥oxd\ oi' AnJredfKaM, where he was afterwards {lain byaHogherd ; astheS'^A-- 
 on Annals under the Year 755. as alfo Huntingdon, and Malmsbury, relate. I fhall 
 not mention the Depofition of King Edwin, by the Mercians and Northumbrians^ 
 and their chufing his Brother Edgar in hisStead, becaule not done by the Common 
 Council of the whole Kingdom ^ and that alfo for flight and infufficient Grounds. 
 
 Therefore fince the Times before the Conqueft do afford us no more Examples 
 of this kind among the Kings of the IVeJi Saxons Race •, (to which I only confine 
 my felf ) fince thofe Kings being for the moft Part at Wars with the Danes to tlia 
 Time of Edward the ConfefFor, had fbmewhat elfe to think on than the making 
 themfelves Abiblute, or Tyrannizing over their Subiefts: But indeed, there is 
 fcarce to be found in Hiftory a Succeflion of more mild, juft and valiant Princes, 
 than Egbert the Firtt King of all England, and his Defcendants. 
 
 M. Pray Sir tell me to what Purpofe you cite thele Inftances of the Nobility 
 and People 0^ England depofing and cafting off their Kings in the Times before 
 the Conqueft •, is it that you would juftify that Common-wealth Principle, that 
 the Parliament hath the like Power to depofe the King at this Day in Cafe of any 
 
 Infringement
 
 "Dialogue the Ninth. 
 
 Infringement of the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom, of Breach of the Ori- 
 ginal Contraft (as thole of yoiir Party now term it ?) If you do, pray Ipeak plain, 
 and then I fhall know what Anfwer to give you. 
 
 f ; Tho' I affert it, (as undeniable in Matter of Fa£l:, ) That the Englijh-Saxons 
 did often exercife that Power they had referved to themlelves, of Elefting and 
 Depofing their Kings, when they became infupportable for Tyranny or Mifgo- 
 vernment •, as appears not only in the Kingdom of the Weft-Saxons, I have now 
 inftanced in, but in almoft all the other Kingdoms of the Heptarchy j in which 
 there are to be found many more Inftances of the Depofitions of their KingSj 
 than what were in the Weft-Saxon Kingdom : And this was then very juft and ne- 
 cellary, fince thefe Kingdoms were all Eleftive , and none of them Hereditary ; 
 and that the general Meeting of the great Council of the Nation was always at 
 iet and conftant Times ; and did not depend upon the Will and Pleafure of the 
 King, either to call or diffolve them, as I have already proved : And that this 
 Power was no unufual Thing, I appeal to all the Ancient Kingdoms o^ Europe, 
 founded after the fame Model as ours, and which I mentioned at our lalt Meet- 
 ing •, fo that nothing is more frequent in their Hiftories and Annals, than the 
 Depofing of their Kings for the above-mentioned Crimes of Tyranny or Mif 
 government. But that fbme of thefe Gothick Kingdoms, as Denmark and Swe- 
 den, whilft they continued Elective , have exercifed this Power even till of late, 
 is fo notorious in Matter of Faft, that it needs no Proof, fince the Kings of thofe 
 Kingdoms hold their Crowns at this Day by that Title , and on thofe Conditions 
 which the Nobility and People gave them, after the Depofition of their Predeceflbrs. 
 
 But though this were fo anciently alfo in England. , it does not therefore follow 
 that it muft be fo now ^ for fince the Crown of this Kingdom became Heredi- 
 tary, and that the Qlling and Diffblving of great Councils or Parliaments came 
 to depend wholly upon the King's Will, I mull allow, that the Cafe is much al- 
 tered, and that the Two Houfes of Parliament have now no Power to de- 
 pofe the King for any Tyranny or Mifgovernment whatloever. The firit Par- 
 liament of King Charles the Second, in the Aft for attainting the Regicides, have 
 aftually difclaimed all coercive Power over the King ; and yec for all that, the No- 
 bility, and People of England, may ftill have a gooa and f.ifficient Right left 
 them of" defending their Lives, Religion, and Liberties againft the King, or thole 
 commifTioned by him, in cafe of a general and univerfal Breach and Invafion 
 of the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom , or Original Contraft , ( if you will 
 call it fo), and not to lay down thofe defen five Arms, till their faid juft Rights and 
 Liberties are again reftored, and fufficiently fecured to them. So that though I will 
 not bring the Cuftom of the Englifto-Saxons as a Precedent for the Parliament's De- 
 pofing of the King, yet I think I may make ufe of it thus far, that this Nation has 
 ever exercifed this neceffary Right of defending their Liberties and Properties, 
 when invaded by the King or his Minifters, either by Colour of Law , or open 
 Force. And that this hath been the conttant Praftice from almoft the Time of your 
 pretended Conqueft down to later Ages, I think I can make out from fufRcient 
 Authorities, both from Hiftories and Records. 
 
 M. Though your Doftrine is not fo bad as I expe£led, yet it is Itill bad enough -, 
 and I never knew this Right of Refiftance carried home , but that it always 
 ended in Depofing and Murdering of the King at the laft ; as we have feen in out 
 own Times : But let the conftant Praftice have been as it will, I am fure fuch Re- 
 fiftance hath been always condemned by our Ancient Common Law, as well as Mo- 
 dern Statutes, as I fhall prove farther to you by and by. And therefore pray give 
 me leave to tell you. That the never fo conttant Practice of an unlawful Thing, 
 can no more juftify the doing of it, than that conttant Utage.Time out of Mind, 
 for Thieves to rob between London and St. Albans. Not that I fore-judge you, 
 or refufe to hear any Inftances and Authorities from Hiftories or Records to make 
 good your Aflertion. 
 
 F. I thank you for your Patience : What therefore if I prove that fuch Re- 
 fiftance has been not only actually exercifed by the Clergy , Nobility and People 
 in former Ages, but that it hath been alfo allowed by our Kings themlelves, and 
 approved of by great Councils, or Parliaments in thofe Times , for lawful, and the 
 Aftors in it wholly indemnified and faved harmlefs -, nay, a Power given them, 
 and that by the King himfelf , to refilt him, and defend themfelves, in cafe 
 he broke his Charters and Agreements made to and with his Nobility and 
 
 L 1 1 2 Feo- 
 
 443
 
 44+ 
 
 B 1 B L 1 O T H E C A P O L 1 T 1 C A . 
 
 People,or elfe with forne Foreign Prince ? Which may appear from this remarkable In- 
 Parte Fojhr. ftance of King Henry II. at the End of whole Reign Hoveden in his Annals, gives 
 ^ 3- us the Conditions ot the Peace made in the laft Year of this King, between him and 
 
 fhifip King of Yrance, with the Confent of their Bifhops, Earls, and Barons •, 
 where, among other Articles, you will find this for one, particularly relating to the 
 Barons of Enghuid, who were alfo to fwear to the Peace, in thele Terms ; Et om- 
 ncs Barcncs AiJglice jurabimt^ quod fi Rex Anglic noJucrh hoi Conditw7ics tcnere, 
 quod 10 tefiebunt cum Rege Francia, &" Comite R'uhardo^ iff eos adjuvabum pro 
 fojj'e contra Regcm Anglk, ^c. Whence we may without doubt conclude, that the 
 Refiltance of SubjeQs in fome Cales againit their Kings, was then allowed. of, even 
 hy the King himlelf, and thought nut inconfiltent with the Allegiance they bore 
 him, though it might fufpend it for a Time. 
 
 M. I confefs this Inlbnce would be of fome Weight , were it not for the Cri- 
 tical Time when this Peace was made ^ viz. when Richiird Earl of Foi&ou , the 
 King's Eldeft Son, had rebelled againft his Father, and taken Part with the Kins 
 of h-ance ; and had drawn over a great many of the Kormin, and Fi^avinn^ and 
 Englijh Barons to his Party ^ which when King Henry perceived, this very Author 
 you have quoted here, tells you, Sljiod Rex Angli£ in urBo fofitus Pacen/Jccit cum 
 Rege Pbi/ipfo ; that is, was conftrained to make Peace with him : So that King 
 tlMry being in this Streight, the King of Er^nce and Earl Richard, with the Ba- 
 rons of his Party, forced King henry to fign what Conditions they pleafed ; for 
 there is no fuch Claufefo much as mentioned for \.\[tErench Barons. 
 
 But make the molt of it, it is but a Temporary Relaxation of Allegiance from 
 King Henry to his Barons, and the King might fuiely thus releafe them if he pica- 
 fed : But it is plain, they could not have afted thus, without this Condition had 
 been exprefsly inferred. 
 
 F; Well, fuppofing King Henry to have been never ^o much conftrained to the 
 making of thele Conditions ^ and that it was his own A£l: that rendred it lawful, 
 it ftill proves as much as I urge it for 5 viz. That neither the Kings of Erance 
 or England then thought this Refiftance abfolutely unlawful ; for then the 
 King's own Aft could never have difpenfed with it. 
 
 But to Ihew you farther, that the People of this Nation have ever maintained 
 this Right of Reliftance, even without the Allowance of our Kings themfelves: And 
 for the doing of this, I Ihall proceed with the earlieft Inlfances of this Kind after 
 Vi.K.H(nied: ^^^ Conquelt ; Viz. In the Time of King Richard the Firlt, during whofe Ablence 
 Mc!kr'^% in the Holy Eand, he had committed the Government of his Kingdom to WiHiaia 
 ""^'^ * Bifhopof Ely, who abuled his Power by an arbitrary and infolent Carriage ; affront- 
 ing and opprelTing John Fail of Mcrion, the King's own Brother, and jeffry Arch- 
 bilhop of Tork, the King's bafe Brother •, whereupon they role up againit him ^ 
 and having the Bilhops, the Earls and Barons of their Side, appointed the faid 
 Bilhop a Day, to anfwer to his Crimes in the King's Court, or great Councilof the 
 Bilhops, Lords, and Tenants in Capite, then called.. 0/m Regis; where, when he 
 refuled ro appear, they all with one Confent came to London, and fought with the 
 Followers and Adherents of the fiid Chancellor by the Way. When they came to 
 Town, Earl John, with the Archbilhops of Tork and Rri/cn, with all the Earls and 
 Barons, together with rhe Citizens of London, met in Sr. Paufs Church-yard, and 
 there it was propoled, that the faid Chancellor Ihould, for his Evil Government, be 
 depolfcd and banilh'd the Kingdom : And fo he immediately was, by the general 
 Confent of the Common Council of the Kingdom. So that you fee the Nobility- 
 Clergy, and People, had then no Notion of an irrefiltible Power in the King , and 
 thofe put in Commiffion by him, when they found their Power to grow Tyrannical 
 and Inlupportable. 
 
 M. But if I forget not, you omit one material Circumftance in this Affair, which 
 feeffis to make againit you ; which is, That the Archbilhop of Rouen, and William 
 the Earl Marefchal , did, at that Time, produce the King's Letters, figned wuh 
 his Seal, wherein he had appointed, that they Two fliould be affociated in the Go- 
 vernment with the Bifhop of Ely ^ and that he Ihould do nothing without their 
 Privity and Confents, and of thole affociated with him,in the Bufinefs of the Kins;- 
 dom i and that if he offered to do otherwife, he fliould be depoled. So that ic 
 feemswhat they now afted, was not fo much in Oppofition to the King's Com- 
 milTion as tothe Bilhop's, who had refufedto obey hi§ Commands, 
 
 F. I CQP-
 
 'Dialogue the Ninth, ^At 
 
 F. I confefs it was as you let forth -, yet this makes nothing againft my Opi- 
 nion i fince it is apparent that Arms were taken , and this Refiftance made by the 
 Major Part of the Bifliops, Earls, and Barons, together with the hcndoners, be- 
 fore ever it was known that fuch Letters were written by theKing. And fo it feems 
 they would have done much the fame Thing , if there had been no fuch Letters 
 fent by theKing at all. You may alfo remember, that all thele Proceedings a]&> 
 were approved of, and confirmed by the King himfelf 
 
 But tiiat 1 may proceed in my Hiftory of Non-Refiftance , I come to the Reign 
 of King John his Brother ; who when he had refufed the Archbilhop of Canter- 
 bury, and all the Bifhops,' Earls, and Barons of the Kingdom, to confirm the great 
 Charter of King Henry the Firlt, they, together with the reft of the great Men ^'■*^- ''''^''^■ 
 and People of the Kingdom, of all Degrees and Conditions, took up Arms, and f'^'^ll.'^' 
 made a vaft Army, refolving never to lay them down, till he had new granted ^v;! 
 and confirmed the Charters of Liberties and Forefts -, till at laft the King finding 
 himlelf almott quite forfaken, fo that he had Icarce Five Knights left about him , 
 he was at lalt forced to meet the faid Billiops, Earls, Barons, and People, atK/c»- 
 Mead, and there to grant them that great Charter, which has been the SubjeO: of 
 ib much Difcourle between us. So that you fee here that the Church of England 
 in thofe Times (if the Bifhops and Clergy are the Reprefentatives of this Church) 
 had then no Notion of this Doftrine of PaiTive Obedience to the King's Abfolute 
 Will and Commands. 
 
 M. I cannot deny the Matter of Fa8: to be as you fay ; but yet you may re- 
 member, that the fume Author tells us. That the Pope thought the King hardly 
 dealt withal in this Matter •, lb that he gave Audience to the King's AmbalTadors, ^^"'" ^ '^*- 
 concerning the Rebellions and Injuries which the Barons, oi^ England had commit- 
 ted againlt their King ^ and that upon a Iblemn Hearing of the whole Bufinels, 
 and after a Confultarion with his Qrdinals, he did, as Supreme Lord of England, 
 (after King Johni, Refignation of his Crown to him ) by his Bull then publilhed, ^^ 
 
 make void the laid great Charters of Liberties and Forefts ^ and condemn all the 
 Barons Proceedings, as againft their Duty and Allegiance to the King their Sove- 
 reign Lord : So that it feems this was not approved of any where but by the A- 
 ftors. The Pope thereupon excommunicating the Barons, and fufpending the Arch- 
 bilhop oF Canterbury for joining with them. 
 
 y. I believe you will make nothing of this Obje$\ion : For it appears from 
 the fame Author, that the Pope had before this excommunicated the King j /W.f. 230. 
 and as far as lay in his Power , deprived him of his Kingdom , and abfolved 
 all his Subje.i^s of their Allegiance •• So that it is plain, it was not out of any 
 true Principle, or Hatred of Rebellion and Refiftance in Subjefts , that the 
 Pope had thus acled -, but purely to gratify the King at this Junfture of Time, 
 and to defend him in his Tyranny, and Breach of his own Charters, becaule he 
 was then become his ValTal \ and lb he cared not how much he opprelfed his 
 Subjefts, becaufe he was thereby the more able to pay him the Tribute he had 
 granted lor the Kingdomsof England and Ireland -. And he could alfo expe£l the 
 more fecurely to extort Money from the whole Kingdom. But that this Bull of 
 the Pope's was contrary to the King's own Exprefs A8: and Agreement , appears 
 plainly by that Claufe which is ftill to be found in a Charter under the Seal of 
 this King •, and which feems to have been the Heads of the great Charter, (ac- 
 cording to which it was drawn into the Form we now find it in Alitibcw Parh) 
 in which it is exprefsly provided, and granted by the faid King, That in cafe he 
 fhouid go about to break or infringe any Claule in the faid Charter, and Ihall not 
 amend it w)tliin the Space of Forty Days, that then, //// Barones cum Commun'ui 
 tortus Terr,c diflringent & gravabunt nos modk omnibus quibus potuer/nt, aut (fc'iL) 
 per captionem Caffrorum, Terrarum, PojfeJJtonum, ^ alits modti quibus potuerint, 
 donee fuerit cmendat urn fecundum arbitrium eorum, falva perfonu noj]ra ^ Regin.e 
 nojirx, iS^ Liber or um nojh-orum, ^ cmnjucrit emcndatim iniendcm nobk ficut pri- 
 wjeccru?jt. So that you fee here in the Judgment even of the King lilmfelf, they 
 might freely refift, and take up Arms againft him, till he made good every Arti- 
 cle of thefe Charters, it violated s and were not to return to tiieir Obedience till it 
 was amended. And the like Claufe, almoft Word for Word, is aUb to be fouod ^- ^^i. 
 in the Conclufion of the great Charters, publilhed in Matihew Paris. 
 
 M, I grant
 
 ^^6 B I B I. 1 O T H E C A P O L 1 T I C A. 
 
 M. I giant the Claufe is theie as you qvote it; yet I ir.v:ch dcubt ul.et!er it 
 was of any Validity, being no dcutt drawn up by the Eaicns then in Aiir.s, or.d 
 which the King duilt not at that time tdiie, and fo be was indeed urdtr a kind 
 of Durels when he did it. And befides, pray mark the Conckfion of this Claule ^ 
 this Rehflance was to be Stnia Fa/cmi nop a £? Regin^t ncj'rx, t5 Libacna r.o- 
 f^rcrum, atmjueriteniendatittn, menient ncs fxiit pius fccerum. Now hew this 
 Security here leieived for the King's Peifcn, ccuid conlilt with ib,ar open War the 
 Barons made afterwards againft his very Peifon, and calling eft" all their Allegiance 
 to iheir Natural Prince, and calling in Prince Lfir^j, Sen to the King of Irance^ I 
 cannot underftand. 
 
 F. I think all this may very eafily be folved -. For in the Firft Place, King John 
 was no miore compelled to agree to this Claufe, than he was to the Charters 
 themfelves ^ and if thcfe were lawful and reafonable, fo was this Refiftance too -, 
 fince there was no other Way or Tvdeans left to pieferve them, in cafe the King 
 fliouid go item his own A£\s, and break through all he had done ; fo that if the 
 Ends were lawful, the Means to preftrve it muft be fo too ; or elfe thcfe Charters 
 would have fignified nothing, any longer than the King pleafed. As for the other 
 Part of the Obje£lion, that this Refflance was Itill to be, faving the Perfon of the 
 King and Queen, 6"V. and that this did not ccrfift with the Earons aftet making 
 War againft his Perfon, and catting of all Allegiance to him : It was not their 
 Faults, but the King's, if they could net perform this Agreement-, fince the King, 
 by making War upon the Clergy, Nobility, and People, by his ojjen and notorious 
 Breach and recalling of thefe Charters, calling in Strangers to his Afliflunce, and 
 declaring he would no longer govetn according to Law, had made it abfblutely 
 unpraflicable to prefer ve their Allegiance to him any longer-, fo rhat ihey never 
 cait off their Duty as SubjeCls, till he had caft cfi his Duty as a King -, and then 
 what was there elfe left to be done, but to provide for their own Safety, by calling 
 in a Foreign Prince to their Alfitlance as foon as they could r" Since there was no 
 other way left them to defend themfelves againft rhofe Troops of Strangers rhe 
 King had invited over : And though many of them, with their Captain Hugh de 
 Bcves, had been caltaway, and drowned in a Temfelt at Sea, yet more wtre daily 
 expefted. So that if Tyrants fhould fuffer nothing for the Breach of their own 
 Charters and Oaths, they would be in a better Condition by their Violation, than 
 the obferving of them ; for by the making them, they for the prefent quiet the 
 Minds of their difcontentedSubjefts, and when they pleafe may break them all again, 
 when they have got Power, if no body muft prefume to rehit them, or not think 
 them as much Kings when they deflroy and opprefs their People, as when they 
 proteft ?.nd preferve them, by governing according to the Laws of the King- 
 dom. Eur piay what have you to fay againft that general Refiftance that was 
 made by almoft all the Bifhops, Batons, and great Men of England, againft his 
 Son Henry the Third, and about the frequent and notorious Violations of the great 
 Charters which his Father and himfelf had fo often fworn to, and confirmed, and 
 for which he had received fuch great Benevolences and Subfidies fro.m the 
 
 Nation ? > 
 
 M. Before I anf ver this Queftion, pray take Notice that I am not at all fatif^ 
 frcd witli your Arguments ^ That whenever Subjecfs Ihall think themfelves injured, 
 and oppreffed by their Sovereigns, that then they may caft off their Allegiance 
 to them, if they cannot have the Remedy they defire; fince this were to make 
 them both Judges and Parties too in their own Caufe ; which is altogetlier unjuft 
 and unreafonable between private Men, much more between Kings and Subjects. 
 Put paffing by this at prefent, I fliall tell you my Opinion of this Ref.ftance of 
 himon Montfort, and the Earls, and Barons, his Adherents, that it was downright 
 Rebellion, and tended only to Dethrone the King, and make him a meer Cypher, 
 and to devolve the whole Government upon themfelves; as appears by the 
 Oxford Provifions recited by fo many Authors of that Age •, and which were 
 afterwards condemned, (and confequently thofe violent Means by which they were 
 obtained) by Lemis the Ninth, King of F)wwf -, who in an Aflembly of hisEltates, 
 upon a fdlemn Hearing of the whole Difference between King Henry III. and his 
 Barons, declared thefe Oxford Provifions null and void. So far was this goal and 
 pious King from countenancing any Rebellion (or Refiftance, as you term it) of 
 Subjects againft their Lawful Sovereign. 
 
 F. For
 
 "Dialogue the Ninth. aa-j 
 
 f. For all this, I cannot find that the King of f ranee did then at all condemn 
 this Defence the EaAand Barons had before made of the Liberties granted thenfi 
 by the great Charter^ for thougji he reftored the King to his former Power, by- 
 avoiding the Oxford Provifions ; yet at the fame Time when this was done, ( as 
 the Continuator of vlW. Paris tells us) he expreily excepted the Ancient Charters P^ie^gi. 
 of King fob/!, Unlverfati {fed. An^/i^l eoneejjx, and from which per ilhim fen- 
 Tcntunt in nulla intendebat peniti/s derogarc \ and if he did not in the leaft intend 
 to derogate from them, he could not with any Juftice condemn the only Means 
 the Barons had to maintain tlvem ^ after lo many Trials, and frefh Promifes and 
 Oaths of this fickle inconftant King, all broken and laid afide. So that you may as 
 well or better alledge the Pope's (liameful Abfblution of this King from this Oath 
 he had made to oblerve the great Charters, as an Argument why they fliould not 
 be any longer bound by them, nor the Barons obliged to defend them ; as this 
 Sentence of the King of Yranee, to tender the Refiftance the Barons had made in 
 Defence of the grear Charters to be unlawful. And that King Henry himfelf did 
 afterwards allow this Refiltance for good and lawful, pray iee the Agteement 
 which was not long after made in full Parliament, in the 49th, between the King, Rot. Pat. 49 
 the Prince, and all the Prelates, Earls and Barons of England ; whereby he obliged ^-B- ^' 5- 
 himfelf to obferve all the Articles and Ordinances which had been before agreed 
 upon at London in the 48th Year of his Reign. And then tbllows this Claufe in 
 the Record (which the Doftor himfelf has Printed in his Appendix at the End of 
 the Firft Volume of his Introduftion toEng/iJh Hiftory) which I fhall here tranllate 
 T)ut ofFreneh, becaufe it is very old and obfcure •, it is thus : " And if our Lord 
 " the King, or Monfieur Edward, (viz', the Prince) Oiall go againft the Peace 
 " and Ordinance afbrefaid •, or (hall grieve the Eails o^LeieeJJer, or G/ouccJler, ot 
 " any of their Party, by Reafon of any of the Things aforelaid ; that then the 
 " great Men, and Commons of the Land, ( in Yrcneh, haiiz Homes, £5' Comun dc la 
 " Terre ) Ihall rile againft them to grieve them to the utmoft of their Power, and 
 " (hall be obedient to them in nothing, and in doing all Things as if they were 
 " bound to them in nothing, until thele Things (hall be amended and maintained 
 " according to the Ordinance of the Peace aforefaid. And to this our Lord the 
 " King, Monfieur Edward, and the great Men of the Kingdom, have (worn upon 
 *' the Holy Gofpels, to keep and maintain the Things atbrelaid. And with this 
 Record agrees this King s Latin Charter, much to the fame Purpofe recited in the 
 Annafs ot Waver /y. Anno 1264, only the Words there are more general. That if F^g^i;. 
 the King or Prince (hould break the faid Peace, by hurting or falling upon any of 
 the faid Earls of Lwf/?tT, or Gloucefler, or any of the Perfons above-mentioned, 
 Liceat omnibus de Regno nojiro contra nos infurgere, iff ad gravamen nojlrum, opem 
 i^ ope ram darejuxta pofj'e, ad quod ex prefenti pficcepto noflro omnes tff fingulos 
 volumus ohligari, fideliter iff homagio nobis jaBo non objlante. So that you lee here, 
 that by the Judgment of the King himfell^ and the whole Parliament, this Refi- 
 ftance might be exercifed, notwithftanding the Homage they had done him. And 
 this is that Form of the Peace which I have before cited to you to have been made, 
 ( as appears by a Writ to the Sherift" of Torkfhire, to be feen upon the fame Roll, 
 and in the lame 'Mtvribxzwty unanimi conjenfu ^ voluntate nojlra, iJf Edwardi Rot.ciauf.^<) 
 filij nojiri Primogeniti, Prxlatorum, Comitum, Baronum, & Communitatis Regni ^- 3- ^' i- 
 tiojlri, &c. Which Claufe Dr. Brady thought fit to conceal, and not Publifh with 
 the former Record, becaule the Word Commupitas did not at all fuit with his No- 
 tions in this Place. 
 
 A\. I muft confefs this (b folemn an Agreement upon the Record would have R.a. p. 135. 
 been very confiderable, had it been made whilft the King and Prince had been free, 'Zi?' '^"n- 
 and in their own Power; whereas the Dottor has made it plainly appear, that the 
 King and Prince were at this Time in the Power of Simon A\ontfcrt and his Ad- 
 herents, who called that famous Parliament of the 49111, to which we fuppole 
 the Commons were firft fummoned ; and therefore the Prince was not delivered /A/V. 14 j. 
 at this Time (any more than the King his Father) out of their Power; and was 
 only taken out of Dowr Cattle, and made a Prifbner at large under a Guard (as 
 his Father was) until he made his Efcape from his Keepers at i/(?r^_/^r^ Caftle. 
 So that I do not at all value this Agreement, becaufe made by Durefs; though I 
 confefs the Words of the Records are exprefs, that it was de tmanimi confenfu i^ 
 voluntate nofira, 8cc. Edtoardi Filij nojiri. ^ut it appears plainly, that by this 
 
 Agreement 
 
 f
 
 44-B BlBLIOTHECA PoLlTICA. 
 
 Agreement the King had difcharged himfelf of all Royal Power, and confirmed 
 an Inftrument, whereby the whole Government of the KAriom, and Nomina- 
 tion of all the great Officers of the Crown was put into thfflands of Nine Earls 
 and Barons. 
 
 f. At this rate, no Ad: that a King can do when he hath the worit of it, 
 though confirmed by a Solemn Oath (as this was upon the Holy Gofpels) can 
 ever be binding ^ for it is but alledging that it was done by Durefs, and it 
 is fufficient to render it null and void. But be it as it will, this was certainly 
 the general Confent, A£l and Declaration of the whole Nation aflembled in Par- 
 liament, and that owned by the King himfelf, and his Son the Prince, and all 
 his Party. And farther, that this Refiftance of the Earl of Gbucefier (who was 
 one of thefe Barons) was not after counted for Treafbn, or Rebellion, appears 
 Rot. Pat. 51 |)y xiat Pardon of the faid Earl which we have before cited " to have been made 
 iV. 3. M.i6i. ii jjy j.j^jg j^jj^g^ ^^jjj^ Aflent of the King of Almaine (his Brother) and the 
 " Counts and Barons, and Commons of the Land, in which he pardoned the 
 " faid Earl, and all his Company, (and alio all the Londoners) all Rancor 
 " and Ill-will; and in the fame manner as the King quits and difcharges 
 " the Earl, and his Company, lb does the laid Earl hereby for himfelf, and all 
 *' his Company, remit to all thole that were of the Party of the King, 
 " any Thing done fince that Moment ( that is, that Civil War, in which the 
 Earl of Gloucefler had fo great a Share.) So that you lee this Refiftance of the 
 Earl of G/ouceJler was within Two Years after the Battel of Evejham fo far from 
 being looked upon as Rebellion, that the Pardon is made mutual, not only for 
 the Earl, and thole that followed him, but alfo for thofe that had taken the King's 
 Part. 
 
 But I Ihall come now to his Son, and Succeflbr, King Edccard the Firft •, where 
 we Ihall find this Doftrine of Refiftance afl'erted more than once, not only by 
 Vide Mat. ■ private Men, but by the whole Parliament ^ as appears by thofe Letters that 
 Weflmmfler, ^gj.^ vvritten by the King's Command, (or Permiffion at leaft, in the 29th of his 
 p. 43^!*^'' -^sign) '" the Name of all the Earls, Barons, £^ totaCommunitas Angfix^ to 
 Pope Boniface the Eighth, in Vindication of the King's Superiority over Scotland-^ 
 in which you will find this remarkable Paflage, Kec etinm permit thaus, nee per- 
 tmttemus, ficitt non pojjumus ncc debemus pr.tm'ijfa tarn infolita, indebita, C 
 pr^judicia/ia, df al'ioi maudita, prxhbatum V)ominiim nojlrum Regent, et'tamft vcUet 
 facere, mode guo/ibet attemptare. Which Reftraint of the King's Will muft cer- 
 tainly mean lomewhat more than a bare Remonftrance or Declaration againft it j 
 fince we have leen in our own Times, Kings make nothing of" meer verbal Decla- 
 rations of the Two Houfes of Parliament, if they had a mind to do a Thing rhey 
 thought belonged to their Prerogative, though the Parliament declared againft it. 
 And to let you farther lee that this Doftrine was at this Time generally believed, 
 and praQifed all over Europe^ you will find almoft the fame Claule in the Letters 
 which were written in the Reign of Vh'ilip the Fair, King of Erance, Anno 1203, 
 (which falls about the ?cth of our King Edward the Firft) and were fent to the 
 fame Pope Boniface, upon Occafion of the like Ufurpations upon the Church 
 ofErance, in the Name of the whole Clergy of that Kingdom •, whereby it not 
 Pryn's Second only appears that this was done in a general Afiembly of Eftates, viz. of the 
 Vol. of Pap. Clergy, Barons, ^c. ^ Communitates Villarum-^ but they alfo there declared, 
 0/ oTl"""^' exprejfjmiis, viva voce, ^iiod fi profit us Dominus Rex ( quod abfit ) tolerare^ 
 vel diffimulare vellet, Ipfi (Icil. Epilcopi, 6c Barones, £?V.) nullatenus fujiine- 
 rent. So that here you fee not only the Temporal Eftates, but the very Clergy 
 declare, that they would by no means fufifer the King to a£^ thus ( no not) if he 
 would. 
 
 But the Barons and People of England, did actually put this Doftrine in 
 Execution, Ibme few Years before this Letter I now mentioned was writ to the 
 Pope -, which Tranfa£tion I lliall give you almoft verbatim out of Mat. of Weil- 
 minfler, and Henry de Knighton, in Anno 1297, (being the 26th oi' Edward the 
 Firft) when the King having extorted a great Sum of Money from the Clergy and 
 People, contrary to Law, and being then going into Elanders, he called a Par- 
 liament at Weflminfier, where molt of the Earls and Barons refufed ro appear, 
 until fuch Time as their Petitions for the Eafe of their Country were heard \ 
 and that the King would again confirm M^gna Charta, Yet neverthelefs the 
 
 King 
 
 P-954- 
 
 conn:
 
 Dialogue the Ninth. A.4.9 
 
 King upon ConcefTion of his Male Adminiftration, which he made before all 
 the People, with Tears in his Eyes, and Promife of Amendment, then obtained 
 of the Commons an Aid of the Eighth Penny of their Goods. But as foon as the 
 King was gone over, the Conftable and Earl Marefchal, with other Earls and 
 Barons, went to the Exchequer, and there forbad the Judges to levy the faid 
 Tax upon the People by the Sherifts, becaule it was done without their Know- 
 ledge, without whofe Confent no Tax ought to be exa8:ed, or impofed. So that 
 the faid Earls and Barons being thus gathered together, and the greater Part of 
 the People joining with them •, at laft Prince Edward, then Lieutenant of the 
 Kingdom, was forced to call a Parliament; to which the Earls and Barons 
 came attended with great Multitudes, both of Horft and Foot, but would not 
 enter the City of London, till the Prince had in his Father's Name confirmed the 
 great Charters, and had pafled the Statute ie TaUagio nan concedcndo ; both which 
 were afterwards again confirmed by the King his Father fbme Time after his 
 ileturn. 
 
 And this will ferve to explain the laft Article in this Statute, " Which compre- 
 *' hends the King's Pardon or Remiflion to Humphrey Earl of Hereford and E/fex^ 
 *' then Conftable, znd Roger Bigot, Earl of Norfolk, Marefchal of England, (the 
 " Two principal Leaders in the hte Refiftance,) with all other Earls, Barons, 
 *' Knights, and Efquires, of their Party ; all Leagues and Confederacies, as alfo 
 *' all Rancor and Ill-will, with all other Tranfgreflions againft them, £5'^. And ' 
 
 pray fee Sir Edward Coke's Comment on thefe Words ; '■'■ If you compare our ^'^inflit. i. 
 " Engiijh Hiftories with this Aft of Parliament, the Old Saying (hall be verified, P- ^B'^* 
 " That Records of Farliament are the trueft Hijiories. The King had conceived a 
 *' deep Difpleafure againft the Conftable, Marefchal, and others of the Nobilky, 
 *' Gentry, and Commons of the Realm, for denying that which he fb much de- 
 " fired ; yet for that they ftood in Defence of their Laws, Liberties, and Free 
 " Cuftoms, tfc. (I fuppole he refers to the Refiftance but now mentioned) 
 " whereupon he did not only reftore the lame to them, as afbrefaid, but granted 
 *' fpecial Pardon to thofe againft whom he had conceived ib heavy a Difplea- 
 " fure, iSfc. and fuch a one as you will fcarce read the like. And after a Ihort 
 Glofs upon the Words Rancor and Ill-will, he thus comments on thele Words, 
 etiam tranfgrejjiones ft quas fecer'int : Here the Words, ft quas fecerint, were 
 added, left by Acceptance of a Pardon, they fhould confefs they had tranfgrefled. 
 So careful were the Lords and Commons to preferve their Ancient Laws, Liberties 
 and Culloms of their Country. So that it is plain, that Sir Edward Coke 
 then thought the Lords and Commons had not tranfgrefied, in thus ftanding up, 
 though with Force of Arms, for their juft Rights and Liberties; and which fuf- 
 ficiently proves that this Author did not conceive fuch a Refiftance to be making 
 War againft the King, and fo Treafbn at that Time at Common-Law, and con- 
 fequently not to be afterwards Treafon by the Statute of the 25 th of Edward the 
 Third (as you would have it); fince that Statute does not make any other Overt- 
 A8:s to be Treafon, but what had been lb by Common-Law before this Statute 
 was made. 
 
 But in the Reign of this King's Son, Edward the Second, there were nuch 
 more pregnant and fatal Proofs of the Exercife of this Right of Refiftance by 
 the Earls, Barons, and People of England, againft Fierce Gaveflon ; whom having h. Knyghton, 
 been before for his Mifgovernment of the King, banifh'd the Realm by Ad: of ^'""S- ^ft' 
 Parliament, and coming over with the King's Licenfe, but without any Reverie of 
 the faid Afl: ; Thomas Earl of Lancajkr, the King's Uncle, with the reft of the 
 Earls, Barons, and Commons of the Land, took up Arms againft him. And tho* 
 he railed fome Forces by the King's Commiflion, yet they fought with him, and 
 took him Prifbner, and beheaded him near IVarwick. Some Years after which, 
 the faid Thomas Earl of hancaflcr, with Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford^ 
 together with divers other Earls and Barons, took Arms, and fpoiling the Lands 
 of the Two Spencers, Father and Son, came up to London, where the King had 
 called a Parliament ; in which the King was forced to baniflr the laid Spencers 
 out of the Kingdom, though they quickly returned again : Againft whom, when 
 the faid Earls above-mentioned, and di\ers other Barons and Knights, again took 
 Arms ; but being fail'd by Ibme of theit Confederates, were overpowered by the 
 King's Party, and the Earl being taken Prilbner, was Attainted, and Beheaded 
 at ?omfraU ; yet was this Judgment againft tlTe Earl, and thofe of^his Party, atter- 
 
 M m m vvirds
 
 /^C^O BlBLIOTHECA Poi. ITICA. 
 
 wards reverted in Parliament, in jmo.EdiViirdWl. and their Heirs reflored in Blood, 
 as alfo to the Lands of their Fathers ; as befides the Aft, it ftill is ro be feen 
 upon the Rolls, appears more plainly by a Writ of this King's reciting •, " That 
 " whereas at a Parliament at Wcpmnpr, among other Things, it was agreed by 
 Rot. ciauj. I « (i^g Vi.'mg, the Prelares, Earls, Barons, and Commons of the Kingdom, that all 
 £■ 3- P- ^ " thofe yv-ho were in the Quarrel with 'Thomas Earl of LuncjjJcr, againlt the 
 ^^ Spencers, fhould have their Lands and Goods reftorcd. becaufe the faid Quarrel 
 " was found, and adjudged by the King, and the whole Parliament, to be good 
 " and iuft ; and that the Judgments given againlt them were null and void, and 
 " therefore commands Reltitution of the Lands and Tenements now in the Crown, 
 " to the Executors of the faid Earl. And the like Writs are found tor the other 
 Lords and Gentlemen that had been of *Iiis Party. 
 
 And further, that not only this Rehftance made by this Earl, and the reft of 
 
 his Followers, but alfo that wh'ch this King himlelf made together with Queen 
 
 Jfjhel, his Mother, againft the Mifgovernment of the King his Father, through 
 
 the Evil Counfel of the Two Spencers, appears by the A£l of Indemnity paffed in 
 
 the Firft Year of this King ; in the Preamble of which there is recited a flion Hi"-' 
 
 ftory of the wicked Government, and Baniihmentofthe Spencers, Father and Son ; 
 
 *' and alfo how Thomas, late Earl oi'Lancafier, was by their Procurement purfued, 
 
 " taken, executed, diiinherited ; and how the laid Spencers, and Robert Baldock, 
 
 " and Edmund, Earl of Arundel, by the Royal Power they had ufurped, had 
 
 " caufed the King that now is, and the Queen his Mother, to be utterly fbrCiken 
 
 " of the King his Father, and to be Exiled from the Realm of England-^ and that 
 
 *' therefore the King that now is, and the Queen his Mother, being in fo great 
 
 "'Jeopardy in a ftrange Country, and feeing the Deftruftions, and Difinlierifons 
 
 " which vi'ere notorioi:fly done in England, upon Holy Church, the Prelates, Eirls, 
 
 " Barons, and the Commonalty of theilime, by the faid Spencers, Robert Bnldock, 
 
 " znd Edmund ^diloi' Arundel, by the Encroachment of Royal Power to themfel\''es .• 
 
 " And feeing they might not remedy the fame, unlefs they came into England with 
 
 " an Army of Men of War, and have by the Grace of God with fuch Puiflance, 
 
 *' and the help of the great Men and Commons of the Realm vanquiHied and de- 
 
 " ftroyed the faid Spencers, 8ic. Therefoie our Sovereign Lord the King, by the 
 
 " Common Council of the Prelates, Earls, Barons, and other great Men, and of 
 
 " the Comrrions of the Realm, have provided, and ordained, ^c as follows. That 
 
 " no great Man, nor other of what tftate, Dignity or Condition foever hebe, rhat 
 
 " came in with the faid King that now is, and with the Queen in Aid of them, 
 
 " to purfue their faid Enemies ; and in which Purliiit the King his Father was 
 
 " taken and put in IVard, 8fc. fhall be impeached, molelted or grieved in Perfbn, 
 
 " or in Goods, in any of the Kings Courts, ^c. fbrthePurf'uit, and raking in Hold 
 
 " the Body of the faid King Edzvard, nor for the Purfiiit of any other Perfons, nor 
 
 " taking their Goods, nor tor the Death of any Man, nor any other Things perpe-. 
 
 *' trated, or committed in the laid Purfuit, from the Day of theKing and'Queen's 
 
 " Arrival, until the Day of the Coronation of rhe faid King. 
 
 The A£t of Indemnity is fo full a Juitification of the Neceffity and Lawfulnefs 
 of the Refiftance that was then made againft King Edward II, and his wicked 
 Counfellors the Spencers, that it needs no Comment. And tho' King Edward III. 
 took Warning by the Example of his Father, and was too wife then to follow the 
 like Arbirrary Courfes^ yet K/c/.wi II. his Grandfon, being a wilful rafh young 
 Prince, fell into all the Errors of his great Grandtather, and found the like, if not 
 greater Refiftance, from his Nobility and People : For when he had highly vnW- 
 governed theRealm by the Advice of his Favourites, Alexander kxchhMhoY) cA' York, 
 the Dukeof /;rA7;?J, and others -, a Parliam.ent being called in the loth Year of 
 his Reign, the Government of the Kingdom was taken out of their Hands, and 
 committed to theBifhops o{' Canterbury and Ely, with Thomas Duke oi'GlouceJier^ 
 the King's Uncle, Richard E^doi'Ai-undel, and"T/;w»i?x Earl of rt^^/nv/C/^, and Nine 
 or Ten other Lords and Bilhops •, but notwithltanding this, the King being newly 
 of Age, refufedtdbe governed by the fiid Duke, and Earls, but was carried about 
 the Kingdom by the fiid Duke oi' Ireland, and others, to try what Forces they could 
 raife, and alio to hinder the laid Duke and Earls from having any Accefs ro him. 
 But fee what followed thefe violent and arbitrary Courfes, as it is related by 
 Col. 25j7. Henry de Knighton, who lived and wrote in that very Time, and is more exail: in 
 this King's Reign than any other hiftorian •, he there tells us, that wl-en Thomas 
 
 Duke
 
 'Dialogue the Ninth. Ati 
 
 "■ Duke of Glocefler, and the other Bifhops and Earls now mentioned, found they 
 " could not proceed in the Government of the King and Kingdom, according to 
 " the Ordinance of the preceeding Parliament, through the Hindrance of Michael 
 " de Id Poole, Robert de Vere, Duke of Ireland, Nicholas Brembar, and Robert Tre- 
 '■'■ftWun Chief Juftice, and others, who had feduced the King, and made him alie- 
 " rate himfelf from the Council of the faid Lords, to the great Damage of the 
 " Kingdom". Whereupon the faid Duke of Glocejier , and the Lords afbrefaid, 
 with a great Guard of Knights, Efquires, and Archers, came up towards London^ 
 and quartered in the Villages adjacent: And then the Archbifhop oi Canterbury^ 
 the Lord Lcvet, the Lord Cobham, the Lord Eures, with others, went to the King 
 in the Name of the Duke and Earls, and demanded all the Perlbns above-menti- ^^°°* 
 oned to be baniflied as Seducers and Traitors to the King : And all the Lords then 
 fwore upon the Crols of the faid Archbilhop, not to defift till they had obtained 
 what they came for. The Condufion of this Meeting was. That the King not be- 
 ing able to withftand them , was forced immediately to call that remarkable Par- 
 liament of the I ith Year of his Reign, in which Michael de la Poole and the Duke 
 of Ireland were attainted, and Trejilian , and divers other Judges , fentenced to be 
 hanged at Tyburn, upon the Impeachment of the faid Duke of Glocejier, and the 
 Earl of Arundel, for delivering their Opinions contrary to Law, and the Articles 
 the King had not long before propoled to them at Nottingham, 
 
 1 (hall omit the Refiftance, which Henry Duke of Lancafier made after his Ar- 
 rival, by the AflTiftance of the Nobility and People of the North of England, a- 
 gainft the Arbitrary Government of this King, being then in Ireland^ not only 
 becaufe it is notorioufly known, but becaufe it was carried on farther than per-* 
 haps it needed to have been, and ended in the Depolition of this King. Only 
 in the firft Year oi Henry the IVth, there was the fame Aft of Indemnity almolt 
 word for word, palled for all thofe that had come over with that King, and had 
 aflifted him againff Richard the Second, and his evil Counfellors, as was paffed 
 hefore in primo of Edward the Third. I lliall not alfo infill upon the Refill- * "^ 
 
 aiice oi' Richard Duke of Tw/^, in the Reign of King //(?«r>i- the Vlth, who took 
 up Arms againlt the Evil Government of the Q.ueen,^ and her Minion the Duke 
 of Suffolk ; becaufe you may fay, that this was juftifiable by the Duke of IbrJi, 
 as Right Heir of the Crown : Nor will I inftance in tK^ Refiftance made by the 
 Two Houfes of Parliament, during the late Civil Wars, jn the Time of King 
 C/w/A:x the Fiift, (mce it is difputed to/this Day, who was in the Fault, and be- 
 gan this Civil War, whether the King or the Parliament : Only thus much I can- * 
 not omit to take notice of. That the King in none of his Declarations evet denied '^ 
 but that the People had a Right to refitt him, inj:afe he made War upon thenf,- 
 or liad introduced Arbitrary Government -, and exprefsly owns in his Anfwer to 
 one of the Parliament's Meffages , t1iat they had a fufficient Power to re- 
 (train Tyranny, but denied himfelf to be ^guilty of it : And Itill afferted,, Thap " 
 he took up Arms in Defence of his jufl Right and Prerogative, to the Comn^and 
 of the yVt/irij of the Kingdom, which they went'^boult.to tak^.fcom him by 
 Force. -. ' . ' 
 
 M. I have with the greater Patience hearkened to*your/Hiftory of Refiftance in 
 all the Kings Reigns you have mentioned , becaufe I Cannot delire any better Ar- 
 gument to prove the Unlawfulnefs of fuch Refiftance, tha^n thofe Afts of Pardon 
 and indemnity which you muft own have Itill followed it even when tfie Barons 
 pro\edmoft fortunate-, as in that of Henry the Third, to the Earl of Glocejier^ 
 and thofe of his Party -, and that of Edward the Firtl , to the Contlable and Ma- 
 refchal, and their Followers : Nay, after the former Kings liad been unjuftly de- 
 pofed, we ftill find the Adors and Complices of fuch wicked Adions, did not 
 think themfelves fafe till they had an Ad of Indemnity pafled to th^m, of all 
 the Robberies and Murders they had committed in the War ; as your felf have re- 
 cited in the Two Ads of Parliament, in the Reigns of £"^wW the Third, and Hen- 
 ry the Fourth, Now if thefe Refiltances had not been downright Rebellions in 
 the Eye of the Law, to what Purpofe were thefe Ads of Indemnity pafled , fince 
 no Man needs a Pardon, but rather merits a Reward tor defending the Government 
 eftablifli'd according to Law ? 
 
 E In Anfwer to this Objedion (for which I am already prepared , fince I 
 forefaw you might make it) pray give me leave to ask you, Whether'you can 
 
 Mmm 2 find
 
 45' 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTICA,^ 
 
 find the Words Tieafon, Rebellion, Robbery, or Murder, in any of thefe AQs of 
 Pardon ? And if you cannot, Whether you think Trealbn or Murder, could be 
 prdon'd by general Words or not ? And the Reafon why I ask this Quefton, is, 
 becaufe if they could not, then the Confequence will be', That none of thefe Par- 
 liaments fuppofed that the Refiftance that had been made, or all the other A£ts 
 performed in Purfuance of iuch Refinance, were looked upon by thofe that had 
 done them, no not by the Parliament it felf, to be Treafon, Rebellion, or Murder -, 
 fince certainly thofe that were Aftors in fuch Refiftances, and taking up of Arms, 
 having the Power in their Hands, would not have fiil'd to have had thole Words 
 inferred into thofe AQs of Indemnity, if they had fuppofed themfelves guilry of 
 thofe Crimes, 
 
 M. I cannot fay that the Words Treafon , and Rebellion , or Murder, are 
 exprefsly mentioned in thefe Statutes, fince even the Aftors in them did not 
 think it for their Credits, to own themfelves to have been guilty of any fuch 
 Crimes ; yet all the particular Words and Exprellions in thefe Acts amount to the 
 very fame Thing ^ for the taking up Arms with one that is not King, againlt him 
 that is, and the aftually feizing upon his Perfon, and keeping him in hold, was 
 Treafon at Common-Law, before the Statute of the sjth of Edwat-d the Third .- 
 And is not taking Men's Goods by Force, and deftroying their Perlbns i:i Time of 
 Peace, Rebellion and Murder at Common Law > So that if thefe were the Fa£b 
 they had been guilty of, and if thefe Afts were Treafon, Rebellion, Robbery^ 
 and Murder; then certainly all Treafons, Rebellions, Robberies, and Murders, 
 are likewife pardoned by thofe Statutes. And though 'tis true , the Law is now. 
 That no Pardon of Trealbn or Murder fhall be good, unlels thofe Offences are par- 
 Sut. 2. CL 1. tlcularly named.- Yet this was fo ordained by the Statute of the i?th of Richard 
 the Second, by which it is particularly provided. That no Pardon Ihall be allowed 
 before any 'juftice for the Death of a Man, iS'c. Treafon, &c. unlefs the lame 
 Murder, Treafbn, iffc. be fpecified in the laid Charter-, before which Statute Sir 
 ''• ^i^- Edward Coke, in his Second InjYit. tells us. That by the Pardon of all Felonie§, 
 
 Treafon vo^s pardoned, and fo was Murder alfo. 
 
 F. I cannot deny but that thefe Fa£ls you mention were Treafon , in Stri£l- 
 nefs of Law, before the making that Statute ; yet does it not follow, that even 
 ' thefe may be in fome Cafes jultifiable (as well as binding a King , wheti he is out 
 
 of his Wits) if the publick Peace ot the Kingdom, and Prefervation of the Go- 
 vanment, according to the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom, require it. Thus 
 for Example ; Suppofe King John, after he had made aftual War upon his Barons 
 and People, had happened to have his Forces routed in the Field, can any one 
 believe that it had been unlawful for them to have fecured his Perfon to prevent 
 his making a new War upon them ? And yet this by the Letter of the Law had 
 been Treafon. Now there are many Aftions , which in Striftnefs of Law are 
 Treafon, yet being for the publick l!)efence and Security of the Nation, deferve 
 a Pardon of Courfe. Thus, if Foreign Enemies fliould Land in England, and a 
 Neighbouring Nobleman or Gentleman, who has no Command over the Mjin'ta 
 of the Countrey, fliould raife on the fudden , fuch a Force of his Tenants and 
 Neighbours, as were fufficicnt to make a Head againfl them, till the Mi/hia of the 
 Countrey could come in to their Affiltance -, though this taking up of Arms, with- 
 out an Exprefs CommilfiOn for it, be a high Mifdemeanor •, (nay, Treaibn, accord- 
 ing to your Principles^ yet I fuppofe you will not deny, but that the Perlbns enga- 
 ged in it, do not only deferve Pardon, but Thanks for their Courage, and fo fpeedy 
 a Defence of the Nation. And I remember I have read a famous Inftance of this 
 Kind, that when the Traytors concerned in the Powder-Plot found themfelves dif^ 
 covered, they tied into Warwkkjlvrc, and thence into Worccflerjhire , and wete pur- 
 fued and taken by the High- Sheriff' of that County in Staffordjhirc -, which though 
 a great Mifdemeanor, fince no Sheriff can juffify carrying the Foffe Com'natits out of 
 the County ; yet this was fo well taken, that King James the Firft rewarded him, 
 and (as I take it) Knighted him for his Pains. 
 
 But to apply this to the Matter in Difpute -, though it is true, taking and impri- 
 foning the King's Perfon is Treafon in the Eye oi" the Law, yet (as in the Qfe of 
 Edxcari the Second ) if the Government could not be teftored to its priftine 
 ■ State without that Extremity, it muft, and will ever deferve a Pardon ; And there- 
 fore you fee the Parliament in the Firlt c^' Ediwrd the Third, not only par- 
 dons.
 
 "Dialogue the Ninth. 44-?- 
 
 dons, but juftities the doing of it, becaufe done for that End. So likewife the 
 Statute of the i ith o{ Richard the lid. Chap. i. not only indemnifies, but " jufti- 
 *' fies the Duke of Glocefle>\ the Earls, Lords, and all others of his Party, for 
 " taking up Arms againft the Perfons above-mentioned, tho' maintain'd and back'd 
 " by the King himfelf, as being done for the Weal and Safeguard of the King, 
 " the Maintenance of the Crown, and Salvation of the Realm. So much for the' 
 Point of making War againft the King, and imprifoning his Peribn. So that if 
 taking up Arms for the Safegiiard of the King, and Salvation oi" the Kingdom, 
 were juft and neceflary to be done, the Confequences of it, viz. the taking of 
 Mens Goods, and killing of thofe that refill them, cannot be Robbery or Murder, 
 becaufe done in a State of War ^ which can never be carried on without fuch A£ls 
 of Hoftility. And therefore you fee in the A£l of Pardon to the Earl of Gkcefter^ 
 and ro the Londoners, granted in Parliament of the jift oi Henry the Hid. fwhich 
 I have now cited ) thofe that took part with the King are as exprefsly pardoned, 
 as thole that were with the Earl; and in the like Pardon to the Conftable and 
 Marefchal, in the Time of Edward the lit. (which I now alfo quoted) thole 
 Lords would not own they had tranlgrefled ; but the Words are only , 
 tjiam tranfp-ejjiones fi quas fecerit. So that fince fuch Reformations could not 
 be broughi about without Violence and Bloodlhed, and Ibme Irregularities, which 
 in Times of Peace could not be juftified by the Ihicl Letter of the Law ^ it was 
 but Reafon, that for the quieting of Mens Minds, and their future Security, they 
 fhould be indemnified for what they had done with fo good an Intent, and for the 
 Common Good of the Kingdom. But that fuch AQs of Pardon do not relate to 
 the Titles fuch Kings had to the Crown, but only to their being Kings in the Eye 
 of the Law, appears by a like Aft of Pardon paffed in Parliament in the Firtt'of 
 Henry the Vllth. to pardon and fave harmlels all thole tliat came over with the 
 King, and all that helped him to recover his juli: Right to the Kingdom againft 
 King Richard the Illd. there ailed,' that Vfurper. So that you may fee, fuch 
 Afts of Pardons do not concern the juft Titles of Princes, nor the Juftice of the 
 War, but are to quiet Mens Minds under the New Government •, whereas thofe 
 that took part with the Ufurper, were not pardoned, but lel't to the Law •, fince 
 the prefent Government would not take care for their Security, that had obftrufted 
 its Settlement. So the Act of Oblivion of the 2d of Charles the lid. though it 
 pardons Treafbns exprefsly, yet it as well pardons the Treafons of them that had 
 CommilTions from King Charles the Ift. or lid. as well as thole that afted by 
 Commiflions from other pretended Authorities. So that you fee, in the Judgment 
 of this fb modern a Parliament, Men might be fuppoted to be guilty of Treafon, 
 tho' they had taken part with the King, and had aCted by his Commiflion, if the 
 Things commanded were illegal. 
 
 M. I confefs, you have taken a great deal of Pains , to juftify taking up Arms 
 againft, nay, Imprifonment of our Kings, when that which you call the Prelerva- 
 tion of the Government requires it ; that is, when there is a Faftion in the King- 
 dom ttrong enough to make a Difturbance. For it was very well faid by Tacitus, 
 in the Speech he makes for Otho to the Soldiers to take up Arms, and kill Galba^ 
 then Emj)eror; That it was in vain to fpeak more for the Juftification of that 
 Aftion, guod laudari non potejl nifi peraSum. Treafbns, if lliccefsful, have never 
 vwanted a ftifficient Party in the Nation to make up a Parliament to countenance 
 them, and to pardon, nay, juftify all thofe that have been Adors in them •, as we 
 may fee by thofe Afts of Indemnity you mention : And therefore I am not the 
 more convinced, that fuch ReHflance was lawful, notwithftanding thole fpecious 
 Declarations of Parliament, of their being made for the Publick Good, and Prcfer- 
 vation of the King and Kingdom. 
 
 But you have done very warily to pnfs by, without any Juftification, the Dt- 
 pofition of King Edward the lid. asalfb that of the Refiltance ( as you call it) of 
 Henry Duke of Lancajkr againft King Richard the lid. as alio hisDepofition, tho' 
 done in Parliament ^ fince all the Proceedings againft this King wae repeal'd in 
 Parliament, in the 1. of Edward the IVth, as appears by the Parliament Rolls of ^.j^f. /^.i--. 
 that King's Reign •, wherein the taking up Arms againft King Richard by Henry 1 ei 4 m. 9, 
 Fxirl of Derby, is faid to be done contrary to his Faith and Allegiance ■, and his i'f- 
 taking the Crown, ailed Ufurpation ^ and the killing of King Richard his Sove- 
 reign Lord, termed (as it juftly dcferved) Murder and Tyranny, wiiich does (rlio' 
 not directly, yet ) by Confequence condemn his Depolition too, fince he is after 
 
 that
 
 454 
 
 BlBLIOTHECA PoLlTICA. 
 
 that here called King. And you do as warily pafs by the late Rebellious Wat of 
 the Long Parliament againft King Charles the Ift. as alfo his horrid Murder before 
 his own Gates; becaufe you know very well, that this Doftrine of Reiiltance fel- 
 dom ftops with a bare Reformation of what is amifs •, but commonly ends wiclf 
 the Murder or Depofition of the King, or elle driving him from his Throne ; 
 as we now find it by woful Experience in the Perfbn of our Unforcunate 
 King, who was fb lately forced to quit this Kingdom for the Security of his 
 Perfon : And therefore, to put an end to this Part of the Difpute, the Parliament 
 of the 1 5th of King Charles the lid. were fo fenfible of the great Mifchiefs that 
 attended this Rebellious Doftrine, as having been the Deftruftion of one of the 
 beft Princes that ever reigned, and the Occafion of the Lois of io many brave 
 Men, befides the Ruin of fo many great and Noble Families, that they were re- 
 folved to do their utmoft to prevent it for the future •, and therefore the King and 
 Parliament, in the 13th and 14th of King Chirks the lid. pafled thole remarka- 
 ble Afts concerning the Settlement of the Militia in the King and his Succeflbrs, 
 to take away all Difpute about it, though they declare it to have been his 
 Ancient Right: And therefore, to take away all Pretence for taking up Arms either 
 by the Two Houles of Parliament, or any other Perlbn whatloever; they, in 
 Preamble to both thefe, that thefe A£ls thus exprefsly declare , " Forafmuch 
 1 3 Car. 2. " as within all his Majefty's Realms and Dominions, the fole Supreme Go- 
 chaf. 6. " vernment. Command and Difpofition of the Militia, and of all Forces by 
 
 " Sea and Land, and of all Forts and Places of Strength, is, and by the 
 " Law of England ever was, the undoubted Right of his Majefty's and his 
 *' Royal Predeceffbrs, Kings and Queens of England ; and that both, or either 
 *' Houfes of Parliament cannot, nor ought to pretend to the lajne, nor can 
 " lawfully raile or levy War, Offenfive or Defenfive, againft his Maiefty, 
 " his Heirs or lawful SucceflTors: And yet the contrary hereof hath of late 
 " been praftiled almoft to the Ruin and l!)eitruftion of this Kingdom ; and 
 " during the late Ufurped Governments, many Evil and Rebellious Principles 
 " have been inftilled into the Minds of the People of this Kingdom, which, 
 " unlefs prevented, may break forth to the Difturbance of the Peace and Quiet 
 " thereof, tSfc. 
 
 And in purfuance of this Statute, it was likewile ordained by the Authority 
 aforefaid, in the 2d Statute tor the Militia of the 14th Year of the lame King, 
 where not only the lame Preamble is recited verbatim , as before in the for- 
 mer Statute, but it is alfo EnaQed, ". That no Perlbn , ( no not a Peer of 
 Chaf.^. " the Rcaiin) Ihall be capable of afting as Lieutenant, Deputy-Lieu tenant , 
 " Officer or Soldier, by virtue of this Aft, unlefs after the Oaths of Alle- 
 *' glance and Supremacy they take this Oath following; viz. I A. B. do 
 *' declare and believe. That it is not lawful, upon any Pretence whatlbever, 
 " to take Arms againft ihc- King •, and that I do abhor that traiterous Po- 
 " lition, that Arms may l.f; taken by his Authority againft his Perfon, or 
 *' againft tliofe that are Cornmiffioned by him in purfuance of fuch Military 
 " Commifiions. And it is alio to be noted, that all Mayors of Cities, or other 
 Corporations, were obliged, by a former Statute of the 1 3 th of this King, to take 
 the fame Oath. From both which Statutes and Declaration, we may draw thele 
 Conclufions : . Firft, Thit the Militia ( ;". c. the Command of all Military For- 
 ces and Warlike Affairs) are declared to be wholly in the King. Secondly, 
 That either, or both Houles of Parliament, cannot make any War, Offenfive or 
 Defenfive, againft him, i>c. Pray mark that. Thirdly, That the contrary Pra- 
 ftice hath tended almoft to the Deftru£lion of this Kingdom, and rhat many 
 Evil and Rebellious Prirxiples ( whereof this without doubt is intended for the 
 chief) have been inftilled into the Minds of the People, i^c And laftly. That 
 in purfuance thereof, all Perlbns above-mentioned were not only obliged to re- 
 nounce taking up Arms againft the King, upon any Pretence whatlbever ; but alio 
 againft any that Ihall be authoriz'd by the King's Military Commiflions, without 
 any Exception^-. And it is farther Enafted, That all Clergymen fhould be 
 obliged to tatte this Oath, as well as the Laity ; and it is likewile there or- 
 dained, That all Clergymen who were to enjoy any Livings or Preferments in 
 the Church, were likewife, for the Space of Twenty Years next enfuing, obli- 
 ged to fubfcribe this Declaration. So that it is no wonder, if the Loyal Qergy 
 
 of
 
 ^Dialogue the Ninth. Att 
 
 of the Church of England, think themfelves not only tied by the exprefs Rules 
 of Saipcure, but aUb by the Laws of the Land, ftriclly to obferve this great 
 Law of PalTive Obedience, and Non Refiftance. Now pray fee here the Dodrine 
 of Non-Refiftance in its full Amplitude, yea, this very Doftrine declared to be /ov. p. jij. 
 the Law of this Kingdom, and that by two exprefs AQs of Parliament. And can 
 you think the Two Houles were not in earnelt when they made this Declara- 
 tion? Surely had they not been lb, they had been very ridiculous to jeft with all 
 our Laws and Liberties •, had they not been, 1 fay, verily perfuaded of the Truth 
 of this DoQrine by Law, as well as by Scripture. So that I hope you muft now 
 be forced to confefs, that even our own Reprelentatives have folemnly renounced 
 for theniklves and the whole Nation, all Ri§ht of Refiftance, lb much as defen- 
 five, agaiiit thofe commiflioned by the King, upon any Pretence or Occafion 
 whatfoever •, and we have left us nothing whereby to defend our felves againlt 
 our Kings , or thofe commiflioned by them, (no, not if they never lb much 
 abufe their Power) but the old Primitive Artillery of Pieces and Lachrytne. 
 
 K As for what you have more than once laid, that this Doftrine of Re- 
 fiftance, if carried home, always ends in the Depofition and Murder of the 
 King; tho' it hath I grant fometimes happened, yet that has not been always fo, but 
 molt often to the contrary •, as appears by thofe Refiftances that were made in 
 the Reigns of King Richard I, Henry IIL Edward L and divers Times in 
 Edward and Richard lid's Reigns, betbre Things were driven to that Extre- 
 mity, as they afterwards were. And as I will not juftify the Depofition of 
 thofe Princes, tho' done by Parliament, yet will I not abfblutely condemn 
 them ; fince no Aft of Parliament hath, as I know, ever done it : And tho' 
 it is true, all the Proceedings in Parliament againft Edward II. are taken off 
 the Rolls, yet was it not done by Order of Parliament, but by Richard IL 
 alone, when he by his exorbitant Courles feared to be ierved after the fame 
 Manner. But that there was in thofe Times lome Ancient Law extant, which 
 was alfo deftroyed by rhat King, appears by that remarkable Declaration of the 
 Lords anck Commons in Parliament, lent by way of MelFage to the King (then 
 wilfully abfenting himlelf from the Parliament) by the Duke of G/ocefier his 
 Uncle, and the Bilhop of E/y, who fure were too great jo. tell fo n otorious_a^ 
 Xxs.. The Speech you will find at large in Knighton, beginning thus, Do- 
 w/«f Rf>r j and after many Petitions, and good Advices, at laft thus concludes, "'^^^i^ 
 
 which I (hall give you m Latin, 'Sed& uniim aliiid dc animo nofirofuper- 
 
 ejl nobis ex parte Popuii vepi vobii intimare, habent enim ex antiquo Statute^ 
 & de fa^o non longe rctroaBis temporibus experienter quod dolendum efl ha- 
 bit o, fi Rex maligna Confilio quocunque, vel ineptu cgntumacia aut contempt u , 
 feu proterva voluntate fmgulari, aut quovis modo irregulari fc alienaverk a Po- 
 pitlo fuo, nee vohierit per jura Rcgni, C Statuta, iff laudabiles Ordinationes cum 
 faluhri Confilio Dominorum, ^ Procerum Regni, gubernari, i!f rcgulari, fed capti- 
 ofe in fuis infinis Confiliii propriam voluntatem fuam fingularem proterve exerccre, 
 tunc licitum eft iis cum communi affenfu Popuii Regni, iffiim Regem de Regali folio 
 (ibrogare & propinquiorem aUquem de ftirpe Regk loco ejus in Rcgni folio fubli mare. 
 
 From whence yon may obferve, that the Lords here relate to an Ancient 
 Statute or Law then in being, tho' the Execution of it on the Perlbn of his 
 great Grandfather Edward II. was but of Times not long paffed ; and that 
 King Richard might as well deftroy the Record of that Law, being not then 
 commonly known, or in private Men's Hands, a^ well as he did divers oiher Re- 
 cords ; as appears in the 24th Article againft this King, wherein it is let fbrth, 
 " That the faid King had caufed the Rolls of the Records touching the State 
 " and Government of this Kingdom to be defaced and razed, to the great Preju- 
 " dice of his People, and the Difinherifon of the faid Realm, iSic. So that no- 
 thing is more certain, than that the Two Houfes of Parliament, at that Time, 
 did look upon it as their undoubted Right to depofe the King in cale he violated 
 the fundamental Laws and Conltitutions of the Kingdom. Tho' how this could 
 confift with that Power which the King then exerciled, of calling and diffolving 
 Parliaments at his Plcafure, I do not underftand, fince it can never be fuppofed 
 that a King, whilft in full Power, would permit a Parliament, called in his Name, 
 to fit, to depofe himfelf for evil Government. 
 
 As for the War made by the Two Houfes againft King Charles I. I 
 (hall not undertake to juftify it, for the Reafons already given j as alfo becaule
 
 4^6 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTICA. 
 
 it was not a War undertaken by the general Conlent of the whole Kingdom, 
 but carried on chiefly by the Puritan or Presbyterian Party : For tho' the City 
 of London, and many other great Towns were for tlie Parliament ; yet it is 
 alfo certain, that the ;;w;w Part of the Nobility and Gentry of England fought 
 for the King, and were ib confiderable a Number, as to make an Anti-Parliament 
 at Oxford ; lb that this War could never have happened, had not the King 
 parted with the Power of diflblving of the Parliament out of his Hands. Much 
 lefs will I juftify the Murder of this King, or of any others above-mentioned, as 
 being no neceflfary Confequences of that Refiftance I only allow for Lawful, u/s. That 
 of the whole or fffajor Part of the Nation. Nor were Edward II. or Riclwrd II. put 
 to Death by any Aft or Order of Parliament, but were murthered in Prifon j 
 and the Murderers of^EdioardU. were afterwards attainted by Act of Parliament 
 and executed as they delerved. But as for the Murder of King Charles I. it is 
 not to be taken into this Account, it being not done by the Authority of the 
 Lords and Commons in Parliament, but by a Fa£lious Rump or Fag-End of 
 the Houfe of Commons, who fate by the Power of the Army ; after far the 
 major Fart of the Members who were for the King were fhut out of Doors, and 
 the Lords voted ufelefs and dangerous. 
 
 M. I confefs you have made as good an Apology for thefe Anions as the 
 Matter will bear \ but that neither of the Two Houfes can at this Day have 
 any coercive Power over the King, or to call him to an Account for any thing 
 he has done, appears by the exprefs Declaration of both Houfes in the Sta- 
 tute of the T2th of Charles II. as alfo in thofe but now cited, in which they 
 utterly difclaim all making War, whether offenfive or defenhve. againft his 
 Majefty •, much lefs can he be fubject to any other Coercive or Vindiftive 
 Power, or ought any ways to be refilled by private Perfons : Therefore fup- 
 pofing I ihould grant fas I do not^> that the Parliaments had formerly a Power 
 of depofing of their Kings, or that the Clergy, Nobility and People had alio 
 a Right of taking up Arms againft the King in Cafe of notorious Tyranny, 
 and Mifgovernment v, yet is all fuch Reliftance exprefly renounced, and declared 
 unlawful by the Oath and Declarations now cited. So that tho' in -the dark 
 Times of Popery, fuch Refiftance might be counted lawful, not only by the 
 Laity, but alfo by the Bifhops and Clergy, who ought to have taught the 
 People better Do8:rine •, yet 1 think it had been much better for the Nation 
 to have endured the worft that could have happened from the Tyranny of Kings, 
 than to have tranfgrefs'd the Rules of the Gofpel, and the conftanr Doftrineof the 
 Primitive Church by Refiftance and Rebellion againft the Sup'ream Power of the 
 Nation. 
 
 f! I • (hall not now maintain that the Two Houfes of Parliament have any 
 Authority at this Day to depofe the King, or levy a War againft him, upon 
 any Account •, yet that they have ftill a Power to judge of the King's Aftions, 
 whether confonant to Law or not, and whether he has not broke the Fundamental 
 Con ftitutions of the Kingdom , is no where given up, as I know of: But that 
 Refiftance in fome Caies is not contrary to the Do£brine of the Gofpel, I 
 have already proved, and that it was not direftly contrary to the Laws of the Land 
 before rhefe Statutes, you do partly grant. But fince the main Strength of your 
 Caule, lies in this Oath appointed by thefe AQs ot Parliamenr, therefore if I can 
 give a fatisfaftory Account of the true Meaning and Senfe of thefe Afts, to be 
 otherwile than you fuppofe, I hope you will grant that Refiftance may ftill be 
 lawfully made by the whole Body of the People in the Cafes I have now put, 
 againft any Peribns, who under Colour and Pretence of the King's Commiflion 
 Ihould violently affault their Perfons in the free Exercife of their Religion, 
 as it is by Law eftabliflied, or fliould go about to invade their juft Liberties 
 and Properties, which the Fundamental Laws of England have conferred upon eve- 
 ry Free-born SubjeQ: of it. 
 
 And in order to the clearer Proof of this, I fhall make ufe of this Method; 
 I Ihall fiift explain the Terms of this Declaration, and then I ftiall proceed to 
 fhevy you that even in a legal Senfe alldefenfive Arms, or Relilfance of the Kings 
 Perfbn in feme Cafes, or of thofe commifTioned by him, is not forbidden, nor in- 
 tended to be forbid by thefe Statutes and Declarations : Firft then, by taking 
 Arms againft the King, is certainly meant no more than making War againft 
 the King, according to the Statute of the Twenty tifth oi Edward III. which de- 
 
 5 . claies
 
 Dialogue the Ninth. ac^-j 
 
 dares making War againft the King to be Treafon ; and this is unlawful iip^n 
 any Pretence whacfbever. Secondly , The Claufe , by his Authcrny againft hit 
 Terfon, is only to he underftood of the King's Legal Authority ; and by nis Per- 
 Ibn, is tncant his Natural and Politick Perlbn, when afting together for the lame 
 Ends as 1 (hall (hew you by and by. So that both thefe Statutes are but De- 
 claratory of the Ancient Common-Law of England againft taking up Arms, and 
 making War againft the King, and do not (in my Opinion) introduce any new Law 
 concerning this Matter : So that whatever was Trealbn by the Statute of the 2;th 
 ofEdtoard the Third is Treafon by thefe Statutes, and no more ; viz. all takint^ 
 up Arms, or aftual making War againft the King in order to kill, depofe, or im^ 
 prifon him, (^c. as S]t Edvrard CMe ihcws us in his Third Inflitia. in his Notes 
 upon this Statute •, yet notwithftanding, after this Statute of the 25th of ficc/ri 
 the Third, the Clergy, Nobility, and People of England aftembled in Parliament, 
 did (iippole it ftill lawful to take up Arms againft thofe illegally commiflioned by 
 ■the- King, in cale of notorious Mifgovernmentand Breach ofthe Fundamental Laws 
 of the Nation •, as appears by that general Refiftance made by Reafbn of the evil 
 Government of the Duke of Ireland, and thofe concerned with him, in the nth 
 of Richard the Second j which, as I have already proved, was allowed for lawful 
 by Act of Parliament, and confequently by the King's own Confent, without which 
 it could never have been fo declared. The like I may fay for that Refi(iance which y^^ Cafton's 
 was made in King /fc;?^/ the Sixth's Reign, hy Richard D\iktofTork, and the Earls Chronkk, p. 
 and Barons of his Party, againft the Evil Government of the Qjieen, and the Duke ^^i- 
 of Somcrfct , who govetned all Affairs in an Arbitrary and yet unfuccefsfijl Manner, 
 by Reafon of the Eafinefs and Weaknefs of King Henry. But though this Refift- 
 ance was alfo approved of in the next Parliament of the 23d Year of this King, 
 yet I (hall notfo much infiltupon it, becaufe I know you willalledge, that this was 
 made by the Lawful Heir of the Crown againft an Ufurper, fince the Crown was 
 not long after adjudged to be his Right, though King Henry was allowed to wear it 
 during his Life : Yet however, it fhews the Opinion of the Clergy, Nobility, and 
 People of England it that Time, concerning the Lawfulnefs of fuch Refiftance, be- 
 fore this Declaration of the Eltates of the Kingdom, concerning the Legality of the 
 Duke of Tork\ Title, was made in the Parliament above-mentioned. 
 
 Thirdly , That the Parliament by thefe Statute of the 13th of Charles the Se- 
 cond tor the Militia , never intended thereby to enable , or leave, it in the Power 
 of that King, or his Succeflbrs, to make this Kingdom an ablblute Delpotick Mo- 
 narchy inftead of a limited one -, as they muft have done , had they declared that 
 the King, and thofe CommifTioned by him, might do what they pleafed with 
 the Religion, Lives, Liberties, and Eftates of the People of this Nation, and 
 that it was Treafon to refift in any Cale whatfoever. Sure they could not but re- 
 member that apparent CommifTion of Sir Phelim OneaFs, in the Year -41, where- 
 by he pretended to be impowered to drive the Englijh Proteftants out of heland, 
 and tofet up thePopifh Religion in that Kingdom, and reftore the Infh to their 
 Eftates :, and fure divers of them could not be unmindful that this was to give 
 away all Right of Self Defence, in cale any future King (hould by his own innate 
 Tyrannical Temper , or the evil Counfel of wicked Men, be perfuaded to ule 
 Force upon the Perfons of the Lords and Commons, either whilft they were 
 actually fitting, or in their Paflage to the Two Houfes, fince by this Aft or Oath, 
 if underftood in your Senfe, they muft have barred themlelves, and the whole 
 Nation, of all Right of Self Defence , in any Cafe whatfoever , though of the 
 greateft Extremity •, and therefore I doubt not , but the Intent of this Parliament 
 was to leave Things as they found them. And as it was ablblutely unlawful for the 
 People ot" this Nation to take up Arms againft the King , fo it is alio as unlawful 
 in him, or thofe Coinmifiioned by him, to make War upon the People, or to 
 dilTeize them by Force ot their Religion, juft Rights, Liberties, or Eftates: And 
 if the King hatii a Right to defend himfelf, and his Crown and Dignity, againft 
 Rebellion, fo mutt the People ot this Nation have a Right likewile to defend them- 
 lelves againft Arbitrary Power, in cafe of an Invafion of any of the Fundamental 
 Rights above-mentioned ; ot elfe all Bounds between a Limited and Delpotick 
 Power will be quite taken away, and the King may make himfelf as ablblute as 
 the King of France or Great Turk whenever he pleafes, 
 
 N n n ^r. I will
 
 A^S B I B L I O T H E C A P O L 1 T I C A. 
 
 M. I will not difpute with you about bare Matter of Fa8: , or that a ptevailing 
 Faftion might not in turbulent Times , and during the Reigns of weak and iil-ad- 
 vifed Princes, take upon them by Force of Arms, to remove Evil Councellors, 
 and to put the Government of the Kingdom in what Hands they pleaied, and then 
 procure Acts of Parliament to indemnify themfelves for fa doing : Yet I cannot 
 allow that even fuch Acts could make it lawful to take up Arms againft the King, 
 or thole Commiffioned by him, upon any Pretence whatlbever. So that though I 
 grant that the Intent of this Parliament of King Charles the Second, was not to 
 make any new Law againft Refiltance, or taking up Arms againft the King, yet was 
 it their Defign fo to explain the Ancient Statute of the 25th oi Edtcurd che Third, 
 that none (liould for the Future doubt in the leaft, that all taking up Arms, or Re- 
 fiftance of the King, or thoie Commiflioned by him, upon any Pretence whatlbe- 
 ver, was unlawful and trealbnable : And for this we need go no farther than the ve- 
 n- Words of rhefe Declarations, which the Parliaments of the i2rh and ijch of 
 Charles the Second have made concerning this Matrer : As Firft, in tlie Statute of 
 the 1 2th of Cir. 2. Cap. ?c, for attaintbg the Regicides, the Two Houfes of Par- 
 liament exprefsly declare, " That by the Fundamental Laws of this Kingdom, 
 " neither the Peers of this Realm, nor the Commons, nor both together in Parlia- 
 " ment, nor the People colleftively , or reprefentatively , nor any other Perfons 
 " whatfoever, ever had, hath, or ought to have any Coercive Power over the Per- 
 " fons of the Kings of this Realm '. Whereby not only all the Traiterous Exam- 
 ples of the Depofitions, and Imprifonments of King Edward, and Richard the Se- 
 cond, are exprefsly condemned •, but alfo ail taking Arms to force the King to re- 
 drefs our Grievances, wherh.er he will or not. And farther. That ail Arms, whether 
 Offenfive or Defenfive, are exprefsly forbid , pray mind that Cbufe ?in the Pream- 
 ble to thefe Atls of the Milithi I now mentioned ; wherein that Parliament exprefs- 
 ly renounces " all taking up Arms, as well Defenfive as Offenfive againft the King : 
 And the Words of the Oath it felf are yet more Itrict, " That it is not lawful, up- 
 " en any Fretence lahatfcrcer, to take up Arms againft the King ". Now can any 
 Thing be plainer, than that all defenfive Arms, tho' for our Religion, Lives, and 
 Liberties, or whatfoever elfe you pleafe, are exprefsly declared to be againlf the 
 Fundamental Laws of this Kingdom. 
 
 But as for the dreadful Confequences of this Law, if never fo ftriclly taken, they 
 are not fo bad as you are pleafe to fancy : For as to your Inftance of Sir Fhe/im 0-, 
 neafs pretended Commifl^on from King Charles the Fiift, you may be very well fa- 
 tiified, that it was a notorious Piece of Forgery ; fince beiides that good King's con- 
 ftant Dfenial of any fuch CommfTion granted by him, Sir Fhelim, when he came to 
 fuffer in Ireland, for raifing that horrid Rebellion, did volunrarily at the Gallows 
 acknowledge, that he had forged it himfelf , by putting the Seal of an old Patent, 
 which he had by him, to that pretended CommilTion you now mention : Nor in- 
 deed can it ever enter into my Head, that any King fhould grant a CommilF.on to de- 
 ftroy or make War upon his People as long as they continue in their Duty to 
 him, though of a difterent Religion from himfelf; tho' perhaps he may think fie 
 for fbme Reafbns, to difarm them, or deny rhem the publick Lxercife of their 
 Religion, 01 render them iincapable of bearing any Offices of publick Trtift in the 
 Kingdom. But if thefe fhould be lawiiil Caufes of Reliftance, why the Papifts 
 fhould not be allowed it as well as theProteftants, I can fee no Reafon to the con- 
 trary. As for your other Inftance, that the Parliament by renouncing aU defen- 
 five Arm.s, mult be fuppofed likewife to give up all Right of Self defence, in Cafe 
 the King, or any CommifTioned by him, fhould ufe any Violence to the Perfbns 
 of the Lords and Commons aflem bled in Parliament, or in going thither -. This 
 is fo unlikely, and remote a Cafe, that it hardly comes under the Confideration of 
 a bare PofPib'ilaty. But, however , let the woiii that can happen , 1 am very well 
 iatistied, that the Parliament was then fo thoroughly convinced of tlae Mifchiefs hal 
 befallen this Nation by this Republican Doctrine of Refiftance, having been the 
 Caule of the Deftrudion of the belt conftituted Church and Government in the 
 World , as alfo of the Murder of one of the beft Princes that ever Reigned, that 
 they were refolved rather to truft to the Coronation Oaths, and innate Goodnefs of 
 our prefent and future Kings, than to fuppofe any War could be lawfully made 
 againft them, upon any Account whatfbevei; which would have been exprefsly con-, 
 rrary not only to the Doftrine of the Church of England , but the known Laws of 
 the Land. 
 
 F I do
 
 Dialogue the Ninth. 4.59 
 
 F. I do not deny, but the Perfons oF the Kings and Qiieens of this Realm are, 
 and ought to be Sacred and Inviolable •, and yet no Man will therefore lay, that 
 they are irrefiftible too in all Cafes whatfoever. As if the King (for Exairiple) 
 fhould attempt to ravifh Women, or rob, or murder Men upon the Highway, or 
 in the Streets, as the Ancient Hiftorians relate of Kero and Commodus the Empe 
 rors, and as is reported of the lafl: King of Portugal, and which was one of the 
 Reaibns of the Eftates of the Kingdom removing him from the Government. And 
 as our Henry the Vth. is related by our Hiftorians to have robbed Men upon the 
 Highway before he was King : So if he had gone about to continue the lame Fro- 
 lick after he came to the Crown, I do believe his Peribn, and all thole that robbed 
 by his Commiflion, had not been irrefiftible •, nor would it have been Treafon with- 
 in the Statute of the S'jth of Edward the Hid. though he was then actually King, 
 any more than it would have been Trealbn had the like happened when he was 
 Prince, tho' he was exprefly within that Statute. And yet this would not have 
 contradifted the Parliament's Declaration in the 12th of Car. the lid. That neither 
 the Parliament nor the People have Coercive Power over the- Perfons of the Kings 
 of this Realm •, lince by Coercive Power muft be here underftood, his being fub- 
 je£l to the Penalties of the Law, or being called to an Account by any Jurifdiftion. 
 But there is a vaft Difference between that, and Refiftance for Self Defence, fince 
 I may ufe this againft the Violence of my Father in the State of Nature, as I have 
 already proved •, tho' 1 cannot juftify the Punifhment of my Father, or calling 
 him to an Account as his Superior : Therefore 'tis only in the King's Politick Ca- 
 pacity, that he can be faid to do no Wrong 5 fince you lee he may perlbnally com- 
 mit the greateft Crimes imaginable, tho' his Perfon is unpunifhable for want of a 
 Superior Power to call him to an Account : Yet 'tis not lb with thole who a£t by 
 his Illegal Commiflwns or Commands -, fince, having delegated the Executive Part 
 of his Regal Power to his fubordinat? Minifters and Officers, 'tis they that are ac- 
 countable and punifhable too by the Law of the Land, in cafe they any ways tranP 
 grels or violate it by his illegal Commiflions or Commands, as I Ihall prove 
 more at large by and by. And as no War, properly fo called, can be made againft 
 a fingle Perlbn, but againft a Man, as he is aided or aflifted by many others ^ lb 
 this War againft the King can be only interpreted of fuch Wars or Rebellions as 
 are made againft him in his politick Capacity, as he is King and Supreme Gover- 
 nor of the Realm, and the Commander of all the Militia thereof to legal Intents, 
 and for the Defence thereof againft Foreign or Domeftick Enemies ; nor was 
 there any great Fear, according to the Ancient Legal Conftitution of this Kingdom, 
 that this could often fall out, or indeed be put in praSlice to any other Purpofe by 
 the Kings of this Realm, if we confider the Ancient Form of ordering the Forces 
 or M/itia of this Kingdom. 
 
 For, in the firft place, I defire you to obferve. That by the Common Law of 
 England, before thele A£ls of the Militia, the King himfelf could not, but in Cafe 
 of Invafion or Infurreftion, levy or keep on foot any Handing Forces in England^ 
 unlefs for Foreign Succours, which was ufually by Contract with fome great Lord 
 or other Perlbn, or by Tenure, againft the Scotch and Weljh •, and as for the Militia^ 
 it was never reduced into ftanding Troops, Companies, or Regiments, till the 
 Spanijh Invafion, as will appear by all Afts of Parliament in the Statutes at large, 
 where A£fs for the Aflize of Arms were made only for Men to provide and have 
 in Readinefs fuch Horles and Arms, to ftiew them before the King's Commiflioners 
 when they fhould be requu-ed to take View of them ^ a Regimented Mi/itia, 
 being of no elder Date than Queen Elizabeth. But King James the lit. did, by 
 A£V of Parliament in the firft Year of his Reign, repeal all fbrmer Afts for 
 AlTize of Arms, and never eftablifhed any thing in lieu thereof: So it ftood 
 till King Charles the Ild.'s Time, that thele new Afts for the Militia were 
 made. And (to confirm this Point beyond all Difputc) in all the Quarrels 
 between the King and the Barons, and York and Lancajier, the Parliament often 
 refuled to meet until the Forces were disbanded that were raifed upon thofe Oc- 
 cafions. Nor had any King ftanding Forces or Guards, till Henry the Vlltli. 
 when that of the Yeomen of the Guard was fettled by a fpecial M\ of Parliament: 
 And what is mott remarkable, the Commons in the Long Parliament of Charles 
 the lid. did, by their Votes entred upon their Journals, declare and alfert, Ihat 
 by Law no Armed Vorce could be kept uj> in Time pj "Peace, except the Aii/itia -, 
 and as tor Foreign Succours, they were obliged to be carried immediately to the 
 
 N n n 2 Port
 
 4.6( 
 
 Bl BLTOTHECA PoLlTlCA. 
 
 Port of their Difcharge, and were not to exceed one Month at fartheft from the 
 Time of their firft Mufter. As tor Caftles and Forts within the Keahn, tliey 
 were almoft all fupplied and defended by Tenures ^ but for the Militia of 
 Old Time, it was in the Siieriffs of the Couniies to make ule thereof for 
 the Execution of the Laws, and Defence of the Kingdom, except in the Cafes 
 aforefaid -, and it was Treafon for any Subjeft to levy Soldiers, except by the 
 King's Commifiion, and in the Cafes aforefaid •, or lb much as to ride or go arm'd, 
 as may appear by the Statute of Korth.mp/o/t, in the 2d of Edward the Hid. 
 much lefs was it lawful for them to take up Arms, unlels in their own 
 Defence againft illegal Violence, and in fuch manner as the Law dire«;ls: And it 
 was one of the Articles that was adjudged to be Treafon in Parliament againft 
 Mortimer, That he rode armed to Paliament, and threatned the Prelates and Peers 
 that did any thing againlt his Will, and who advifed the King to levy War upon 
 his Subjefts. See alfo Coke\ 4th Inltirutes, Title Council-board, where the 4th 
 WA.ParViam. Article againft the Spencers is, " Thar they falfly and malicioully had counfelled 
 T'L^^d ^M^y*^ the King to rails Horfe and Arms in Deltruclion of the good People, againlt 
 tuomri. "''" the Form of 7llj^«rz C/;jr/^ 5 and ib by their evil Counfel would have moved 
 Art. 2. ' " War within the Realm, to the Deffruftion of Holy Church and of the People, 
 " for their proper Quarrel: So that taking Arms by the King againlt his Subjects, 
 and the Subjefts againft the King, was both alike againft Law. 
 
 adly. That taking Arms againft the King, in Conftrud.on of Law, is Levying 
 War .• But this can by no means extend to Delenfive Arms in Maintenance of the 
 Law, which is allowed and enjoined; and that nothing elfe was here meant, is 
 plain, fince by the fublequent Words in this Oath, it is rtftrained to the takuig 
 Arms by his Authority againft his Perfon, or thole Commilhoned by him : Which 
 fhews, that nothing here is intended to be forbidden, but taking up Offenfive 
 Arms upon popular Pretences, without and^ againft the Authority of the Law -, 
 which is further explained in another Teft* by tt>e Authority of both Houies oi' 
 Parliament. 
 
 Thirdly, 'Tis obfervable, this is but a Teft upon Ibme that were to come into 
 Offices, and can by no means make any Change in the Ancient Law, which 
 cannot be changed by Implication. Nor does this amount to fo much •, the 
 firft Part of this Oath requiring only that the Party admitted into Office, 
 fhall fb declare and believe ; and tho' the Second Claufe calls it a Traiterous 
 Pofition, yet it is reftrained only to thefe Two Particulars, " That Arms may 
 "not be taken up by the King's Authority againlt his Perion, or thofe 
 " Commidioned by him : Which can have reference to nothing but that Di- 
 ftinftion taken up in the late Times of Civil War, when rhe Parliament 
 pretended to take Arms, and grant Commiffions in the Name of King and Parlia- 
 ment, by vertue of that Authority which they fuppofed he left with them at 
 WeUminjIer ■ So that this Claufe can by no means exclude any Arms made ule of 
 for legal Defence according to Law, 
 
 Fourthly and Laftly , Tho' the Words, againft thofe Commijftorted by him, may 
 feem ro extend the Matter further, and is miftaken by Ibme, as it it required 
 at leaft Paflive Obedience ro all Commiflions of the King, tho' never lb il- 
 legal ^ yet there is not the leaft Colour for it, fince nothing is a CommiflTion 
 but the King's legal Command or Authority purfuant to feme Law, and for 
 putting the fame in Execution, which is the legal Definition of a Commilfion. 
 And when this Teft was firft brought in to the Second Parliament of King Charles 
 the lid. and that the Word Legal was offered to be added to the Bill ; upon a long 
 Debate it was only left out, becaufe it was declared by all rhe Lawyers in the 
 Houfe, (^even by Sir Wneage Imch, then the King's Sollicitor) and agreed to by 
 the whole Houfe, That it was clearly implied, and could bear no other Con- 
 ftruftion, but that all Illegal Commiflions were null and A'oid, and m no legal 
 Senle could be called Commiflions : So that taking up Arms in the Defence of the 
 Law, and i)urfuant thereunto, cannot in any wile be called a taking Arms againft 
 the King's Perfbn^ or thofe Commilhoned by him. And farther, that by the Words, 
 inpurjuuince of fuch Military Commijjions, are meant fuch as are warranted by that 
 Act, and fuch as the King may iliue by his Royal Authority, which is bounded 
 by Law, and conlequently cannot grant any Commiflions, but what are according 
 to Law. So that if thele Commiflions- are granted to Perfons utterly dilabled by 
 Law to take them, as all aie tliat do not take the Teft appointed by the A£t of 
 
 the
 
 T>ialogue the Ninth. a6[ 
 
 the 25th of King Charles II, Entituled, An Aff to prevent the Dangers that 
 may arife from Vcpifh Recufants : As alfo all Commiflions to do any Illegal, vio- 
 lent Atlion, are abfolutely void, and confequenrly may be refitted •, or elfe our 
 Magna Charta, with all the other Laws that eftablifli Liberty and Property, as 
 alfo our very Religion it ielF Eftablifhed by Law, may be either untlermined' by 
 the King's new difpenfing Power, or elfe fubverted by open^ovce; and every 
 Commilfion- Officer in a Red Coat, will be as Sacred and Irrefiftible as the King 
 himfelf. 
 
 But to conclude : That the Inftances I have given, that the King's Commif- 
 fion may be abufed to the Deftruftion of the Nation ; nay, of the whole Parlia- 
 ment, are not lb unlikely and remote as you irrtagine ; Pray let me put you in 
 Mind, that as for that pretended Commilfion to Sir Phe/im Oneal-^ tho' it is true, 
 it proved at lall to be forged, yet was it not kqown to be lb till long after •, and 
 therefore having all the Signs of a true Commiflion under the King's Great Seal, 
 the poor Proteltants in be/and were to have had their Throats cut according to 
 this Oath, before ever they could be fatisfied whether it were true or not. But y 
 
 that a Popilh King perfecuting and deftroying his Proteftant SubjeQs only fbr Mat- 
 ters of Religion, isndt fo improbable a Thing as you would have it ^ the French 
 King's late Dragooning, Imprilbning, and lending to the Gallies all that refuled 
 to renounce Herely, ( as they call it, ) and fubfcribe to the Articles of the Ro/nijh 
 Religion, has given us but too lad and recent an Example : And how you can 
 affure me, that the King afting upon thele very Principles, and being governed by 
 Jefuit Confeflbrs, will never' do the fame Things, I (hould be glad to receive 
 fome better Sarisfaftion than his bare Word to the contrary. 
 
 Nor yet is my other Inftance of its being left according to your Doctrine in 
 the King's Power, to make a violent Afiault upon the Perlbns both of the Lords 
 and Commons afiembled in Parliament, whenever he pleafed, without any Refi- 
 ftance whatfoever, lb remote and improbable as you are pleafed to make it •, fince 
 you may find it ftill upon Record among the Articles exhibited in Parliament againft 
 Robert de Vere, DvikQ oi' Ireland, Robert Trejlllan, Chief Juftice, 2iX\^^\i Nicholas 
 Brcmbnr, in the Parliament of the nth 0^ Richard W, (which I have already 
 mentioned) the 15th Article of whicli was, '• That they by their falfe Council rid. Rot. Purl. 
 " had cauled the King to command the laid Nicholas, being then Mayor a^Lon- • • ^'f*' ^• 
 " don, fuddenly to rile with a great Power to kill, and put to death the faid ''""J'^'^'"'^''- 
 " Lords-, (viz. Thomas Dvke of Glocefter, and the other Lords there named) 
 " and the Commons ( viz. ol' the Parliament of the 10th of this 
 " King) who were not of their Party and Conlpiracy ; for the doing of which 
 " Wickednefs, the faid grand Traytors abovelaid, were Parties and Prelents to the 
 " Deftruftion of the King and his Realm. So that if this Treafon had not been 
 difcover'd, and that no private Perlbns might then refill: thofe Commifiioned by 
 the King, it would have been Trealbn, according to your Principles, for the laid 
 Lords and Commons to have refitted ihofe that were thus lent to aflault them, and 
 take away their Lives j and what hath once happened, 'tis not impolfible but it 
 may happen again. Therefore this is a Thing to be confidered as a neceffary 
 Conlequence of your Senfe of this Oath. So that upon the whole Matter, and 
 confidering the late of Scene of Aftairs, I durft leave it to the Judgment of any 
 indifferent Foreigner, tho' a Papilt, which was moft likely, beifbre the unexpected 
 Coming of the Prince of Orange into this Kingdom, that the People (hould rife 
 up in Arms, and expel the King from his Throne, or that he ihould by Virtue of 
 the pretended Senle of this Oath, back'd by your Doftrine of Paflive Obedience, 
 have enflaved this Nation, and fet up what Government and Religion he 
 plea led. 
 
 Al I mufl confefs you have given a very cunning and fpecious Glofs upon 
 the Words of this Oath, and Declaration of the Parliament of King Charles II. 
 but whether it is legal or not, I very much doubt, fiiice I never heard of it before; 
 and I could have wilh'd, that if they defigned not to lay a Snare upon Men's Con- 
 fciences in this great Poinr, that they would have been more clear in exprelTing all 
 thole Cafes wherein it m'ght be lawful for us to refill the King, or thofe Com- 
 mifiioned by him ; as alio who Ihould judge, when the King's Commiffions are 
 fo illegal and violent as to require Refittance •, for if every private Subjeft may 
 judge of the Legality, or Illegality of the King's Military Commiffions, andean 
 taiie a Party ftrong enough to make Oppofition againft thofe that are Commil- 
 
 3 lioned
 
 +6 
 
 v2 B I B 1. 1 b t H E c A Politic a. 
 
 lioned by. them in the Execution of the King's Orders, a difcontented Fsjclion 
 may foori find a Pretence to raife another Rebellion, and Civil War, as dreadful 
 as the former ; and nocwithlranding your great Care and Concern tor the King's 
 Perfon, which you grant to be facred and inviolable, could it long continue fb? 
 For if the King himfelf appeared at the Head of his Men, to command and en- 
 courage them in their Duty, it would be much worle, as long as the Matter they 
 took up Arms for,- fhould be by rhem accounted a Violation of the Laws. Thus 
 we may remember, that though the Parliament of Forty One did pretend 
 to take up Arms for Defence of the King's Perfon, and only to take away Evil 
 Counfellors ; yet did they tor all that, order their Generals and Officers to fight 
 as much when the King was perfonally prefent, as at any other Place or Time -, lo 
 that his Majeftys Peribn ( had not God thought fit to order it otherwiie ) might 
 have been as well deftroyed in the Battels of J?^^^///, oiNafebj, as his great Grand- 
 father King James III. oi Scotland, was in that Battel againlt his Rebellious Subje£ls, 
 Headed by his own Son. So that according to your Interpretation, inftead of 
 mending the Matter, this Parliament of King Charles II. had only left it far worle 
 than they found it. For whereas the Long Parliament made themfelves the Ible 
 Judges, and Redreflers of the King's Violations of the Peoples Rights ^ now ac- 
 cording to your Interpretation of this Oath, and Declaration of the Parliament of 
 King Chirks the Second, every private Man may not only judge of the King's 
 Violation of the Law by his Military Commiflions ^ but alio make Refiftance 
 againft them, whenever they think themfelvcs able fb to do. And then notwith- 
 ftanding that Parliament's utter renouncing all Arms, whether offenfive or de- 
 fenfive, to be raifed by themfelves againft the King, they would have ttill left a 
 Power in any Part of the People ftrong enough to make this Refiftance which 
 they had renounced for themfelves, who are their Lawful Reprefentatives. Thus 
 for Example ; fuppofing the laft Civil War had begun upon the Account of raifing 
 of Ship-Money, which whether it was lawful, I will not now difpute j it was 
 fufficient that all the Judges except Two, gave their Opinions for it j and if any 
 County in England ftrong enough to make an Infurreftion, had rofe in Arras up- 
 <Mi the Levying of this Tax (as it has feveral times happened even about Taxes 
 granted in Parliament ) this (though fmall) yet being look'd upon againft Law, 
 muft have engaged the whole Nation in a Civil War, and alio endangered His 
 Majefty's Perfon, in cafe he had appeared in the Field with thofe Men he had 
 laifed to fubdue that Rebellion •, fo that I am ftiil fatisfied that it is tar better to 
 fuffer a Mifchief than an Inconvenience •, that is, it is better to truft to the King's 
 Confcience and Difcretion, what Commiflions to grant, though fbmetimes perhaps 
 they may chance to be illegal, than to leave it in the Power of the People to rife in 
 Rebellion, whenever they think fuch Commiifions to violate their fuppofed, or 
 pretended Liberties and Properties. 
 
 F. I fee you will not argue againft the Refiftance of the King's Perfon, in 
 cafe he fhould go about to Ravifh, Rob, or Murder his People. But now you 
 raife another Difficulty who ihall judge, and confequently make this Refiftance 
 againft the King's Commiflions, when executed by illegal Perfons, or to illegal 
 and violent Ends. For if the People may judge for themfelves of the Illegality of 
 fuch Commiflions, a Rebellion may be raifed, and His Majefty's Perfon en- 
 dangered, 'notwithftanding all the Provifion the Parliament have made agauift it. 
 But before I anfwer this Argument of your.^, pray give me leave to ailc you One 
 or Two Queftions : Do you think the King's late Declaration for the Difpen- 
 fing Power, and the Commiflfions granted thereupon, to be according to Lavw 
 or not? V 
 
 M. I muft confefs I think they are unlawful, yet it does not follow that they 
 may be therefore refifted. 
 
 F. I do not alk you that now ^ but only tell me whether you think the Bi- 
 fhopsare obliged in Confcience to difperfe that Declaration, or the Clergy to 
 read it in their Churches ? And whether thofe have done well who have refuted to 
 read it i* 
 
 M. 1 muft tell you, I am fb good a Proteftant, and fo true an Englijhman, that 
 I cannot allow the King that Power ^ and therefore I muft grant that the Biihops 
 did bravely, and like true Chriftian Biihops, to refufe to difperfe it ; and where it 
 was difperfed, the Inferior Clergy have done very well not to read it.. 
 
 F. Well
 
 Dialogue the Ninth. ±62 
 
 F. Well then, notwithftandiiig all the dreadful Mifchiefs- proceeding from pri- 
 vate Subjefls judging of the Legality, or Illegality of the King's Declarations, 
 a^ Commiflions, or Commands ; yet they may, it feems, not only judge whe- 
 ther they are lawful or not; but a Difobedience to them may not only be 
 lawfully exercifed, but is very commendable. Now what is this Difobedience 
 to thele Commands, but a Moral, or Civil Refiftance of the King's Power in 
 this Matter? And why may not fuch a Judgment be made by the People in 
 as plain a Cafe, and a Refiftance alfo follow thereupon againlt fuch violent il- 
 legal Commiflions (fuppofe to raile Money without Aft of Parliament, or to 
 Dragoon Men to go to Mafs) fince the Violence is more evident and apparent in 
 this Cafe upon Men's Perfbns, than in the other upon the bare Confciences of the 
 Bifhops and Clergy ? For the Force being more immediate and prefiing upon their 
 Perfons and Fibres, there is no other Means left but to refilt it if they are able. 
 
 M. I can give you very good Reafbns to fatisfy you, why, tho' I grant 
 private Subjefts may judge of the Legality or Illegality of the King's Com- 
 milTions, and alfo refufe to obey his Illegal Commands, and alfo that all pnblick 
 Officers ought to take Care at their Peril how they aft by, or excute fuch illegal 
 Commiflions j yet that it does not therefore follow that fuch illegal Commiflions " 
 
 or Orders though executed upon the whole Body of the People, may be refifted 
 by them \ for all Limitation of the Royal Power being only voluntary, and pro- 
 ceeding from the meet Grace and Favour of our Kings, they are not compellable 
 by Force, or refiftable if they fhould impole their own Proclamations or Edifts 
 upon us inftead of Laws. For tho' I grant that the King hath no jult, or le- sc.n..f),i^c. 
 gal Authority to aft againft Law, and that if he knowingly put any Subjeft to Cb" '^^""^<.'. 
 Death contrary to Law he is a Murderer ^ and no Prince can have any fuch Pre- 
 rogative, as to commit open downright Murders either in his own Perfon or 
 by thofe who aft by Commiflion from him •, But what follows from hence ? That 
 they may refift or oppofe them if they do : This I ablblutcly deny, becaufe 
 God and the Law have commanded us not to refift ; and I fee no Inconfiltency be- 
 tween thole Two Propofitions j That a King hath no Authority to aft againft Law, 
 and yet that neither he^ nor thofe commiflioned by him though afting againft Law, 
 may be refifted. Both the Laws of God, and the Laws of our Country, fuppofe 
 thefe Two to be very confiftent. 
 
 For notwithftanding the Poflibility that Princes may thus abufe their Power, 
 and tranfgrefs the Laws whereby they ought to govern, yet they alfo command 
 Subjefts in no Cafe to refift ; and it is not fufficient to juftify Refiftance if Princes 
 do what they have no juft Authority to do, unlefs we have alfo a juft Autho- 
 rity to relift. He who exceeds the juft Bounds of his Authority is liable to be 
 called to an Account for it ^ but he is accountable only to thofe who have a Sup^•^ 
 rior Authority to call him to an Account. No Power whatfoever is accountable 
 10 an Inferior ; for this is a Contradiftion to the very Notion of Power, and 
 deftruftive of all Order and Civil Government. Inferior Magiftrates are 
 on all Hands acknowledged to be liable to give an Account of the Abule of 
 their Power, but to whom muft they give an Account ? Not to their Inferiors, 
 nor to the People whom they are to govern •, but to Superior Magiftrates, or 
 to the Sovereign Prince who governs all. Thus the Sovereign Prince may 
 exceed his Authority, and is accountable for it to a Superior Power ; but 
 becaufe he hath no Superior Power on Earth, he cannot be refifted by his 
 own Subjefts, but muft be referved to the Judgment of God who alone is the 
 King of Kings. 
 
 J-'. In the firft Place I deny (and I have fufficiently proved the contrary) 
 that all Limitation of Royal Power proceeded at firft from the meer Grace 
 and Favour of our Kings •, fince the Crown of Englani has been from its firft 
 Inltitution limited by Laws, and the People have likewife always enjoyed a ^ 
 
 Right and Property in their Lives, Liberties, and Eftates by the fame Laws : 
 But tho' you and I are thus far agreed, that the King hath no Juft and 
 Legal Authority to aft againft Law, and that if he put any Man to Death, 
 or take away his Eftate contrary to it, it is Murder and Robbery ^ and iike- 
 wife that the Subjefts may be capable of judging concerning fuch Illegal Com- 
 mands •. But you will not allow, that if flich a limited Monarch (hould fend 
 his Mercenary Forces to take away our Lives or Eftates^ or to Dragoon us till we 
 
 will
 
 464- 
 
 B I B l/l .0 T il E C A P O t- 1 T I C A. 
 
 will own our felvesof his Reltgion, that thofe Inftrumenf^ of his Tyranny mn' be 
 vefifted ; or that I have brought any Reafon for it. AVhereas if" you had^kit 
 attended better to my Difcourfe at our Third and Fourth Meeting?, you m^Hf , 
 have remembred that I plainly enough proved to you, that God' liath not 
 given Princes, nor thole commiflioned by them, any Authority to Murder or 
 enflave their Suhjefts -, and your fdf then granted. Tint may Jliin hath Forcer 
 ■ • A. p. 55- f^ defend h/s Life ugainjl him ivho hath no Authority to take it arxay ^ which 
 holds more Itrongly in our Conllitution 5 where if the King gire a Man a 
 Commiflion to. aft contrary to the Law of the Land, it is altogether void, 
 and the People may as well jultify their Refilfance of thofe Officers or Sol- 
 diers who (hould come to dragoon or persecute them, for profefling the Re- 
 ligion ellablifhed by Law, as if he had fent them downright to cut their 
 Throats. And this being their Right by the Laws of God and Nature, whether 
 God hath taken away this Right by an exprefs Precept in the holy Scrip- 
 ture, I alfo examined at thofe Meetings. But whether any Municipal Law of 
 the Land hath reftrained us from it, I have alfo now confidered and proved it 
 contrary to the true Intent and Meaning of thele A8:s concerning the Militia. 
 And therefore to fay, that it is not fufficient to juffifv Refiftance, if Princes 
 do, or command what they have no legal Authority for, unlefs we can alfo 
 fhew an Authority to refift, is a Miftake •, if by Authority you mean an ex- 
 prefs Civil Law for it ; becaufe fuch Refiftance in abfolute Monarchies is juffi- 
 fiable by that which is Prior to all Civil Laws, the Right of Self- Defence, or 
 Prefervation : And fo likewife in limited Kingdoms, there is the fame Neceffity 
 of defenfive Arms upon a general Breach, or Violation of any fundamental Con- 
 ftitution of the Government, fince it cannot be kept or maintained without fuch 
 Refiftance be allowed. 
 
 So that if the King hath no Authority to aO: contrary toLaw, he cannot fure 
 delegate that to others, which he had not in himfelf ^ and confequently fuch 
 Commifhionsto perfecute, or murder Men contrary to Law, being in themfelves 
 void, the Perfbns that execute them being no Officers, may be juftly refitted, 
 and the Refiftance of fuch an illegal Aft doth not at alf derogate from his Sove- 
 reignty as King, fince (as I told you before) that is limited only to the Perform- 
 ance of Legal Afts, and extends not to Illegal Orders or Commands. And as 
 for the reft of the Reafons you give againft this Refiftance, viz. becaufe he 
 who exceeds the iuft Bounds of his Authority, is liable to be called to an 
 Account fot it, only by thofe who have a Superior Authority ro do it ; where- 
 as no Power whatfbever is accountable to an Inferior : You do but impofe upon 
 me and your felf the fame Falacy which you have fo often made ufe of in 
 making being accountable all one with irrefiitible, which are vaftly different; 
 and therefore your Conclufion is as falfe, that becauie the Sovereign Prince may- 
 exceed his Authority, and is only acountable for it to God, that therefore he 
 cannot be refifted by his own Subjefts ; for he may be refifted, and yet be ftilf 
 unaccountable ; thofe Two differing as much as Self Defence does from Punilh- 
 ment, as I have more than once told you. 
 M. I canjiot reft fatisfied with this Reply •, for though I fb far agree with 
 S.C.R. you, that an Aft without a Legal Authority carries no Obligation at all along 
 
 p. 152, 1P3. lYith it, and therefore cannot oblige the Subjeft to Obedience. Now this is 
 true, if by Obedience you mean an aftive Obedience •, for I am not bound to 
 do an ill Thing, or an Illegal Aftion, becaufe my Prince commands me. But 
 if you mean Pafhve Obedience, it is as manifefUy falfe ; for I am bound 
 to obey, that is, not to refift my Prince when he off^ers me the moft unjuft or il- 
 legal Violence. Nay it is very falfe and abfurd to fay, that every Illegal is an Inau- 
 thoritative Aft, which carries no Obligation with it. This is contrary to the 
 • Fraftice of all Human Judicatures, and the daily Experience of Men, who fufier in 
 
 their Lives, Bodies or Eftates, by an unjuft or illegal Sentence. Every Judgment 
 contrary to the true Meaning of the Law is in that Senfe illegal -, and yet 
 fuch illegal Judgments have their Authority and Obligation, till they are re- 
 Icinded by Ibme higher Authority. This is the true Reafon of Ajipeals from Inferior 
 to Superior Courts, to reftify Illegal Proceedings, and reverfe illegal Judgments, which 
 fuppofes that fuch illegal Afts have Authority till they are made null and void by a 
 higher Power •, and if the higher Powers, from whence lies no Appeal, confirm and 
 ratify an unjult and illegal Sentence , it carries lb much Authority and Obli- 
 gation
 
 "Dialogue the Ninth. 4.65 
 
 gation with it, that the Injured Perfon hath no Rcdrefs, but muft patiently fub- 
 n^^and thus it muft neceflarily be, or there can be no End of Dilputes, nor any 
 ^^^P or Government obferved in Human Societies. 
 
 >^Bmid this is a plain Demonftration, that though the Law be the Rule according 
 to which Princes ought to exercife their Authority and Power ; yet the Authority- 
 is not in the Laws, but in the Perfbns that Execute them : For otherwile, why is 
 not a Sentence pronounced according to Law by a private Perfon, of as much Au- 
 thority as a Sentence pronounced by a Judge ? Or how doth an Illegal Sentence 
 pronounced by a Judge come to have any Authority ? For a Sentence contrary to 
 Law cannot have the Authority of the Law. And why is a Legal, or Illegal Sen- 
 tence reverfible, and alterable, when pronounced by one Judge, and irreverfible 
 and unalterable, when pronounced by another : For the Law is the lame, and the 
 Sentence is the lame, either according to Law, or againft it, whoever the Judge be : 
 But indeed the Authority of the Perlbn is not the fame, and that makes the Dif- 
 ference. So that there is an Authority in Perfons, in fome Senfe dilHnft from the 
 Authority of Laws, nay Superior to it \ for there is fuch an Authority, as though 
 it cannot make an Illegal A& Legal ; yet it can, and often doth make an Illegal 
 Aft binding and obligatory to the Subje£ls, when pronounced by a competent 
 Judge. 
 
 V. I think, notwithftanding all you have now laid, your Diftinftion of a Su- 
 preme Auchoricy in Perfbns, above arid diftinSl from the Authority of Laws, 
 will prove a meet Notion •, for you grant that the King hath no Juft or Legal Au- 
 thority to a8: againft Law, and that if he put any Man to Death contrary to it, it 
 is downright Murder -, but you will not allow, that if the King Ihould thus mur- 
 der never fo many Thoulands, either He, or thofe Inllruments of Tyranny may be 
 lefifted ; and therefore you would fiin top upon me your old Diftinftion of an 
 Adive and PafTive Obedience : The former of which I very well underftand, but 
 as for the latter, I have long fince proved, that it is fo far from being any Obedi- 
 ence, that it is indeed downright Difobedience, or a Refufal to do that which the 
 Prince commands ^ fo that truly your felf have taught me to dilf inguifli between 
 the King's Perfonal Authoritv, and his Legal ; for otherwife, why are you not as 
 mnch obliged to yield an Aft ive Obedience to the King's Perfonal Illegal Com- 
 milfions or Commands, as to his Legal Ones, if there were no Difference between 
 them ? So then, all the Difference between us lies in the Meafure of the Difobedi- 
 ence; you maintaining, that it is fufficient not to yield Obedience to fuch Illegal 
 Commiflions and Commands 5 and I, that befides this Denial of Obedience, (if it 
 be in a fundamental Point, and that which generally concerns the whole Body of 
 the Kingdom j that they may not only be difobeyed but refifted too, if forced up- 
 on us with Violence \ and therefore all that you have faid to prove that the Autho- 
 rity to which we are bound to fubmit, confilts not in the Laws, but in the Perfons, 
 tho' afting contrary to Law \ is even according to your own way of Reafoning alto- 
 gether unconclufive. 
 
 And farther, when you fay, that it is falfe and abfurd to affirm, that every Il- 
 legal is an Authoritative Aft which carries no Obligation with it ^ I (hall prove, 
 that this Abfurdity lies wholly on your Side. For i. Legal and Authoritative, ^re 7 „ „ 
 all one in our Law •, for that which is not Legal carries no Authority along with it ; f j, \^l 
 f) that Illegal Authority is in plain Englijh, unlawful lawful Power. Nor had 
 K. C^.//7rj- I. any fuch extravagant Notion of his Royal Authority, (who certain- 
 ly underftood his own Power better rhan you or I,) when he owns in his De- 
 claration to the Long Pailiament, Dated from I^emmarkct, 1641, Thdt the Lmu is 
 the Meafure of his Power ^ which is as full a ConceflTion of the Thing I affirm as 
 Words can exprefs ^ for if the Law be the Meafure of it, then his Royal Power, 
 or Authority (which is all one) is Limited by it. For the Meafure of any Thing 
 is the Limits or Bounds of the Thing Limited ^ and when it exceeds thofe Bounds 
 it is an Illegal, and confequently an Unauthoritative Aft, which carries no Obliga- 
 tion either Aftive or PalTive along with it. So likewiie in the laid King's Anfwer 
 to both Houles concerning the Militia, fpeaking of the Men by them named 
 to him to be CommilTioners for it •, He thus replyed. If more Power fl)all he 
 thought ft to be granted to them than by Law is in the Crown it felf his Ma- 
 jefly holds it reafonable, that the fame be by fome Law firjl vefled in him, with 
 Power to transfer it to thofe Ferfons, Kc. In which Paflagc it is granted, that 
 
 Goo all
 
 466 
 
 B I B L 1 O T H E C A P O L 1 T I C A^ 
 
 all the Power or Authority of the Crown concerning the Militia is by or from 
 the Law, and that the King hath no more Authority thaii wliat is veiled L 
 him by the Law of the Larid. 
 
 ery nU^^^ 
 
 2. Your Argument from the Pra^ice of Human Judicatures is alfb very 
 lacious ; for you argue from the bare Abufe of a Trult, or Commiflion, with tire 
 Execution of which all Judges and Officers muft be intrufted, to that which is 
 quite of another Nature, (viz.) When the Perlbn intrufted acls directly con- 
 trrry to his Commiflion, or without any CommilTion at alU And therefore you 
 are quite out in your Law, when you tell me, that an AbloUue Illegal Judg- 
 ment is Valid till it be reverled 5 for if it be apparently contrary to the known 
 Forms of Law, and Practice of the Kingdom, it is fo far from being Va- 
 lid, that though it be put in Execution, it would be look'd upon as Null, and 
 done without any Authority at all : As fuppofe the King in Perfon, or any In- 
 ferior Judge, fliould condemn a Man to iie, either contrary to the Verdict of 
 his Jury, or without any Jury at all -, this is lb far from being Authoritative, 
 or Valid, that fuch a Judgment is Void in it felfj and thofe are guilty of 
 Murder, who execute it , and it will need no Writ of Error to reverie it. 
 But I fuppofe by Illegal Judgments , you mean fuch Judgments which have 
 fome Error in them, either in Matter of Law, or Form, for which they may 
 be reverfed. I grant, if thefe fliould not be looked upon as V^alid, and hold 
 good till they are reverfed in a higher Court, there could not he any Judgment gi- 
 ven at all, fince all Human Judicatories whatfoever are fubjetl to Errors and Mi- 
 ftakes ^ and there is fure a great deal of Difference between fuch Actions as are 
 done by that Authority which the Law entrufts them with, though not duly ex- 
 ercifed, and thole violent and illegal A£ts, which a Prince, when he perfecutes, 
 and enilaves his Subjects, performs by his wicked Inftruments, contrary to all Di- 
 vine and Human Laws : So that the Validity of fuch an Erroneous Judgment, is 
 not from the Judge's Perfonal Authority, above the Law, nor from his Mittake or 
 Ignorance of the Law, but from that high Credit and Authority which the Lawr 
 hath giA-en to all Courts and Judicial Proceedings; which if they are done in due 
 Form, are to be taken for Law, however unjuft, and mult be prefumed to be free 
 from Error till they are reverfed in fome higher Court. 
 S. c. R. p. M. But if you pleafe better to confider of it, you will find a Neceflity of own- 
 15(5. £r dein- ing a Supreme Power in the King beyond all Appeal, or Refiftance, and that,there 
 *'^' mult be a Perfonal Authority in him, Antecedent and Superior to all Ci\'il Lavvs; 
 
 for there an be no Laws without a Law-maker 5 and there can be no Law-maker 
 unlefs there be one or more Perfons invelted with the Power of Government ^ of 
 which, making Laws is one principal Branch ; for a Law is nothing elfe but the 
 publick and declared Will and Command of tlie Law-makers, whether they be 
 a Sovereign Prince, or the People. 
 Ibidem, i$j. And hence it necelfarily follows, that a Sovereign Prince does not receive his 
 & de'mde. Authority from the Laws, but Laws receive their Authority from him : And I 
 mult: be ftill of the fame Opinion, notwithftanding Braclons Words, which you 
 before quoted. Lex fadt Regem^ the Law makes the King -, by which I cannotjje- 
 lieve that that great Lawyer meant that the King received the Sovereign Power 
 from the Law •, for the Law hath no Authority, nor can give any, but what it re- 
 ceives firom the King ; and then it is a wonderful Riddle, how the King (liould 
 receive his Authority from the Law. And therefore I mult ftick to my former 
 Interpretation, that when he fays the Law makes the King, that is, it diltin- 
 guifliethhim from a Tyrant j as appears from theReafon he gives for it, i. e. Non 
 efl en'im Rex uhi dominatur volunta-!, i!f non Lex, he is no King that Governs by 
 his Arbitrary Will, and not by Law •, not that he is no Soveraign Prince, but he is a 
 Tyrant and not a King. 
 
 And hence it as evidently follows, that the Being of Sovereign Power is 
 independent on Laws ; that is, as a Sovereign Prince doth not receive his 
 Sovereign Power from the Law , fo Ihould he violate the Laws by which 
 he is bound to govern, yet he is not to be refitted, much lefs doth he for- 
 feit his Power. Tis true he breaks his Faith to God and his Country, but he 
 is a Sovereign Prince Itill. And therefore it plainly appears that every 
 illegal Aft the King doth, »or Illegal Commiflion that he grants, is not an 
 
 Inautho-
 
 Dialogue the Ninth. ^^61 
 
 inauthoritatlve Aft, or Commiflion, but lays on the Subje^: an Obligation 
 to yield, if not Active, yet a PaiBve Obedience. And in the King's moft 
 Illegal Afis, tho' they have not the Authority of Laws, yet they have the Au- 
 thority of Sovereign Power, which is irreliftible, and unaccountable. In a 
 word, it doth not become any Man, who can think three Confequences off, to 
 talk of the Authority of Laws in Derogation to the Authority of Sovereign 
 Power. The Sovereign Power made the Laws, and can repeal them, and 
 difpenfe with them, and make new Laws. The only Power and Authority 
 of the Laws is in the Power that can make and execute Laws •, Sovereign 
 Power is inleparable from the Perfon of a Sovereign Prince, tho' the Exer- 
 cile of it may be regulated by Laws-, and tho' the Prince doth very ill who 
 having confented to fuch a Regulation, breaks the Laws, yet when he afts 
 contrary to Law, fuch Afts carry a Sovereign and irrefiltible Authority with 
 them, while he continues a Sovereign Prince. 
 
 F. I am very well fitisfy'd, notwithftanding all you have hitherto laid, that 
 the Government of Englanl owns no fuch thing as this Arbitrary Power with 
 which you would invelt the King ; fince I have already proved at our Fifth Meet- 
 ing, that the King is not the fole Legiflatdr, and confequendy not the fole 
 or Supreme Sovereign Power. So likewife our Law doth as little uiideritand any 
 liich thing as a Perfbnal Authority in the King, antecedent and fuperior to 
 all Laws. For fince God liath now left off making Kings by his own fpe- 
 cial Appointment, as he did among the Jews^ every King muft either be fo by 
 the Law or Cuftom of that Country, or elfe a bare Pofleflion of the Throne 
 is fufRcient to make him fo •, and then every Ufurper hatli as much Right to 
 a Crown as the moft lawful Prince -, and Oliver Cromwell was as Rightful a 
 Prince as King Charles II. It is true, the firft King of any Race could not 
 be inverted with the Crown by the lame Law as his Succeffors are, that is, 
 by an Hereditary Proximity of Blood ^ yet fuch a King, wlienever he began 
 to be fo, could have no Legal Right, without the Eledion, Recognition, or Con- 
 lent of the People. And as for an Hereditary Righr, that is but a Right by riie 
 Law of the Land, or general Confent of rhe People, (teftify'd by an uninter- 
 rupted Cuftom ) to entail the Crown on fuch a Family •, fo that in either Cafe 
 they are Kings by Law. And therefore I conceive it can be only in this Senfe, 
 that BraBon {'iys, Lvx fach Regent, i. e. The Law of the Kingdom. makes the 
 King i which more plainly appears, by what immediately follows, attribiuit igitur 
 Rex Legi^ guod Lex atir'ibuh ei, viz. Dominiitionem, £5' ^otejhtem ^ in which 
 Words nothing feems more plain, than that the King ought to yield the like Do- 
 minion and Power to the Law, as the Law had given him before ^ or elie how 
 could Bratlon call the Law (in the Place 1 have already cited,) the King's Supe- 
 rior ? And if the King's Title to the Crown were not by Law, How came 
 it to pafs that the Bruces, for Example, had a better Title to the Crown of 
 Scotlani than the Baliols > But only that the Laws of Scotland, that is, the 
 Confent of the States of that Kingdom, made them fb. •, tor otherwife any 
 Man that looks upon the Pedigree of both thofe Families, will fee, that Baliol^ 
 according to our Rules of Defcent, was the nearer of Blood to the laft King 
 David than Bruce, and was fo adjudged, upon a folemn Hearing, by our King 
 Edtcardl. in Parliament. And astbr ll^/Z/w;;/, whom you call the Conqueror, un- 
 der whom all our prefenc Kings do claim at this Day, he could have no juft 
 Right or Title to the Crown of England by Conquelt, but by the Eleftion, or 
 Submiflion of the People, declared by them at his Coronation. And therefore 
 that Law by which he was made King muft be precedent, or at leaft con- 
 current with his being lb •, and upon whatever Terms or Condititions he then 
 accepted it, his Succeffors are bound both by the Laws of God and Man to 
 obfer\'e them. And thetefore whatever you have built upon, or would in- 
 fer from thele Principles, is of no Force. And if the King be the fole Sove- 
 reign Power, that makes the Laws, repeals them, and difpenfes with them 
 when he pleafes -, I would be glad to know upon what Grounds fo many of 
 the Bifhops and Clergy refufed to read the King's Declaration of Indulgence ^ 
 fince certainly if he alone madeftie Laws, he alio could difpenfe with them. 
 But I fliall fay no more of thefe Points now, becaufe they are not dire£tly 
 to the Matter in hand. 
 
 O002 iVI. As
 
 468 
 
 BlBLTOTHECA PoLlTlCA. 
 
 M. As for what you fay concerning the King's not being the fole Supreme 
 Legiflative Power, I confels you and I have difcourfed long upon that Point j 
 and if I were thoroughly latisfy'd of it, I could much eafier affent to what 
 you have faid ; as alfo if you could prove to me, that the King received 
 his Power from the People, and not from God, the Matter would be yet 
 plainer -, for then it would evidently appear, that the People might have referved 
 to themfelves fuch a Right of Refiftance as you now maintain ; but that they ne- 
 ver could have fuch a Power in England, trom the Conftitution of this Monar- 
 chy, I need go no farther than your own Inftance of William the Conqueror, 
 who owed all his Right to this Kingdom to the Power of the Sword, and not to 
 any Hereditary Right, much lefs EleQion, or Confirmation of the People ; as I 
 think Dr. Brady hath proved beyond difpute, in his Learned Anfwer to Argumen- 
 tum Antinormanicum. So that fince we owe all the Rights and Liberties we enjoy 
 to the gracious Conceihons of our Kings of this 'Korman Race, we ought not in 
 Reafon or Gratitude to refift them, if they fhould fbmetimes encroach upon what 
 we take to be part of thofe Liberties ^o granted 5 no, not if the King (who 
 derives an Indefeafible Right to the Crown from the Title of the firft Con- 
 queror ) fhould go about to take away all thole Liberties, nay, our very Re- 
 ligion and Property too from us. 
 
 But I have not Time to purfue this Argument further now, and therefore fhall 
 leave it to another Opportunity. 
 
 , F. As for what you have now faid concerning William the Firff s having no 
 Right to the Crown of this Kingdom, but what he owed to his Sword, is falfe 
 in Matter of Faft-, it being more than that Prince himfelf ever aflerted or pre- 
 tended to. And in the next place, As for your Doftor's proving him an Abfolute 
 Conqueror over the Englijh Nation •, fuppofmg he had done it, (which yet I 
 pofitively deny ) yet will not this ferve to do the Bufmefs for which the Doftor 
 urges it, viz. to fet up an Arbitrary, Irrefiftible Power in that King, and all 
 his SuccefTors ^ but may be urged againft him to a quite contrary Purpole, as 
 I fhall fhew you more at large, whenever you pleafe to difcourfe farther upon that 
 Subjeft. And as for all thofe things we call Legal, our Rights and Privileges, 
 which you fay were wholly granted us by the Charters of his Succeflbrs, I have 
 already proved that to be falfe in Matter of Fa£t at our Fifth Meeting, where 
 I fhewed you that the Englijh Nation had the fame Liberties, (as to their Perfons 
 and Properties in their Eftates, before your pretended Conquett) as they en- 
 joyed afteiwards •, and that Mngna Charta was but the Recital and Confirmation 
 of our Ancient Englijh Laws, as Mat. Faris affirms in the Place I here formerly 
 cited. But admitting thefe Liberties and Privileges you mention had beea 
 owing to the Favour and Bounty of former Kings, yet can I fee no Re- 
 bellion 01 Ingratitude the People of this Nation are guilty of^ if they keep 
 and defend them now they have them ; but would rather betray a fervile, bafe 
 Spirit, if we part with them : For fince it is a Maxim in Law concerning all 
 Grants, as well from the Crown, as private Perfons, that they ought fo to enure 
 nt Res magis valent., quatn pereat, i. e. that the Parties to whom the Grant is 
 made, may not lofe the Benefit of it, whenever the Grantor pleafes •, therefore it 
 is alfo a Rule in fuch Grants, that they are ttill to be interpreted in favour of 
 the Grantee againft the Grantor -., and alfo, that the Grantee (hall not be left 
 without fome Means or Remedy of keeping and defending his Right againfl 
 the Grantor whenever he goes about to take it away. Nor do I know any Excep- 
 tion there is for the King's Grants, more than thofe of private Subjects •, fince both 
 Bran. I. c. 8. BraUon and Eleta tell us, non debet efje Rege major in Exhibitione Juris, minimus 
 ekta. I I. ^2ite7n ejje debet in judicio fufcipiendojl petatur ( which I take to be the true Read- 
 '^' ing of that Place, and not pffCfir,/'^/;-.:;;/, or ^f/^r, as divets Copies have it.) That is, 
 
 as the King is the greatelt in diftributing of Right or Law to his Subje£ls, fo ought 
 he to be no more than the leaft of them in fubmitting to right Judgment, if he be 
 petitioned to, and that it be required of him, (either of which Senfes this Word 
 will well bear)-, but if he abfolutely refufes to do this, and will take away their 
 Rights and Liberties by Force, and will deny them the Benefit of the Laws, What 
 other Remedy is there left them but a general Refiftance ? Since otherwife the 
 King may alter the Government, and take away all our Legal Rights and Liberties 
 whenever he pleafes. 
 
 MA
 
 I>/aIogue tie Ninth. /j.(Jp 
 
 M. I confefs, this Difpute concerning the Refiftance of thole comtiiiflioned by 
 the King, and the King's being the foie Legiflator and Original of all the Civil 
 Liberties and Privileges we now enjoy, hath carried us from the main Points in 
 this Qiieftion: Pray therefore, fatisfy me (if you can) thofe great Objeftions 
 I have made : Firtt, how this Refiftance can conhft with that Sacrednefs and In- 
 violablenels which you your lelf fuppole to be due to the King's Perfon : For 
 either this Refiftance, in cafe of an Invafion of our Civil Rights, mull be made 
 even when the King's Perfon is a£tually prefent, to back thole illegal Com- 
 milTions-, or it mult be forborn, out of that due Reverence and Care of 
 his Royal Perfon which the Law enjoins. If the former, the King's Perfon 
 is in Danger to be deftroyed, whenever a faftious Party is ftrong enoiigh 
 to rile in Arms, and oppote the King's CommilTions, upon pretence of their 
 being againft Law: But if, on the other fide, this Refiftance is not allowable 
 when the King's Perfon is prefent, then all fuch Refiftance will fignify nothing--, 
 fince as foon as ever the King in Perfon (hall appear in the Field to back his Com- 
 miffions, all your Defenfive Arms ( as you call them ) muft be immediately laid 
 down, unlefs they mean to deftroy the Sacred Perfon of the King : So that take it 
 either way, all Refiftance is either illegal, or elfe unprafticable. Secondly, 1 can 
 as little underftand ( as I told you betbre ) how the Two Houfes of Parliament 
 ftiould renounce all taking up Arms, as well Oftenfive as Defenfive, againlt 
 the King for themfelves, and yet (hould leave a Power in the diftlifive Body of the 
 Nation, nay, in any Part thereof, ftrong enough to make a Rebellion, which they 
 though: unlawful to exercife themfelves. Laltly, By what Legal Authority the 
 People, or any Part of it, can juftify the taking up even Defenfive Arms-, fince 
 you your felf acknowledge, that no Arms can be taken up regularly, but by the 
 King's Authority -. And you have alfo difclaimed all taking up of Arms by his Au- 
 thority againft his Perfon, or againft thofe Commiflioned by virtue of fuch Autho- 
 rity -, tho' I confefs, you except the Cafes of Self defence, and in Maintenance of 
 the Law ^ yet I cannot find thofe Exceptions allowed of in any of our Lavv-Books, 
 either Ancient or Modern. 
 
 F. I hope to give you fuch Satisfa6:ion to every one of thele Obje£lions you 
 have made, as may ferve any indifterent Perfon. Therefore, as to the firft, con- 
 cerning the Sacrednefs of the King's Perfon, which I allow of as well as you, we 
 muft, in the firft place, diftinguifh between fuch Commiflions as the King ilfues 
 by Colour of Law, when the Judges, for Example, had given their Opinions in 
 the Cafe of Ship-Money : For they being the fole Interpreters of the Law in the 
 Inter\'als of Parliament, 1 do acknowledge that their Determinations are not to be 
 oppofed by Force, but legally reverted when the next Pailiament meets ; and they 
 are then to anfwer in Parliament for their falfe Interpretations and Opinions, as 
 Trefil'ian and his Companions did in the nth of Richard the Ild. and as the Ten 
 Judges did upon the Two Houfes Declaration againft Ship-Money, and their Im- 
 peachment thereupon. Thus, though Mr. Hampden refufed to pay Ship-Money 
 when demanded of him, and rather chofe to lie in Prifon than pay it ; yet it had 
 been downright Rebellion, in cafe any Refiftance had been made by him againft 
 the levying of it : But had this Tax been laid by the King's fole Power without 
 fuch Colour of Law, I doubt not but Refiftance might have been made even 
 againft thofe that were Commiffioned by him to levy it ; and if any one Town or 
 Hundred were not ftrong enough to feize fuch Officers as prefumed thus to levy it 
 againft Law, the Sheriffs oF every County in England might have railed the Pojfe 
 Comitatus, and feized all fuch Oftenders, and carried them to Goal ; fince the King's 
 CommilTions never did, nor can indemnify the Perfons fo Commiffioned, in cafe 
 the Thing they were about to execute vras contrary to Law. And for this, I need 
 go no farther than the Old Mirror of Jiijliccs, which is owned for good Law at , 
 this Day, which, (peaking of Robbery, and the (everal Kinds thereof, has this^J'^:,/;,', 
 Paflage, which I (hall here render out of the old French Law: Into this Offence 
 ( viz. Robbery ) aU thofe fall, that take other Mens Goods by Commandment of the 
 King, or any great Lord, without the Owner's Confent. Where you fee there Is no 
 Difference at all made between thofe that took away other Mens Goods by the 
 Command of the King, or any other -, but it was Robbery in all of them alike, 
 and confequently the Aftors might be alike feized and puniflied as Robbers. The 
 fame is alfo allowed by the Statute of the 2otli of Henry the Vlth, whereby the ^, _ 
 King's Purveyors are forbid to take any thing to the Value of 40 1. or under, 
 
 without
 
 470 
 
 B I B 1. 1 o T H E c A Politic a, 
 
 without ready Payment in hand , of any Perfon •, and that it then fliolild'be lawful 
 for every one of the King's Liege-People to retain their .Goods and Chattels, and 
 to refill fuch Purveyors and Buyers. So likewife the laft Claurein this Oath you 
 fo much infift upon, viz. in purftiance of fuch Military CoKmiffions^^ leems to re- 
 ftrain to fuch Commiffions as were granted by the King's Authority -, that is, accord- 
 ing to Law, and no other. 
 
 So that you fee, by the Old Law of EngLmd, the King's Commiflion did not 
 lender any Man irrefiftible, unlefs he executed it according to I..avv: Since the 
 Conftable of each Town might raife the Inhabitants thereof" to feize fuch Wrong- 
 doers 5 and if they were not ftrong enough, the HighCor.ftable of the Hundred 
 might raife the whole Hundred •, and in cafe they were not fulficient, the High- 
 Conftable might aave Aid of the Sheriff, and affemble all the feveral Hundreds of 
 the County till thele Malefaflors were feized. So that as long as there were no 
 itanding Forces kept up in the Nation, ( as I have (hewn you there was not till 
 the Reign of King Charles the lid. ) there could never be any Clafliing between 
 the King's Civil and Military Commiflions. And this is one great Realbn 
 why no King of England, fince the A£t de Tallagio non concedendo, was lb 
 hardy as to iflue any Commiflions to levy Money without Colour of Law 5 
 becaufe they knew they were void in themlelves, and conlequently would be 
 refifted by the whole Nation. So that this would not have been taking up Arms 
 by the King's Authority againft thofe Commiflioned by him, but only in order to 
 bring thole to Juftice who had not any Commiflions at all to do what they did ^ 
 the Law taking no Cognizance at all of the King's Perlbnal Commiflions, when 
 ablblutely againit Law. 
 
 Nor, if the King had joined his own Prefence to fuch illegal Commiffions, 
 would it have mended the Matter, or rendred thefe Robbers of other Mens Goods 
 any more irrefiftible, than they were before-, fince the King can give no Man Au- 
 thority to do that, which he has not Power to do himlelf : And therefore fince his 
 fingle Perfon may be refifted, in cale he go about to Ravifh, Rob, or Murder Peo- 
 ple; then fure his joining himfelf with luch Men, tho' never lo numerous, can 
 never make him more irrefiftible than he was ; unlets you will fuppofe, that the King 
 may not rob or commit Murder with a few without Refiftance, but may juftify the 
 doing of it with an Army : And if fo, pray tell me, vvhat Number they muft be 
 to render the King, and all thofe with him, thus irrefiftible ? And therefore it is 
 no wonder, if our Law has made no exprefs Pro\'ifion for refifting tlie Kind's Per- 
 ibn, fince it had fo high a Regard for his Honour, as not to fuppole he could be 
 guilty of making War upon his People : But if the King fhall be among fuch 
 wrong Doers, either by Force or Fraud, the Cale will be othervvife. Thu% when 
 King Edward and Richard the lid. joined their own Prelence to the illegal Actions 
 of the Two Spencers, and Robert de Vere, Duke o( Ireland ; yet the Nobility 
 and People took no notice of that, but profecuted them, Jiotvvithftanding the 
 King's perfonal joining himfelf with them : And ThoniM Earl of Lancajkr, tho' 
 he had the worft of it in fuch a War, and was taken and executed, yet was his 
 Attainder reverled in Parliament, as I have already laid, and his (^ijarrel 
 with the Spencers declared to be good and juft. As the like Refiftance was 
 alfo declared to have been for the Safety of the King and Safeguard of The 
 Realm, in the Parlia-ment of the nth of Richard the lld< wherein the Duke of 
 Ireland, and the reft of his Faction, were condemned, as I have already fhewn you : 
 And tho' I grant, that in fuch a Divifion between the King and his People, his 
 Perfon may run a great Hazard ; yet it is his own Fault, and not theirs, if it lb 
 fall out i and they are not to lole their Lives, Liberties and Properties, in cafd 
 the King will fully join himfelf with Murderers or Robbers, fince this is not to 
 refift Royal Authority, but il'egal Force, without any Authority at all •, and if he 
 will thus expofe himfelf to the Mercy of blind Bullets, Charge is to be given to 
 all not to kill him wilfully or wittingly, fince we are never to defpair of his Re- 
 pentance, till he abfolutely renounces all Reconciliation with his People ; And thus, 
 even in the midft of fuch a Refiftance, the King's Perfon may be as lafe as he 
 can be. in fuch Circumftances , though not ib fife as if he were in his own 
 Palace. But if an Army of wicked and lawlefs Men muft not be refilled, be- 
 caufe they have got the Kings Perfon on their fide -, then Prince Edtcard ( after- 
 wards King Edward the Ift. ) could not have juftified his fighting with Sim&a 
 Montford, and thofe of his Faftion, who had, as you youi lelf acknowledged, 
 I got
 
 Dialogue the Ninth. 
 
 got the Perfon oF King Henry III. into their Power, and a£led all things in 
 his Name, and by his feeming Authority s as the Hiftorians of thoie Times ex- 
 prefly tell us -, and the King ^ing in Montfort\ Army at the Battel of" Eve/ham, 
 was in great Danger, being then wounded in the Neck with an Arrow : So" that 
 if this Oath had been then to be taken in thisSenfe, this refcuing of the King by 
 his own Son out of the Hands of thele wicked Councilors, had been taking up 
 Arms by his Authority againft his Perfon. 
 
 M. Pray give me Leave to anfwer this Inltance you have now brought, be- 
 caufe I think it does rather make againft, than for your Opioion. I grant 
 Prince Edward might well juftify his fighting with Simon Alomfon, tho' he 
 had the King's Perfon then in his Power, becaufe the Prince very v.'ell knew 
 ■'that his Father was carried about with them as a Prifoner againft his Will -, and 
 therefore ought to releafe him, tho' with fome Hazard to his Perfon ; fince 
 it could not be otherwife brought about. But f'ure there is a great deal of Diffe- 
 rence between iighting to releafe my Prince, when made a Prilbner againft his 
 will, and fighting againft him to take him away from Evil C unfellors, whether 
 he will or not ^ as the Long Parliament did againft King Ckvles I. tho' they 
 knew he was in the Head of hi^ Army with his own Conient ; and this was fure 
 taking up Arms by the King's Authority againft his Perfon, and is that which is 
 to be exprefly difclaimed by this Oath •■, and will be aUo treaibnable, if done in 
 any Cale vvhatfoever, where the King ihall thiiik fit to be at the Head of his 
 Forces, whether the Thing be lawtiil or unlawful tor which they are railed. 
 
 f Well then, ic leems the Fear of endangering the King's Perlbn is nothing, 
 if the End for which ic be done be lawful. And why it may not hold in other 
 Cafes as well as this, lean fee no Reafon. I grant, that what the Parliament did 
 was unlawful, becaule the Occalion of the Wai began on their fide, as ic vvas 
 then faid ; but fuppr.fing the King made War upon the People, I doubt not but 
 the Cafe had been otherwife. And for Proof of this, pray give me Leave to put 
 you a Qfe which may well happen, now we have a Standing Army diftinft from 
 the Militia : Suppofe that in a Suit with a gteat Favourite of the King's, a Man 
 recovers a Houle and Lands agaiift him by a Judgment at Law, and he alio by 
 Courfe of Law put into Poffeflion thereof by the Sneriff ^ afterwards the Kings 
 Commiflion is obtained by the Interelt of this Favourite, to command an Officer 
 and fome Companies of Soldiers of the Standing Army, to take Poileflion of this 
 Houfe, and deliver it back to the Perfon \'.!io firft had it. The 'Man in Polleffion 
 being a ttout and powerful Perfon in his Country, hearing of it, refblves to 
 maintain the PofTeflTion of his Houfe according to Law •, and therefore gets in good 
 Store of his Tenants and Neighbours to defend it. The Officer comes with his 
 Soldiers and fummons the Houfe : They within refufe to yield up the Pufleffion j 
 whereupon an AlTault enfues, in which a great many are killed. The Man in Pof- 
 feflion is by the King's Command indifted for Treafbn or Murder, for lighting 
 againft thofe commilTion'd by the King. Now, pray tell me. Whether the Judges 
 ought, according to their Oaths, to direft the Jury to find this Man, and thofe of 
 his Party, guilty of the Crimes above-mention'd, or not ; and whether the Officer 
 and his Soldiers are not rather to anfwer for this Offence. 
 
 M. Truly, I cannot deny but this Military Commiifion to put a Man out of 
 his Freehold is Illegal, and conlequently void, and fb may be rehlted •, fince 
 I know the Law fays. That a Man's Houfe is his Caitle, and he may juftify 
 the Defence of it againft all SubjeQs whatfbever : But what is this to refitting 
 the King's Pcifon, who was not there ^ for if he had, I doubt not but this Perfon 
 ought to deliver it up to the King, rather than endanger hisMajeltv's Sacred Pjr- 
 fon : Nor is this Refiftance confiderable, it being only in a particular Cafe, 
 which can no way by a general Rebellion alter this Government over the whole 
 Nation. 
 
 y. You fpeak agreeable to your own Principles. Well, but fuppofe the King 
 flioiild be perfuaded by fome very ill Men about him to play this or the like 
 Trick, whena'er he had a Mind to lEiVour one Party more than another, and 
 fb fliould hinder the Execution of the Law whenever he pleafed ■■, Can yon think 
 the Nation would long endure this, without any Reliftancc ? Or luppole, to make 
 the Cafe more general, the King fliould undertake to lay a Tax upon the whole 
 Nation, without Content of Parliament, and fearing it (hould not be levyed. 
 Ihould icfolve to do it by his Officers and Soldiers of his Standing Army ■■, and 
 
 4^^ 
 
 lat
 
 ^72 B I B I. 1 O T H E C A P O L 1 T I C A. 
 
 left they (hould be refifted, (hould march with them in Perfon from one County- 
 throughout to another to lee the Money raifed ; Do you think the whole Nation, 
 out of pure Deference to the King's Perfon, were bound to permit him to do what- 
 ever he pleafed, and let the Soldiers take this Tax, which they were certainly not 
 obliged to pay, had he not been perfonally there ? 
 
 M. Yes, I am of that Opinion that they ought •, for it were better to pay it, 
 than that a Civil War (hould happen about it, in which the King's Perfon, as well 
 as the Government, may be deftroy'd. 
 
 F. 1 fee you are of this Opinion, becaufe you fancy that the whole Govern- 
 ment confifts in the King's Perfon alone, which it does not ; but in the Legifla- 
 tive Power, which is not in the King alone, but in the King together with the 
 Lords and Commons aflembled in Parliament : Therefore you are miffaken in 
 fuppofing that this Refiltance mult needs alter the Frame of the Government, 
 fince it is undertaken to maintain the fundamental Conftitution of it. For if the 
 King may take what Money he pleafes from the People, and make what Laws 
 ~ he will without the Parliament, and without fuppofing it lawful to refill him if 
 he does, the Fundamental Conftitution of this Kingdom will be but a Jeft, con- 
 hdering how light fome Princes make of their molt Solemn Declarations to 
 their People •, nay, their very Coronation- Oaths now-adays. And it is a ftrange 
 Paradox, that one Man may defend his Life and Property againft the King's fingle 
 Perfon, in cafe he go about to rob or murder him ^ and yet that a whole Na- 
 tion fliould not have the like Right ; and that a Prince may not rob or murder 
 Men by himfelf, yet may do it without any Refiltance, in cale he can raife an 
 Army to back him. 
 
 ill. Let what will happen, I am for underftanding this Oath and Declara- 
 tion in the ftrift literal Senfe -, which you, by your falfe Glolfes, go about to 
 deftroy •, therefore to tell you plainly my Mind, I think, neither one fingle 
 Perfon, nor yet the whole Nation, can juftify Refiftance of the King's Perfon ; no, 
 tho' he fhould go about to rob or murder me, it were better I were killed, or 
 loft all I had, than that the facred Blood of my Prince fhould be fhed by my 
 Hands. Since the whole Parliament have on behalf of the People actually re- 
 rounced all defenfive Arms againlt the King, ( by which I fuppole they mean all 
 defenfive Arms againft his Perfon.) Nor have you as yet anlivered my two laft 
 Objeftions, concerning that Renunciation of the Two Houfes, and the want of a 
 competent Authority to raife the Arms of the whole Nation, in cafe of that which 
 you call a General Invafion of Mens Religion, Liberties, and Properties, if ever 
 any fuch thing fhould happen, as it is not likely it ever will. 
 
 F. Your Principles and mine are fo diametrically oppofite, that it's no 
 wonder we may draw quite contrary Conclufions ; tor whereas you fuppole 
 that Nations were made for Princes to govern and difpofe of at their Plea- 
 fure, without any Refiftance on the Peoples fide, let them do what they will -, 
 I fuppofe that Princes are made for the common Good of their People ; and where 
 their Happinefs and Prefervation do not interfere, ought inviolably to be pre- 
 ferved ; but when through the Folly, Negligence, or Tyranny of Princes, that 
 which was ordained for their Prote£lion, proves their Ruin and Deftruftion ; 
 I think the Prefervation of the Prince's Perfon ought to give place to the Pub- 
 lick Good ; and better that he, than that the whole Nation ihould perifli. Which 
 tho' it was the Opinion of Caiaphas, in relation to our Saviour, yet it is fo well 
 approved of, that it is laid by the E\'angelilt St. John, that he fpake not that of 
 himfelf, but being High-Prieft that Year, he prophefy'd. For there may be a 
 Civil Government without a King, but there can be no King without a Peo- 
 ple. Of this Opinion our Englijh Anceftors always were ; who, though they 
 often refifted , and fometimes depofed their Kings, they ftill maintained 
 Kingly Government, tho' with the Change of the Perfon. And if it fail'd 
 in the laft Civil War, it was becaufe it was at laft managed by a Faftion of 
 Men of quite different Principles both in Religion and Politicks, and not by the 
 Nobility and Gentry of the Nation, wholb Intereft it was, and ever will 
 be, to maintain the ancient Government of a limited Monarchy, without fall- 
 ing into a Commonwealth, or giving up their juft Rights and Liberties to an 
 Arbitrary Power. 
 
 But
 
 Dialogue the Ninth. zj.72 
 
 But to anlvver the reft of your Objeftions, which, if whdt I have already 
 laid down be Law and Reai( n too, may be eahly done. As to the firlt 
 Obie£>ion, the Two Houfes mijiht very well rerounce the Power of making 
 anv War oftenfive or defenfive againft the King, and yet leave the Right ot 
 Refiftance for Self-Deience and Prefervation to the whole Nation in gieneralj 
 fince the former was neceflary, unlefs they would have aflerted a Right in 
 themfelves of fitting whether the King would or not, and waging a War 
 againft him whenever they pleafed, after he had a£\ually difiolved them -, 
 which would be to fet up Two equal abfolute Powers at once in the King- 
 dom. But that they did not renounce it for the whole Kingdom, is plain ; for 
 though by the Statute of the 12th o^ Charles W. they dilclaim all coercive 
 Power over the King's Perfon for themlelves and the People, either collettively 
 or reprefentatively, yet do they neither there nor in any of thefe A£ts tor the 
 Militia, renounce all defenfive Arms for the Defence of their Religion, Liberties, 
 and Properties •, there being a gteat deal of Difference between fuch a Defence, 
 and a coercive Power over the King, as I have already fufficiently proved •, nor in- 
 deed was it in the Power of the Parliament to have done it if they would, iince 
 they are but Trultees for the People to preferve their jult Rights, and had no Power 
 wholly to give up their Religion, Lives and Properties to the King's Mercy. 
 So that this Renunciation of all defenfive Arms on the Behalf of the whole 
 People, had been abfolutely void in it felf : And fince it would have render 'd. 
 the Legal Conftitution of the Government of this Kingdom abfolutely precari- 
 ous, if notwithltanding the Illegality of the King's Commiffions, and their 
 being void if granted to illegal Purpofes , the King's Prefence Ihall render 
 it downright Trealbn to refill them. And if this be fo, the laft Difficulty 
 will be ealily anfwered, viz. By what Authotity or CommifTion the People 
 may make this general Refiftance > To this 1 fay, that in the hrft Place all 
 Commiifions granted to Pcifons uncapable by Law to take them, or for 
 illegal Purpofes, are to be fuppofed to be ifliaed contrary to the King's Will 
 and Knowledge, and therefore are to be lookd upon as void in Law -, and 
 conicquencly the Perlbns not to be comniiilioned at all, and lb may be refitt- 
 ed by the King's legal Officers all over England, as I have already proved : 
 But if once the King fliould cointenance and abet fuch Robbers by his own 
 perfonal Prefence, this Refiftance may then be made, and juftified by the 
 whole Nation, not by the King's Authority againft his Perlbn, but by another 
 higher and precedent Right, viz. the Right of Self-Defence, and the Com- 
 mon-Safety of the whole Nat'on ; which the People muft have relerved to 
 themfelves at the firft Inlticutioi of the Government, or elfe all Monarchies 
 would be alike, and their would be no difterence at all between abfolute and 
 limited Kingdoms. 
 
 M. I fhall not trouble my felf about other Kingdoms, but this much I 
 firmly believe, that our Kings are abfolute Monarchs, notwithftanding they 
 have limited themfelves by Law to the Manner of their Adminiftration ofthele 
 grand Eifentials of Government, the making of Laws, and raifing of Money: 
 So that fince the Supremacy of the Government is ftill in themfelves as God's 
 Vicegerents here on Earth, and not as the People's Deputies, I cannot but 
 ftill underftand this Oath in the ftriil litteral Senfe in which I am- confident 
 this Parliament meant it-, and therefore fince they have exprefly declared 
 the Law to be fo, I will not be wifer than the Law j efpecially iince ic 
 is moft agreeable to the Scriptures, and the known Doftrine of the Church 
 of EngL'.nd, that the King s Perfon is not only unaccountable but irrefiftible 
 too upon any Pretence whatfoever •, and I think I am able to fhew you, that 
 it i . much better for this Nation, or any other of a like Conftitution, to fuffer 
 the wotft that may happen from the ill Government, nay Tyranny of our Kings, 
 than to involve themfelves in Blood and Confufion by Rebellion and Civil 
 Wars, as often as the People fhall judge, though never ^<j falfly, that their 
 fundamental Rights and Piivileee^ are forcibly invaded by the King. 
 
 F. I think 1 have very exprefly proved at our 5th Meeting, and that from 
 undoubted Tettimonies ftom our ancient Hiftories, and Writers of the Laws 
 ot England, as alio from the whole conftant Tenor of the Statute Law of 
 this Nation, That tha Kings of England are not limited by their own 
 ConcefTions, in the Manner of the Adminiftration of their Sovereign Power, but 
 
 P p p from
 
 474 
 
 BiBLiOTHEcA Political 
 
 from the firft Conftitution of the Government : And if the King be not the 
 fole Supreme Legiflative Power, I care not what Ibme Divines have writ to the 
 contrary •, and fince it is a Law-Queftion, the fupreme Authority alone ought 
 to decide it. And therefore it is no Matter in this Cafe, what the Scriptures lay, 
 nor yet the Church of England. ; the former hath not, and the latter cannot de- 
 termine what is the legal Conftitution of the Government in this Nation, and where 
 the fupreme Power refides. And therefore fuppofe it to have been the Intent of this 
 Parliament, never fb much to bar all Refiftance of the King's Perfon in any Cafe 
 whatlbever, yet I am fure it was not in their Power to do Things abfolutely incon- 
 iiftent and contradiftory in themfelves, as they muft have done had they made 
 the Perfons of all Officers, however commiflioned by the King, abfolutely irrefifti- 
 ble ; and much more if they had indued the King's Prefence with an abfolute 
 Power, in Order to countenance their Commifiion, the moft violent and illegal 
 Aftion-, and yet have fuppofed they had thereby altered nothing in the Conftitution 
 of the Government, though they had rendred it inftead of a limited, an abfolute 
 defpotick Monarchy, which as I am not yet convinced it was in their Will, fo neither 
 Was it in their Power to grant if they would : And therefore as I do not defire 
 to be wifer than the Law, fo I cannot allow this to be any Law at all in the Senfe 
 you would put upon it. So that make the moft of it,this was but the unwary Decla- 
 ration of a Parliament of very young or biafled Men, not long after the King's 
 coming in, who through the great Abhorrence they had of the late Civil War 
 railed by the Parliament, under Colour of the King's Authority, were drawn in 
 before they were aware, to be a little too free in their Exprefiions, not confidering 
 the Confequences that might follow : But when this fond Fit was over, and that 
 a ftanding Army had been railed in England under pretence of the Dutch War, 
 and that the King had by his Declaration of Indulgence made fome Approaches 
 to an Arbitrary Power, and in order thereunto, would in that very Parliament 
 in 1675. have impofed this very Oath or Teft, not only upon thofe who were 
 to take it before, but upon all Peers and Parliament Men before ever they fat in 
 the Two Houfes, as alio upon all Officers in Church and State, to the very Ju- 
 Itices of Peace -, fo that the Dilguife being now feen through, it made divers of 
 the Peers, even thofe of greateft Loyalty and Wifdom, ftiffly to oppole the 
 laying this Teft upon all the Clergy, Nobility and Gentry of the whole Nation, 
 as it was then the Defign of the Court-Party to have done : Which vigo- 
 rous Oppofition, tho' in the fmaller Number, yet met with fuch good Succels, 
 that the Bilhops and Lords of the contrary Opinion, could not then carry it •, 
 and the Eyes of the whole Nation were afterwards fo much opened, that the 
 King durft never offer this Teft any more to either of the Two Houfes. So that 
 if you will but confider this Matter of Fa£l:, how this Teft was firft obtained -, 
 and how afterwards, when it was thought to be intended to let up Arbitrary 
 Power, was alfo as vigoroufly oppoled by them ; and their being fenfible 
 that the Parliament had gone too far already in doing what they had 
 done-, I think none can take this Oath in your Senfe, except thole Cler- 
 gymen, who will allow none to be of their Church , but thofe who are for 
 this PalTive Obedience ; according to their prejudicate Notions of Loy- 
 alty, or elfe fome few mercenary Lawyers, who, in Hopes of Preferment , 
 (which they can never otherwife obtain) would interpret this Oath in fuch a 
 Senfe as would make us all Papifts and Slaves too, whenever the King has a 
 mind to it. Now which of thefe Extremes are wortt, that the People fhould judge 
 for themfelves (tho' perhaps erroneoufly) when the King, or thofe atting by his 
 illegal Commiffions, fhall violently allault them in their Religion, Lives, Liberties 
 and Eftates, and thereupon they make Refiftance with oneConfent, when they find 
 themfelves brought to this Extremity; or elfe that the King fhould be thus invelted 
 with an irrefiftible Power of doing whatever he pleafed with us ■, I durft leave to 
 any indifferent Perfon to judge, 
 
 M. I confefs you have told me more concerning the Hiftory of this Oath , 
 than ever I knew before-, but let the legal Senfe of it be what it will, and letting 
 afide the Precepts in Scripture for abfolute SubmifFion without any Refiftance, 1 
 think I am able to prove from your own grand Topick of the common Good and 
 Prefervation of Mankind -, that it is much better to fubmit to the worft, and 
 greateft Tyrant that ever was, than to refift him, if he be our lawful Prince ; 
 
 for "
 
 dialogue the Ninth, ^jt 
 
 for if you confider what is the Subjea of all Human Happinefs and Contentment, 
 
 it is certainly Life ^ now what Tyrant e\ er in his whole Reign deftroyed fb many 
 
 Mens Lives by Force, or unjuft Profecutions, as a Civil War, if carried on with 
 
 Violence and Animofity does in a Year's Time > So vatt a Difterence there is between Vid. ah An- 
 
 the Evils of Tyranny and Rebellion, and 16 much is the Remedy worfe than the f'^^r to Dr. 
 
 Difeafe •, the Cruelty of a Tyrant tfays one) is like a Clap of Thunder, it ftrikes ^'"^'^ ^^^^'^ 
 
 with great Terror ; but Civil War is like an Inundation, it fweeps away all before ^aj-'s^ \'^°ir' 
 
 it, without Noile : Thus one Man brought to the Scaffold by the Arbitrary Com- Und^ p" ^2, 
 
 mand of a Tyrant, makes more Noife than Ten Thoufand killed in the Field in 35. V- 
 
 a Civil War ; but that does not make it the lefs, but the greater Evil, while we 
 
 are made willing to deftroy our lelves, and do it more efteftually in one Day, 
 
 than the bloodieft Tyrant could find in his Heart to do in his whole Reign : All 
 
 the Men put to Death by the Arbitrary Commands of Tyrants fince the beginning 
 
 of the World, in all the Kingdoms of it, will not amount to half the Number of 
 
 thofe who have periOied in the Roman, or Englijh Civil Wars. So much fafer are 
 
 we in God's Hands than in our own, and in theirs under whom God hath placed 
 
 us. And though he often makes them like the Sun and Sea, (tho' highly ufeful in 
 
 themfelves) Scourges lor our Sins, yet he has promifed to keep their Hearts in his 
 
 Hand, and to turn them as leemeth belt unto him ; we have more Promifes of r;,/. ^g -^ 
 
 Safety there, than when we are delivered over to the Bealts of the People, whole 
 
 Madnefs David compares to the Raging of the Sea. 
 
 In fhort,The ftrift Reftraint of the People by Government, is their trueft Liberty 
 and Freedom ^ fince if they were at Liberty from Government, they would be ex- 
 poled to Combat one another -, which would be worfe than the greatelt Slavery 
 in the World : The great Miitake is in the fbolifh Notion we have of Liberty, 
 which generally is thought to confift in being free from the Lafh of Government, 
 as School-boys from their Matter, and proves in the Confequence only a Liberty 
 to deltroy each other ; and yet it is for liich a Liberty as this, that Men molt 
 commonly begin Civil Wars, and fall a cutting of each others Throats, There- 
 fore, though 1 grant it were much better for all Princes to let their SubjePs live 
 happily, and enjoy a competent Share of Eafe and Plenty j yet on the other Side, 
 if they will not permit them fo to do, but will tyrannically opprefs them, it 
 were much better for them lo fit down contented with Poverty, nay. Slavery it 
 felf, rather than to deftroy fo great Part of a Nation, as may be lolt in a Civil 
 War, whenever it begins. Thus even the Poet Lucan, though of Cato's Party, 
 reckoning up theMileries of the Civil Wars of Rome, wliich were all for Liberty, 
 as if envying the happy Condition of thofe who lived .under ablblute Tyrants, 
 cries out, 
 
 Txlkes Arahes, Medioq-, JEaque Tell us, 
 ^//os fiih perpetuis tenuerunt fata Tyrannis. 
 
 I could give you Inltances of the Truth of this in molt Nations, enough to make 
 a Hiltory : And if fuch a Hiftory were written, of the Mifchiefs of this talfe 
 and pretended Liberty, and Good of the People, I durlt undertake the Compa- 
 rifbn, that more vifible Mifchiefs come upon the People, more Deftruftion of 
 the Publick Good, and greater Lofs of Liberty and Property by this one Method, 
 than by all the Tyranny and Violence of.Mjnkind put together ; and conlequently, 
 that there is no Comparifon 'twixt the Evils of Tyranny, and of a Civil War for 
 Publick Good ; and that the Milchief.s on this Pretence of Publick Good, are 
 infinitely lefs tolerable, and a more Univerfal Ruin ro the People , than any Ty- 
 ranny of lawful Governors, that ever was in the World ; whereas this is by many 
 Degrees the 'greatelt, and molt lawlefs Tyranny, and always brings greater Mil- 
 chief along with it, fuch as Confufion, Rapine, Violence, Contempt of all Laws 
 and Legal Eftablifhments, with more intolerable Evils of all Sorts, than thole ic 
 pretends to remedy. 
 
 But of all Pretences for Rebellion, Religion is the molt ridiculous •, fince a 
 Man's Religion can never be taken from him, or a talfe one impoled upon him, 
 whether he will or not ; and alio becaufe a Civil War introduces greater Immo- 
 rality, and more loolens the Reins of Pifcipline, and is more contrary to the 
 Spirit of true Religion, than any other Thing in the World : True Religion is 
 
 P p p 2 not
 
 476 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTICA. 
 
 not propagated by the Sword, it is a fmall ftill Voice that cannot be heard in 
 War ; War confounds it, and debauches it. The moft profligate, and licentious 
 Court, bears no Proportion in Wickednefs to the Lewdneis, Blafphemy, and Con- 
 tempt of all that is Sacred, which reigns and overflows in Camps. It was an old 
 and true Saying, Nulla fides, Ptetafq-^ viris, qui Caflra fcquiintur. 
 
 F. I fee when neither the Scripture nor the Law can juftify your abfurd 
 Doftrine of Paflive Obedience •, then you fly back to your old Topick the Law 
 of Nature, and common Good of Mankind : I allow your Principles, but not the 
 Deduftions you draw from thence, which are indeed but Paralogifms, as I will 
 fhew you by and by ; but I lee there is nothing fo falfe and abfurd, which Preju- 
 dice and Education will not make Men fwallow : 1 confefs, you have made a 
 long and ingenious Harangue in Commendation of the Benefits of Tyranny and 
 Slavery •, which had you done only for an Exercile of your Wit, I Ihould have 
 ranked it with Cardan s Panegyrick of Ktro, and in Praife of the Gout •■, but if 
 you vent fuch Notions in good earneft, I cannot forbear Ihewing you the Ab- 
 furdity of them. 
 
 Firit, therefore, admitting what you fay for Truth, that a Civil War does de- 
 ftroy more Men in one Battel, than the greateft Tyrant hath ever done in his 
 whole Reign ; Is this an Argument that no Man may defend either his Life or 
 Liberty againft Arbitrary Power ? If this were true Reafon, it were the greateft 
 Folly in the World for the Poles, or any other Nation that are at Wars with the 
 Tartars, ever to refiff rhem ^ for their EmilTaries might thus make ule of your 
 Argument to make them fubmit to them : Life is the only State of Happinefs 
 in this World, and without which nothing can be enjoyed ; It is therefore better 
 for you to be made Slaves than to venture a Battel -, lor in the Fight God knows 
 how many of you may be deftroyed 5 whereas, if you quietly lubmit, we pro- 
 miie to hurt none of you, we will only carry you away, and fell you for Slaves, 
 and fure Slavery is better than Death •, for even Slaves enjoy a great many Comforts 
 of Life, though with fome Hardlhips^ and you may be redeemed again, or make 
 your Efcape ; but Life once loft can never be recovered. The fame Argument a 
 Tyrant may ufe for the Exercife of his Arbitrary Power over Mens Lives -, that he 
 will not (nay, cannot) deftroy the whole Nation, but only ule them as Butchers 
 do their Sheep cull out the fatteft, and let the poor Ones live, thrive and grow 
 fat, till they are likewile ready for the Knife. This perhaps may be a proper Life 
 for thofe Beafts that c.mnot live without Man's Proteftion ^ but what Man of 
 any Courage or Senfe, would be willing to live under a Government where his 
 Poverty was to be his only Proteftion ? Who would not venture his Life in one 
 brisk Battel, rather than live in fuch a vile and flavifli Condition ? And who would 
 not rai-her argue thus -, It is great odds, if among fo many Thoufands, I am the 
 Perfon ordained for Death •, or if I am, I may perhaps purchafe Viftory for my 
 Countrymen, and Liberty for my Polterity ^ but let the worlt happen, I venture 
 my Lite for the Publick Good ; and it is better once to die, than always to live 
 in fear. 
 
 But if the Calculation of the Number of Men's Lives that may be loft in 
 the Recovery, or maintaining any Right whatever, fhould be the only Rule to ren- 
 der War either realonable, or lawful \ I doubt whether moft of the Wars Princes 
 make for fmall Territories, or Puncf ilio's of Honour \ (as lowering the Flag, for 
 Example) nay, even for the Recovery of iheir Crowns, when unjuftly detained 
 or taken from them, can upon your Principle ever juftify either Princes in Con- 
 fcience to make fuch Wars, or oblige Subjefts in Prudence, (according to 
 your Rule of the Publick Good) to fight in fuch Quarrels •, fince none of them 
 but often coft more Lives to defend, or regain them, if loft, than the Things 
 are worth that the Princes of the World ufually make War about, againft each 
 other. 
 
 But if you tell me, that Men are bound by the Law of God, and of their Coun- 
 try to afTift their Prince in any Wars he fhall Command them, without enquiring 
 into the Confequences of it ^ and let what will happen as to the lofs of Men's 
 Lives, Eftates or Liberties, that we are likewife to obey and fubmii to lawful 
 Princes •, becaufe, let them tyrannize, enflave or deftroy us never fo much, yet 
 God has put us into their Hands •, and we are fafe in God's Hands whilft we are 
 in theirs : This is all a meer Falacy, lor what is this to your main Argument 
 from the DettruQion of Mankind ? For, if ib many Men are to lofe their Lives 
 1 in
 
 Dialogue the Ninth, Ann 
 
 In the War, what Difference is it as to them, whether the War be made by a 
 lawful or unlawful Power > It is ftill upon this Principle unlawful ro be made, and 
 confequently unlawful to he fought for. And if you once grant that Princes may ty- 
 rannize without Reliftance, kill or enflave any of their Subjetts •, What Difference 
 is it, as to the People that are to f lifter it,whether he be a lawful Prince, or a Tyrant 
 or Ufurper that does it ? For as for being delivered by God into the Hands of a 
 lawful Prince to be dealt withal as he fhall think good, it is all meer Jargon : Pray 
 prove to me (if you can) that whillt a Prince thus tyrannizes, opprefles, and en- 
 Haves his People, that God ever thus deliver'd the People into his Hand for that 
 Defign ^ or that whilft he does lb, he a£ls as God's Minilter. This I have urged 
 you to prove at our Fourth Meeting •, but fince you could not do it, I take the Cale 
 for defperate. 
 
 But to anfwer your Comparifons of the Sun and Sea, to which you compare 
 lawful Princes that turn Tyrants ; they are as eafily retorted upon you : If the 
 Rays of the Sun are too hot, we may refitt or avoid them, and put on thicker 
 Cloaths -, or fet up Shelters to defend our lelves from them .• The like we may fiy 
 of his malignant Influences or Effefts upon Men's Bodies, could there beany Means 
 found out as eafily to avoid them. So likewife for the Sea ^ fuppofe the breaking 
 in of it upon any Countrey to be fent by God for their Sins, you will not lay it is 
 unlawful tor the People to make Banks or Dikes, or ufe any other natural Means 
 to keep it out, or to drain it away. And the Cafe is the lame as to Tyranny •, for 
 51 Rehltance be as natural a Means againft it, as thefe I have mentioned are againft 
 the too violent Heat of the Sun, or breaking in of the Sea, I cannot lie why we 
 may not as lawfully exercile it. But lince we are talking of Waters, this puts me 
 in mind of the Place you have now cited out of Trovci-hs , That the Hcjit of the 
 King ii in the Hand of the Lord •, which without doubt is a great Truth ^ but then 
 you fhould have added what immediately follows ^ ai the Rivers of Waters he turn- 
 fth it whithcrfocver he iviU. Now, How does God turn Rivers of Waters ? It is 
 rot by any fupernatural Means, but either by a ftrong Wind , or elle by the Hands 
 of Men. Therefore Solomons Comparifon of God's turning the Hearts of Kings vid. Dt. Pj- 
 like Waters, is but an Allufion to the Cuftom of thofe Eajlern Countries, that as ""ickV Para- 
 a Gardiner draws the Streams of Water through the Trenches he cuts into what '''^'''''^" '^"'^ 
 Part of the Garden he thinks good ^ fo;doth God turn the Hearts of Princes to aft, £ra?'" "" 
 or do quite contrary to their firft IntenPfons ; nay, to what they have aftually done 
 before. Bur, How is this performed? It is pnly as he makes ufe of the Gardiner 
 to turn the Streams of Water : It is wholly "by human Means, fuch as Advice of 
 good and wile Counfellors, and a prudent Confideration upon it ^ to which alio 
 may be added, the Refiftance of their Subjefts, when after all Remonltrances and 
 Intreaties to the contrary, Princes Itill go on outragioully to opprefs them j when 
 they fee they will no longer bear it, and find themlelves engaged in a troublelbme 
 War with them, they then fee their Error, and lend to their Subjefts and offer them 
 Terms of Peace. Thus divers of our Kings Hearts were turned ; when they law 
 the Nation would all, as one Man, refilt their tyrannical Arbitrary Proceedings, 
 they came to Terms with them, and granted them Magna Charta, and other good 
 Laws, for the Security of their jult Rights and Liberties. But as for what you lay 
 of our being fafe in the Hands of Tyrants, as being in God's Hands ; I grant we 
 are ftill in God's Hands even when we fall under the Power of Thieves and Robbers. 
 But is our Safety tlien fo great, as when we are out of their Hands > Or, may we 
 not get from them by Force, if we are able ? Efpecially if what Bra^on tells*^''."- '•/• 107- 
 us be true, in thefe Words in his Third Book, Exercere igitur debet Rex poteftatem 
 jurk ficut Dei minifer, t?' Vicarii/s in Terra, quia ilia potejhtf folius Dei eji ; po- 
 teftas autem injuriit Dinboli non Dei, &" cujus horum operumficit Rex, ejus tiiinijler 
 erit cujus horum opentm Jcicit, igitur diim ficit juftitia* vicarius cfi Regis xterni, 
 Tninijlcr autem Diaboli cum declinet ad injuriam. Now , pray tell me, if the King 
 can thusceafe to be God's Lieutenant , and become the Devil's Officer, wliether 
 we can properly be faid to be under the Power ordained by God, or that wecan be 
 very late in fuch Hands, I cannot very well fee. 
 
 As for unneceflary Wars, undertaken without any ilich Ciule, f()r meer Pre- 
 tences of Liberty and the publick Good ; and which may have Ibmetimes caufed 
 many more Mifchiefs and Inconveniences than thole they pretended to cure •, docs 
 it theretbre follow, that no Wars, tho' againltinfupportable Tyranny, and for Self- 
 defence, have never been, nor may be, undertaken by any Nation in the World ^ 
 
 and
 
 ^yS B 1 B L T T H E C A P O L 1 T 1 C a; 
 
 and that the State they are in, after fuch a War, is always much worfe than it was 
 before > Which is notorioufly ftlfe, as you may lee by fo many Inftances I have given 
 you from our own Hiftories -, as I could alfo (hew you from other Countries ; fuch 
 as the Switzers and Dutch, who have by defending their Liberties when unjultly 
 opprefTed, brought thenlfelves into a Stare of Plenty, Liberty, and Safety. And 
 therefore, notwithftanding your making fo light of Men's juft Rights, Liberties, 
 and Properties, there are certainly fuch Things that diftinguiih a Free People from 
 Slaves i as any, who will but travel into France, Turkey, or any other Arbitrary 
 Government, may eafily fatisfy themfelves. And if theie Things ought to be re- 
 ally efteemed as the Caufes of all the Earthly Happinefs we enjoy, then certainly 
 they may be defended, and fought for -, and if in the Purchafe of them many 
 Men's Lives happen to be loft, this is no neceflary Conlequence ; fince fuch Re- 
 formations are often brought about with very little Bloodlfied : As appears by many 
 Inftances 1 have now given of fuch Refiftance, and may more evidently appear by 
 this late great and wonderful Revolution. But admitting it fhould happen as you 
 lay, and that a great Part of a Nation fhould be deftroy'd in a Civil War, for 
 their juft Rigins and Liberties ; yet it is ftill upon your own Topick, better for 
 Klankind that it fhould be fo, if true Liberty (I do not mean from lawful Authori- 
 ty) may be but obtain'd at laft thereby ; fince Life is not to be efteemed only for 
 meet living, but living happily j non eji vivere, fei valere Vita ; and Life is en- 
 joyed by Slaves in Galleys, as much as by the greateftPrince^ yet no rational Man 
 but will will allow that Men may venture their Lives, rather than fuffer themfelves 
 and their Pofterity to fall into that miferable Condition •, the like he may, if they 
 were only to be reduced to the Condition of the Peafancs in France , or ordinary 
 Chriftians in Turkey ; and if fo, I think I may then fafely affirm , that it is better 
 that half the People of any Country fhould be deftroyed by a Civil War, if their 
 juft Rights and Liberties may be preferved to them and their Children at the laft, 
 than that Slavery, with all its Confequences, fuch as Ignorance, Bafenefs of Mind, 
 Cowardice, Beggary, iS/'c. fhould"ever be entailed upon a Nation : For as for the 
 Lofs of Men, it may be made up again in fome Generations ; but when Men's Ci- 
 vil Liberties and Properties are once loft, they cannot, without feme rare and un- 
 expefted Revolution, be ever regained ; as we fee in the SubjeQs of all Sorts in 
 f ranee, Turkey, and Mufcovy , 8cc. at this Day. And therefore, if .you pleafe 
 bettci to confider, the real Liberties of a People (fuch as we contend for) are not 
 that of School-Boys, to be free from the Lafti of their Malfers : However, that if 
 luch a Difcipline were to be exercifed upon Men all their Life-times, L think no 
 Man but would f ly it were worth venturing his Life, rather than to fill inro fo mi- 
 ierable a State. So that what you cite from the Poet Lucan, is only to be taken as 
 a Poetical Exclamation againft the Miferies that Civil Wars often bring upon a Na- 
 tion : But to lay that it was Lucan s Opinion, that Subjection u.nder the fevereft Ty- 
 rant, was berier than the Liberty the People of Rome enjoyed, is to fuppofe that 
 either you oi 1 have never read that Author ; fince nothing is more plain, than that 
 the main Defignof that Poem is to magnify Cato and Fompey, who fought for the 
 Liberty of their Country, above Cf/^w, and thofe that joined with him todeftroy it. As 
 for all rhe reft that you have faid, that you could make a Hiftory of greater Mileries, 
 as Lofs of Liberty, B^r . that have come upon whole Nations by fighting for their juft 
 Rights and Liberties againft Tyrants, than by all the Tyranny and Violence of Man- 
 kind :, I think you would have a hard Task to make it good, fince I fiippofe under Ab- 
 foluteMonarchies it is unlawful for the People to take up Arms,till they are either like 
 to be enflaved or deftroyed by the Tyranny of their Prince, or elfe fo intolerably op- 
 prefs'd by his Soldiers, that they can fcarce even in a State of War live in a mucli 
 worfe Condition j and if they ate ever fubdued and reduced to their former Condi- 
 tion, they cannot be worfe than what they were under before. The like I may 
 lay as to Limited Monarchies or Commonwealths , that degenerate into Tyran- 
 nies ; the People may perhaps better their Condition by Refiftance, and recover 
 their Liberties, but cannot be in a worle , if they are overcome : For I do not 
 allow fuch Refiftance lawful till the very Fundamental Conftitutions of their 
 Government , whereby it is diftinguifh'd from an Arbitrary Defpotick Power, 
 be a8:ually invaded, or taken from them : So that let the worft that can happen, 
 they can fcarce fall into worfe Condition than they were before. And as for 
 England, we may fpeak it experimentally , That of all the Refiftances that have 
 been made by the Major Part of the Nation, or greater Part of it in Defence of 
 
 their
 
 Dialogue the Ninth. ^yp 
 
 their juft Rights and Liberties, every one of them have happened for the belt, 
 and been a Means of reftoriiig this Kingdom to its former Eltate, except the laft, 
 in which I grant we lolt it by that War •, yet that was not ftom the Dodrine it 
 ielf, buc becaufe the War was begun and carried on by a violent Faftion, upon 
 unjuft Grounds ; and, which was worfe, the Government and Dilcipline of the 
 Church, as eftablilhed by Law, was altered without any Legal Power -, all which 
 could never have happened, had not that War been not only begun, but continued 
 to the very laft by a Standing Army, which could give what Laws they pleafed, 
 even to thofe that pretended to command them. So that why the Abufe of this 
 Right once in a Thoufand Years, fhould be made any juft Argument againft the 
 ever ufing it at all, I can fee no Reaibn in the World for it. 
 
 As to the relt of your Difcourle againft making any War about Religion, that 
 is alio as fallacious -. For though I grant, that true Religion is not to be propagated, 
 yet I think it may lawfully be defended by the Sword, efpecially where it is the 
 received Eftablifh'd Religion of a Nation ; or elfe the Defence of Religion againlt 
 Infidels, would be no Argument at all to fight againft a Turkiflj or Topifh Prince 
 that unjuftly invaded us. For tho' it is true, that Religion cannot be taken away 
 from any Man without his Conlent, yet a Man may be taken ftom his Religion ; 
 and when the Profeflors are deftroyed, either by Martyrdom, or violent Perlecu- 
 tion, as bad, or worfe than Death, what will become of the Church and Religion 
 Eftablilhed by Law, when all the Perfons that conftitute that Church are driven 
 away, deftroyed, or made to renounce it ? And for this we need go no farther than 
 over the Water to our next Neighbour. It is likewife as fallacious what you urge 
 of the great Corruption of Manners by Civil Wars ^ which if it be any Argu- 
 ment at all, is fo againft all Standing Armies whatever, whether railed by lawful 
 or unlawful Powers. And I think there was much more Debauchery in the King's 
 late Camp at Hounjlow-Heath, as alfo in all Places where they quartered, than was 
 lately at Tork or Aotti/i^ham, among thofe that took up Arms in Defence of their 
 Religion or Civil Liberties unjuftly invaded by the King and his Minifters. Nor 
 does it always happen, that Armies raifed for Defence of Religion and Civil Li- 
 berty, muft prove debauch'd ; fince we may remember, that the Parliament Army 
 ( to its Praife be it fpoken ) was infinitely more Sober, and outwardly Religious, 
 than the King's. But il'you will fay that this proceeded from their Principles, as 
 well as good Dilcipline, 1 know no Reafon why Men who fight in Defence of their 
 ]<e!igion and Civil Liberties, may not upon Church-of-fw^/^^^ Principles, as to 
 Church-Government, and Common-Prayer, may alio by a itrift Difcipline be as 
 little debauch'd as any Standing Armies the moft lawful Monarch can maintain ; 
 ivho if they lie Idle, as ours have done all this King's Reign till now of late, are 
 more likely to fall into all the Wickednefs that attend a loole Dilcipline, and want 
 of Employment, and confequently may alfo corrupt the Places where they Qjaarter 
 by their ill Example. ' 
 
 M. I fhall not longer argue this Point, fince I fee it is to no Purpole. But 
 you have not yet told me what thefe fundamental Rights and Liberties are, 
 that you fuppofe the People may take up Arms to defend ; nor yet what Number 
 of the Nation may thus judge for themfelves, and take up Arms when they 
 pleafe ^ for it may fo happen, that the whole Nation may be divided as to their 
 Opinions concerning thefe Things. And the South Part of England, ( for Exam- 
 ple ) may think their Religion and Liberties in great Danger, and that it is very 
 receffary to take up Arms for it, when the Korth Parts are not under thofe Ap- 
 prehenfions, but lye ftill , as was lately feen in the Rifings for the Prince o'i Orange. 
 
 F. As to the firtt of thefe Queries, I think I can eafily give you Satisfaftion, and 
 fuch as you can have nothing material to reply to. And as for the other, though 
 I do not fay I can give you fuch an Anfwer as will bear no Exception or Reply, 
 yet I doubt not but it will be that which may very well be defended, and may 
 ierve to fatisfy any indifierent and unprejudiced Perfon j and which, if not allowed, 
 will draw much worfe Confequences along with it.' And therefore as for the 
 ]uft Rights and Liberties we contend for, they are only fuch 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 firft. In refpe^ of the Safety of 
 Mens Lives, and the Liberties of their Perfons. / Secondly, The Security of the 
 Eftates and Civil Properties. And Thirdly, The Enjoyment of their Religion, as 
 it is eftablilhed by the common Confent of the whole Nation. All which I will 
 reduce to thefe plain Propofitions. i. That
 
 4.8< 
 
 B 
 
 J B L 1 O T H E C A 
 
 O L I T I C A. 
 
 ;W. PrynV i/? 
 Part of the Vin- 
 dication oj the 
 Rights <if 
 Engiilh i-Vfc- 
 men. 
 
 Caf. i3. 5, 
 Ca[: 6. 
 
 Vid. Rufh- 
 worchV Hifl- 
 Cot. ft. I . p. 
 507,598,625 
 
 1. That rio Freemen of fy/^/W ought to be Imprifbned or Arrefted contrary 
 to Law, without fpecifying the Cau(e of his Commicment in the Warrant, or 
 Mittumts, whereby he is fent to Prilbn. And he ought not to be fcnt out of the 
 Body of the Country, or Jurildidion where the Crinne was fuppoled to be 
 committed, unlefs he be removed by due Courle of Law. Neither nught 
 he by the Law of England., to be detained in Prifbn without Tryal on'y tor 
 a Punifliment ^ but ought to be Tried the next Alfizes or Goal-delivery, or within 
 fome realbnable Time to be allowed of by the Court. And this was Common- 
 Law, many Ages before the Aft of Habeas Corpus made in the ?ift of King 
 Charles the Second, which does but afcertain that Law concerning bailing Men 
 for all manner ol" Crimes, in caie no Profecution come in againft them: Much, 
 lefs can the King, or any Court below the whole Parliament, bani(h any Man 
 the Kingdom in any Cale, unlefs by Ibme known Law already made, whereby he 
 is bound to abjure it upon a lawful Tryal by his Peers, and Conviftion by his own 
 Confeflion. 
 
 2. Nor can the King, nor any Courts of Juftice, condemn a Man to lofs of 
 Life, or Members, without due Tryal by his Peers, and Legal Judgment given 
 thereupon. 
 
 And tor Proof of this, I need go no farther than Magna Chart a, and the Petition 
 of Right, which are both but declaratory of the Common Law of England, 
 See thefore yVL(^;?^i Chart a. Cap. 29. whereby it is Declared and Enafted, That no * 
 Freeman may be taken and Imprifoned, or be dilfeiled of his Freehold, or Liber- 
 ties, or his free Cuftoms, or be Outlawed, or Exiled, or in any manner deltvoyed, 
 but by the lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land, which is 
 alio farther confirmed and explained by thefe Statutes, vis. the 57th, ?8th, and 
 42d of EdvoardWl. and 17th of Richard II. all which are fummoned up, and 
 more particularly declared againft, contrary to the fundamental Laws of the 
 Land, in the Petition of Right exhibited to King Charles L in Parliament, 
 in the Thirtieth of his Reign ^ wherein the late Impriibnment of the King s 
 Subjefts without any Caufe Ihewed, and the Denial of Habeas Corpus are ex- 
 prelly relented •, as aUb putting Soldiers and Mariners 10 Death hy Martial 
 Law in the Time of Peace. And the King's Anfwer to this Petition is remarkable. 
 The King willeth that Right be done, according to the Statutes and Cuftoms of 
 the Realm, i5^c. Which not latisfying as too doubtful and general, the King ac 
 laft gave this full and clear Anfwer in legal Form, Son Droit fait comme il efi 
 defire. 
 
 The Second Point in relation to our Civil Properties is this. That no Tax, Tail- 
 lage or Aid ftall be laid or levy'd by the King, without the Confents of the 
 Archbiftiops, Biihop?, Earls, Barons, Knights, Burgeffes, and whole Communalty 
 of the Realm in Parliament. This was hilt of all granted by the 56th Law of 
 William the Firft, which 1 have already cited ^ as alfo more particularly forbid 
 by the Statute de Tallagio non conccdendo., in the 34th of Edward the Firft, which 
 was but a Revival, or Explanation of the former Law of William the Firft, and 
 alfo by the 25 th 0^ Edward the Third ; whereby it is Enaded, " That no Perfon 
 " Iho'uld be compelled to make any Loans to the King againft his Will, becaufe 
 " they are againft Reafon, and the Franchife of the Land -, and it is alfo pro- 
 " vided, that none Ihould be charged by jany Charge or Impofition called a 
 " Benevolence, nor by fuch like Charge, which is alfo more fully fet forth in the 
 " faid Petition of Right, to have been lately executed by certain Commiflioners -, 
 as alfo that divers other Charges have been laid and levied by Lords-Lieute- 
 nants, Deputy-Lieutenants, ^c. contrary to the Laws and free Cuftoms of the 
 
 Realm. 
 
 The Third Point declared againft in this Petition of Right, is againft Qjiar- 
 tering of Soldiers (though they pay for their Quarters ) conrrary ro the Will of the 
 Owners and Inhabitants, much more when they did take free Quarter in Time of 
 Peace, as hath been too much praftifed of late. So that by the Common Law of 
 England, not only Private-Houfes, but Inns and Ale-Houfes, are not compellable 
 to Quarter Soldiers unlefs rhey will. So much was this Nation anciently a 
 Stranger to Standing Armies, and Quartering of Soldiers in Time of Peace, that 
 there was no Proviiion made for it, either at Coramon-Law, or by any Statute 
 that I know of i 
 
 4thly, That
 
 dialogue tie Ninth. ^8 1 
 
 4tiJy, Thar no new Law can be made without an cxprefs A8: of Parliament, 
 or the joint Conlent of the King, Lords and Commons: And therefore that Pjr- 
 liaments" orght to be duly fummon'd and held for the Good and Safety of the 
 Kingdom, by Common as well as Statute Law, once every Year ; and according to 
 more modern Statutes, once in Three Years at leatt, or whenever there is a juft 
 and necclfary Occalion for it. And for Proof of this, I need go no farther than 
 the Old Englijh Siixo7t Lnrc, which ordains. That the great Council, or Mycft 
 Synod, Ihould be held twice in the Year, as the Ancient Mirror of JuJUccs 
 recites, and the conflant Cuftom long after the Conqueft, in which there 
 never pafied a Year without a General Council of the whole Kingdom. 
 And when this came by degrees to be difcontinued, then were thofe Sta- 
 tutes of Edtcard the Third, and Richard the Second, made; whereby it 
 was enabled, That a Parliament fhould be held every Year, and oftner if 
 there were Occafion. 
 
 5Thly, Since the Legiflative Power of Parliaments is the vety Soul and Ef- 
 fence of the Government, the Eleftion of Knights, Citizens and BurgeflTes to 
 fit and ferve in Parliament, ought to be free-, and all the Members of 
 parliament, who have Places there either by Patents or Writs of Summons, 
 as the Lords; or elfe by Fle£lion or Writs, as the Bifhops, ought to be 
 prefent, and there to h:ive Freedom of Speech and V'otcs, without any Guards 
 to over-awe or terrify them •, and none to be forced, threatned, bribed or 
 tampered with to give their Votes contrary to their Conlciences, either by the 
 King or any of his Minifters. This is ordain'd by the Statute of Weftm. 
 1. Chap. 5. whereby it is exprefsly provided. That all Elections ought to be 
 free. Which Sir Edward Coke, in his Notes upon this Statute, extends tot 
 Eleftior.s of Knights of Shires, as well as other Elections fince. I have 
 fufficiently proved, that the Commons elefled Members to Parliament when 
 this Statute was made ; and that this was the Ancient Law of England, you 
 may fee in the Rolls of Parliament, i. Hen. 4. wherein it is alledged by 
 the' Parliament, as one of the Articles againft Richard the lid. in thefe iv. grf. 
 Words: Item licet de flatu £5' conjuetudine Regni fui in Convocatione cujufli- 
 het Tarliamenti Vcfuhis fiufs in fmgidis Co?mtatibus Regni debeat cjj'c liber ad 
 eligendum, ^ dcputandum Milites pro hujufmodi Comitatibiis ad inter ejjcndum 
 Tarliamentis, &" ad cxpcncndum eorum gravamina^ £/ ad profequendum pro reme- 
 diis fupcrinde prout videntur cxpedire. 
 
 Tanicn prsfatus Rex ut in Par/iamentis Juis liberius confcqiii vateat fux te- 
 )nera7'i<e voluntatis c^elhtm, direxit mandatu fita frequentius Vicccomitibus ejus ut 
 cert as Terfonas per ipfum Regem nominatas, ut Milites Ccmitatuum^ venire faciant 
 ad Partianienta fua ; quos quidcm Milites cidem Regi faventes induccre poterat, 
 prout frequentius fecit, quandoq:, pro minas varias, ^ terrores, fSi quandoq-, per 
 nunera ad ccnjentiendiim illis qux Regno prxdiBo pr.fjudicialia fuerant^ ^ Ropulo 
 quamplurimum cncrofa, &c. So that you here may fee, that it was then judged 
 by the whole Parliament to be a Breach of one of the Fundamental Liber- 
 ties of the Nation, for the King to make falfe Returns to be made of Par- 
 liament-Men, as alio to corrupt or over-awe their Votes, either by Promiles or 
 Threatnings. 
 
 But to conclude: That we have fuch Things as Fundamental Laws and Privi- 
 leges, I (hall go no farther than King James the III: his Speech, confirmed by an 
 Att of Parliament of the Firft Year of his Reign-, wherein it is recited, " That 
 " the King hath vouchfafed to exptefs many ways, how far ir is, and ever fliall be 
 " from his Royal and Sincere Care and AfFe£l:ion to the Subje£\s of England, to 
 " alter or innovate the Fundamental Laws, Privileges and good Cultoms of this 
 " Kingdom, whereby not only his Royal Authority, but the People's Security of 
 " Ihands, 'Livings, and Privileges (both in general and parricular) are prelerved 
 " and maintained ; and by the abolijhing or Alteration of xvhich, it is hvpojftblc but 
 " that prefent Confufion will fall upon the whole State and Eranie of this Realm. 
 So that if this Judgment of the King and both Houfes of Parliament was true, fure we 
 may juftly fuppofe, that Things of fuch vaft Concernment delerve our contending 
 for by all Means poflible and lawful to preferve them : For what the Nobles of 
 the Land upon Occafion once faid with one Voice in full Parliament, every Free- 
 born Subjed of England may as well fay at this Day, 'Nolumus Leges Anglia mu-
 
 48: 
 
 BiBLioTHECA Politic A. 
 
 tari •, which is a Maxim that ought to be imprinted upon the Hearts of all true 
 Lord Eicon's Englijhnien ; who, (as my Lord Bacon very well obferves) take themfelves to have 
 Letters, p./^:}. g^ ^qq^ Yn\c to their Laws, as to the common Air they breathe in: And King 
 Charles the Ift Ibmewhere lays , " That it was his Maxim, that the King's Prero- 
 " gative is to defend the People's Liberties; and that the People's Liberty 
 " ftrengthens the King's Prerogative. For indeed, if the Foundations are deftroy- 
 ed, the Superftru8:ure cannot Itand ^ and if this Rule had been well obferved by 
 this King's Sons, we had not been reduced to this great Confufion we now lie un- 
 der. For my Lord Bacon calls thofe Flatterers, who put the King upon fuch dan- 
 ibid. f. 41. gerous Courfes, as great Tray tors to him in the Court of Heaven, as he that draws 
 his Sword againft him. And King James the Hi in his Speech in Parliament, 
 1609, calls all thofe who perfuade Kings not to be confined within the 
 Limits of their Laws, " Vipers and Pefts both againft them and the Com- 
 *' monwealth. 
 
 M. For my part, I f hall not go about to defend fuch ill Men, whoever they be ; 
 yet fince fuch Infinuations are done privately, and in a Corner, it is very hard for 
 Subje8:s to judge when fuch evil Counfels are infufed into the Ears of Princes ; 
 and much more unjuft for them to make any Refiftance on pretence to remove 
 them : And therefore, befides the Abfurdity of making Subjefts both Judges and 
 Parties, you have not yet told me , what Number of Men mult be at once op- 
 prefTed in their Fundamental Rights (as you call them,) and who may make this 
 Refiftance. For mechinks it is very abfurd, to give one County (for Example, 
 upon the Account of free Quarter,) a Power of rifing in Arms, and refitting the 
 King's Officers and Soldiers, when perhaps all the reft of the Nation, where no 
 Soldiers are, feel no fuch thing. 
 
 F. I am not fo unrealbnable, as to maintain. That Subje£ts ought to take Arms 
 merely becaule the King gives too much Ear to Flatterers and wicked Minifters, 
 or is too much led by them : Let him be fo, provided the People do not fmart for 
 it. But if once it comes to that pals, that they grow intolerable, and let the 
 King upon a General Invalion of the People's Rights, in any of the great 
 Points I have now laid down \ let them look to themfelves. If they will not per- 
 mit a Parliament to fit, and redrefs thofe Grievances , they muft expeft the Na- 
 tion will rife at laft againft them, as they did againft Gavefton and the Spencers^ 
 and make them undergo that Punifhment they fb well deferve. But as for what 
 you lay, of making the People Judges when their Rights and Liberties are in- 
 vaded , the Confequence is as bad, if the King alone (hall judge. As for Example, 
 in the Cafe of Ship-Monev \ the judges gave their Opinions, that the King might 
 raile Money tor Ships of War, in cafe ot Necelfity, without any Controul ; but 
 if he were fole Judge of this Necefhty, he might lay this Tax as often, and raife 
 it to what Degree he pleafed. Therefore, as I fhall not deny that the King may 
 judge it fit to do a great many Things againft the ftricl Letter of the Law, in 
 Cafes of urgent Necelfity ; but it will be at his Peril if he judge amils. As for 
 Example: Every Man's Houfe is his Caftle, and he may lawfully defend it againlt 
 all illegal Comininions j yet I think no Man will deny, but that in cale of a 
 Fire in London, the King may, by Common Law, command his Officers to break 
 open fome of the next Houles, and blow them up with Gunpowder to flop the 
 Fire : But admit he Ihould, out of Malice or Mifinformation, command fome 
 Houfes to be blown up that ftood a Mile off, under Pretence of ftopping 
 the Fire, do you think the Owners were bound to ftand ftill, and let them 
 doit? 
 
 But if the People muft not judge when their Fundamental Rights and Liber- 
 ties are invaded, becaufe they will be both Judges and Parties; then no Man 
 whatever, by this Argument, ought to defend himlelf againft the Violence of ano- 
 ther : For who can be Judge, but he that feels the Blow ? Nor indeed could Princes 
 make {b much as Defenfive Wars, fince whenever they do lb, they are themfelves 
 both Judges and Parties, as I told you at our Third Meeting, when I anfwered ( as 
 I then thought ) all your Arguments againft the People's ever judging fbr rhem- 
 felves. 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 relped of their Prince, as well as all the reft of Mankind, 
 
 they 
 
 I
 
 Dialogue the Ninth. z(.8^ 
 
 they tnuft certainly make ufe of defenfive Arms when NeceflTity requires it, 
 or elfe become Slaves whenever he pleafes to make them lo , if the' People have 
 no Right to judge of his Violence and Opprefiions > 
 
 But as for the Number that are to make this Judgment and Refiftance there- 
 upon \ I grant in molt Cafes this is not to be done, as long as the Oppreflion 
 is begun by Colour of Law, without aflual Violence. Secondly, when it con- 
 cerns only lome particular Bodies of Men \ thus, if Free Qyarter fhould be taken 
 in one or two Towns or Counties, I do not allow it a fufficient Caufe for 
 all the Neighboufing Towns, much lefs the whole County, or the Neighbour- 
 ing Shires, to take an Alarm, and rife in Arms upon it ; lince, perhaps, the 
 King may know nothing of it, and if he were once informed of it, would 
 redtefs it : But can you affirm the Cale would be the fame, if this Grievance 
 /hould become general all over the Nation ? And that the King Ihould be fo 
 far ftom redrefling it, that he fliould put out a Declaration, fetting forth that 
 it was his Prerogative fo to do \ would not the whole Nation then take it for 
 granted, that the King's Defign was to govern by a Itanding Army, who fhould 
 live upon the People , and devour them to the very Bones ? And might not 
 they make Refiftance againft thefe Robberies and Opprefiions ? The fame I fay 
 for all other Breaches made in any other of our Fundamental Rights. I do 
 not allow any Refiftance to be made, till it become a general OppreiTion upon 
 the whole or major Part of the Nation, and without all Hopes of being other- 
 wife remedied. And this muft be alio fo evident, that there can be no Doubt or 
 Denial of the Matter of Faft ; for fo long as the Cale is difputable, or the 
 Grievance is not of a general Concern, 1 grant the People ought never to ftir : 
 But of this they alone muft judge •, fince our Conftitution has left us no other 
 Judges of thefe Breaches, but the diffufive Body of the whole People in the In- 
 tervals of Parliament. 
 
 But for your laft Queftion, as to the Number that may thus rile to make 
 this Refiftance, I anfvver thus ; That when once the Milchief becomes general, 
 and without all other Remedy, any Part of the People who think themfelves 
 lirong enough to defend themfelves againft fuch Violence, may begin to rife, 
 if they can, till the reft of the Kingdom can come into their Afhftance •, as I 
 told you the Town of hneH did againft the Tyranny of the Duke D' Alva^ 
 in the beginning of the Belgick Wars •, and it was loon after feconded by the 
 Revolt of divers other Cities and Towns in thole Profinces , till the Spam ards 
 were quite driven out. 
 
 M. I do not deny but you fpeak more moderately on this Subject than moft 
 of your Opinion, who think every private Man has Right to take up Arms and 
 raile a Rebellion, whenever he judges his Perfon or Eltate is invaded , or inju- 
 red by the Government. And indeed this Remedy of Refiftance feems at firft 
 fight pretty tolerable, if it were not that we very well know that this many- 
 headed Beaft, the Multitude, is very apt to be deluded by the cunning Speeches, 
 and fly Infinuations of laQious and ambitious Men , whole Interell it will 
 always be to fifli in troubled Waters, and raife Difturbances to make them- 
 felves the Heads of a Party. Thus in the Year —42. what Lies and Stories 
 were there raifed to incenfe the People againft that good King, to make them 
 take up Arms againft 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 fee, that the Nation has been blown up into a Flame by the 
 lying Reports of a French League, and a fuppofititious Prince ot IVaks ^ neitiier 
 of which, I durft pawn my Lite, have the leaft Tittle of Truth in them. So that 
 this Doftrine can Icarce tail, almoft every Time it is put in Pra^Stice, to bring all 
 Government to Anarchy and Confufion. 
 
 J^, I have already in Part anlwered this Obje£lion at our Third Meeting 5 but 
 fince you will urge it over again, I fhall in the firft Place admit the Matter 
 of Fa£\.to be as you fay, that the People may, by fome turbulent Demogogues, be 
 Ibmetimes lb far incenled as to take up Arms when there is no juft Occafion ; 
 yet let me tell you, I doubt that neither of thefe Inftances you have given, will 
 make good your Affetion. For in the hrft Place, as to King Q)arles the Firft, it 
 is laid by all Writers on the Parliament's Side, that the King by leaving his 
 
 Q.q q 2 Par-
 
 4.84. BiBi. lOTHECA Politic A. 
 
 Parliament, and going to T^/7i, and there taking a Guard when no Enemy was near, 
 and when the Parliament had as yet raifed no Forces at all •, as alfo by his 
 going to Hull to remove the Ivlugazine of Arms that lay there, in order to put them 
 into the Hands of an Army to make War upon the Parliament whio then de- 
 manded the Settlement of" the Militia to be in Commiflioners of their Nomi- 
 nation •, that he thereby broke his Coronation Oath, whereby he was Iworn to 
 govern according to Law, and not by Force. But as for what you l;iy in refpeft 
 of the prefent junfture of Aftairs, I never can deiire a more plain Proof of the 
 People's Neceffity of taking up detenfive Arms j fince admitting tiiat neither of 
 the Reports concerning the French League, and the filfe Birth of this fup- * 
 poled Prince be true •, yet, I think, the Nation has iiad fufficient Provocations 
 to rife as one Man, and joyn with the Prince of Orange for the obtaining of a 
 free Parliament to fet all Things right, which the King's violent, illegal Admi- 
 niftration has fb much difcompofed. But admitting the utmoft you can liip- 
 pole, that fometimes the People may judge amifs, as well as the King, and 
 through that Mifinformation may take up Arms againft their Prince, when 
 there is no real Occafion \ (liall this Abufe of a Right be a fufficient Caule againft 
 their ever exercifing of it at all. I am fure this is no good Argument againft the 
 natural Right of Self- Defence between private Perlbns in the State of Na- 
 ture, that fome Men do often abule it -, nor can I fee how, upon thefe Grounds, 
 even Sovereign Princes may be allowed to make fo much as defenfive Wars, 
 fas I faid but now) fince they may pretend that themfelves are wronged, and 
 invaded, or at leatt are like to be lo, when no fuch Thing was really done, or 
 intended ; and fo by their Mif judgment or falfe Pretences, many Millions of 
 Lives may be loft : What then ? Mutt no Prince ever make War at all, till all 
 the World be fatisfied of the Juftice of his QuarreP Iffo, I doubt tlie laft 
 War Kin-^ Charles the Second made againft the Y)utd\ and this late War the 
 King of Trance has now made upon the Empire, Ihould never have been by 
 your Principles fo much as begun ; much lefs carried on with fo great an EfFufi- 
 on of Blood, and the Deftrudion of lo many Cities and Towns: And whether 
 this, as well as Tyranny at home, is not more often put in Practice by Princes, 
 than any Refiftance of this Nation, or all the Subjefts of 'the World have 
 made againft fiich Tyranny and Arbitrary Power, I leave it to your lelfj or any 
 indiflereiit Perlbn to judge. 
 
 M. 1 doubt riot but I may very well join Iflue with you upon this Point; for 
 1 think that upon thofe 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 juftify themfelves by any of the Inftances you 
 have given for joining themfelves with him in Arms. For tho' 1 grant His Ma- 
 jeiiy, by barkening too much to Popi(h Counfels, may have done many Things 
 which in Siriftnels of Law cannot be juftified ; yet fince tliey do not ftrike 
 at that which you call the Fundamental Conftitution of the Government, and 
 have been alfo done witliout any Force on the People of rhis Nation -, but have 
 been either tranfafted by Judgm.ent ot Law, or the Colour of it at leatt, viz. 
 by the Opinions of all or the Major Part of the Judges •, all the Parties above-men- 
 tioned ought (according to your own Principles) to have waited tor the Meet- 
 ing of the next Parliament, to whofe Determination they ought, by the Law of- 
 the Land, to have referred all fuch Grievances and Violations of Laws which 
 thev had to complain of \ and if then the King had refufed to have rertiedied 
 them, they might have tad fome Colour fldo not fay Right,) for taking up Arms, 
 ahd doing what they have done ; whereas I cannot lee how you can, even 
 upon your Principles, defend the late Rifers from wilful Rebellion againft 
 
 And for Proof of this, I need go no farther than the Prince of Orar)ge\ late 
 Declaration, which being drawn by the beft Advice of the Malecontehts then 
 in Holland, ' would not fail to mention all the Violations of Law, which they 
 thought his Majefty's Government had been guilty of, ever fince his coming to 
 the Crown : And therefore, not toirhft upon the Want of Right which 1 conceive 
 the Prince had to concern himfelf with the Affairs of another Prince's Kingdom, 
 
 I (hall.
 
 Dialogue the Ninth, ^85 
 
 I (hall, however, mention every Article in which his Highnefs conceives the 
 Religion, Laws, and Civil Liberties of this Nation to be endangered. In 
 the Firft place, As to the dilpenfing Power, which the King has lately af- 
 fumed to himfelf in Matters of Religion ; and thereby putting into Offices 
 and Commands Perfons uncapable by Law of bearing them, without taking the 
 Teft j as I Ihall not now difpute the Legality or Illegality of the King s Decla- 
 ration concerning it, fo as to that Part of it which concerns Liberty of Con- 
 Icience, or difpenfing with the Papilts and t)i(Ienters to meet in Aflemblies 
 for their Religious Worfhip, notwithftanding all the A8:s made againft Mafs and 
 Conventicles, it was no more than what King Charles IL had done before with the 
 Advice of his Privy-Council •, in which, if it had been Rebellion to have oppofed 
 him, fure it is the fame Crime in the Reign of his Brother. ^ 
 
 2. As for the Commiffion for Caufes Ecdeliittical. 
 
 F. Since I forefse your Difcourfe upon tins Suhjecl is like to be long •, and to 
 tonfift of many more Heads than I doubt my Memory will lerve to bear 
 away, pray give me Leave to anfwer all your Inlhnces one after another, as 
 you propofe them. Firft, then. As to the late Declaration concerning the Dif- 
 penfing Power, it was (b far from being done by Law, or fb much as the Co- 
 lour of ir, that befides its being againft divers exprefs A^ls of Parliament, 
 which tic up the King's Hands fiom difpenfing with the Afts againft publick Mafs 
 and Conventicles ; as alio that dilable all Perfons whatever to a't in any publick 
 Employments, till they have taken the Teft appointed by the faid Aft, (in which 
 all non-objUntes are exprefly liarred) : But this Declaration was never lo much as 
 fhewn ro the Privy- Council, till it was ready to be publilhed •, and then, indeed, 
 the King cauled it to be read in Council, declaring that he would have it iOTued 
 forth, tho' without ever putting it to the Vote, or fo much as asking the Confents 
 of the Privy-Counfellors there prefent •, tho' I grant the Title of it I'ers forth, 
 that ir was done by his Majefty in Council, to impofe upon the Nation that itale 
 Chear, whereby this King (as well as the laft) would have had us believe, that 
 their Declarations had been ilTued by the Confent of the Council, when, God 
 knows, there was no fuch thing. 
 
 And as for any Judgment, or Opinion of the Judges to fupport it, and make it 
 pafs by Colour of Law, it was never, as I can hear of^ lo much as propos'd 
 to them in their judicial Capacities, though perhaps it might be propos'd 
 to the Lord Chancellor, and fome of the Judges who were of the Cabal, 
 which is nothing to the purpofe •, all that I ever heard to have been brought 
 judicially before them, was, the Cafe of Sir Edward Hales taking a Commiffion 
 tor a Colonel of a Regiment, after he had openly declared himfelf a Papilt •, in 
 which great Point, though I giant the Major Part of the Judges gave their 
 Opinion for the Difpenfing Power, yet was it only in the Cafe of Military 
 Commijjions, as feveral of them afterwards declared, and not of all forts of 
 Employments, as well Civil as Military ^ much lefs for Popifli Heads of 
 Colleges, Parfons and Bilhops, to hold th:ir Livings, Headfhips, and Bi- 
 fhopricks, if they pleated to turn to the Romifh Religion ; or that the 
 King fhould pleafe to beftow them upon Popilh Priefts, it would have been 
 as legal in the one Cafe , as in the other ^ fince as for Popilh Heads of 
 Colleges, and Paribus, we have had too many Inftances of it ^ and if we had 
 none for Bilhops, we muft thank the Conftancy of moft of them, if they have 
 not openly declared for the Rom[(h Religion, fince they might have kept their 
 Bifhopricks notwithftanding. But I do not at all doubt but that fuch a general Dif-_ 
 penfation for profefTcd Papifts to take and hold all forts of Offices and Places of 
 Triift, not only Military,' but Ecclefiaftical and Civil, would have in a little time 
 brought all Offices and Employments into their Hands. 
 
 Nor is this Difpenfing Power in Matters of Religion, the fble thing aimed at 
 by this Declaration, as appears by the very Words and whole Purport of it •, which 
 is not confined to Majters of Religion only, but claims an unlimited Power of 
 difpenfing with all ^-rts of Statutes in all Cafes whatever, none excepted j and if 
 fo, pray tell me what Magna CJjarta, or the Statute dc lallagio non cuncedcndo, 
 or any other Law will fignity, whenever the King pleafes to dilpenfe with them, 
 either as to raifing Money, or taking away Mens Lives, or Liberties, or Eftates, 
 
 contrary
 
 ij.86 B I B L I O T H E C A P O L 1 T I C A. 
 
 contrary to Law ? Nay, the Papifts already give out ( and that in Print ) that ail 
 Laws for taking away Religious Orders, and Supprefiiires of Monalteiies, are 
 againft Magna Charta, by which Holy Church ( that i.s, the Popilh Religion then 
 in being ) is to enjoy all her ancient Rights and Liberties ; and the Abbots and 
 Priors do thereby, as well as the. Bifliops and Lay-Lords, referve to them- 
 felves all their ancient Rights and free Cuftoms. Now whether this unbounded 
 Prerogative would not quickly have deftroyed not only the Ecclefiaftical, but 
 Civil Conftitution of this Kingdom, as they now ftand eftablilh'd by Law, and 
 would have foon introduc'd both Popery and Arbitrary Government on this Nation, 
 I leave it to your ft;lf, or any indifferent Perfon to confider. 
 
 And though I do not fay, that the bare giving of Papifts or Proteftant Dif- 
 fenters a Liberty of Religious Meetings, or Affemblies for Mais, or Preach- 
 ing, is an Infringment of the free Exercife of our Religion eftabliflf d by Law i 
 yet pray take one thing along with you, which is a Matter of great Moment to 
 the Diflenters, as well as ro us of the Church of England -. For if the King can 
 thus, by his Prerogative, give them a Liberty to meet publickly, contrary to Law 5 
 let the latter look to it j for he may by the fame Prerogative ( whenever he 
 pleafes ) difpenle only with the Papifts, and keep the Laws ttill on foot 
 againft Diflenters j nay , he may by the fame unbounded Prerogative dif- 
 penfe with all the Laws for the publick Exerciie of our Religion \ and un- 
 der pretence of dilpenfing with them only in fome particular Cafes, (hut up 
 our Church-Doors one after another, beginning with the Cathedrals, and 16 
 proceeding by degrees to Parifh-Churches. And tho' I grant King Charles 11. 
 did aflume a Power of difpenling with all Statutes concerning Religious Meet- 
 ings, contrary to Law ^ yet the Nation had not then any fufficient Reafon to 
 rife in Arms againft this Declaration •, fince it did not extend the King's Pre- 
 rogative beyond thofe Afts concerning Religious Worfhip. And farther, the Na- 
 tion was not out of all Hopes of having it redreffed by the next Parliament, and 
 lb was not in that defperate Condition in which it was lately, before the Prince 
 of Oranges coming over. And you may remember, that the late King, upon the 
 joint Addrefs of the Lords and Commons againft that Declaration, was forced to 
 call it in, and cancel it -, which certainly ought to have been better confidered by 
 liis Majefty, and thofe of the Popifh Junto that advifed him to ifiue out the late 
 Declaration, lb exprefly contrary to Law, and the Senfe of both Houfes of Par- 
 liament, and which gave the Archbifhop of Canterbury, and the reft of his Bre- 
 thren, a fufficient Ground of petitioning againft it ; and this was fo evident, that 
 a Jury, in which the greateft Part were high Prerogative-Men, could no: upon a 
 fair Trial but acquit them. 
 
 M. 1 (hall not further difpute this Point, fince you have dwelt fo long upon 
 it i though I muft ftill tell you, I do not look upon this as a fufficient Caufe for 
 the Nation's taking up Arms, for another Realbn 1 (hall fhew you by and by. And 
 therefore 1 i'hall now proceed to the next Head complain'd of in the Prince's late De- 
 claration, (viz.) the late Commiflion for erefling a new Court for Caufes Eccle- 
 fiaftical •, but as I will not enter upon the Queltion of the Legality of it, fo on 
 the other fide it wasalfb done by Colour of Law ; and the King, as fupreme Head 
 of the Church, was told by his Minifters, that he had Power to erect what new 
 Court Ecclefiaftical he pleafed, provided it was not of the lame kiiid with the 
 High Commifiion-Court, which had been abrogated by the Stat, of the 17th of 
 King 0)arles I. as likewife particularly excepted in the Provifo, in the Star, 
 of the 1 2th of King Charles II. for reftoring Ecclefiaftical Jurifditlion to 
 the Bilhops Courts : So that admitting that Court was not legal, yet the Perlbns 
 who adviled the King to ereft it, and the Commiffioners who fat in it, were 
 only anlwerable for it in the next Parliament ; and though the Bilhop of Lon- 
 don was fufpended, and the Prefident, and Fellows of Magdalen College were 
 unjuftly expelled by this Court, yet fure none of thefe Miicarriages could give 
 the Subjefts of this Kingdom any juft Pretences to take up Arms to redrels them, 
 being done (as I faid before) by Colour of Law, without any Force or Violence-, 
 and was alio fubmitted to by the Parties againft which thele Decrees were given, 
 and was at the molt but a Matter of particular Concern, and reached no farther 
 than the faid Bifliop and College, and did not touch the Religion and Civil 
 
 Liberties
 
 Dialogue the Ninth. 4.87 
 
 Liberties of the whole Kingdom ; and confequently was not of that general Im- 
 portance, as to be any juft Caufe of the whole Kingdom's taking Arms, mudr 
 left for the King's Officers and Soldiers to run over to the Prince of Orange, as 
 they lately have done. 
 
 V. To anfvver what you have now faid concerning the Eccleiiaftical Com- 
 milfion ; that, I muft alio tell you, was ifl'ued forth without lb much as any Colour 
 of Law for it •, and though the late Chancellor, and lome of the worft and moft 
 Mercenary Judges countenanced it by appearing for, and afting in it, yet it is very 
 well known, that it was never propofed to all the Judges to be argued in the 
 Exchequer Chamber, as it ought to have been, before a Thing of that great Im- 
 portance to the whole Nation had pafs'd the Seals. As to what you lay, that the 
 King's Minifters told him ic was according to Law, and that they alone ought 
 to anlwer for it in the next Parliament, and that no publick Difturbance ought to 
 have been made about it, becaufe the Things that that pretended Court did, were 
 but of a particular Concern, and only reached the Biihop of London, and one fin- 
 gle College ^ that is but a Fallacy which you put upon your lelf For fure if you 
 had better confidered of it, you would find that what thefe Commifiioners have 
 already done, is of a little more publick Concernment than you are aware of ; 
 for pray tell me, why by the fame Law, by which the Biihop ot London was 
 fufpended for his Refulal to filence Dr. Sharp, all the Bifhops in England might 
 rot have been fufpended one after another by that pretended Court, if they 
 had refufed to obey or execute any Letters or Orders from the King, tho' ne- 
 ver fo illegal or unreafonable ? Since what Command could be more illegal, than 
 the King's pofitive Order to the Bifhop to fufpend a Clergyman from his Diocele, 
 without firtt hearing him, or giving him leave to anlwer for himfelf ? So like- 
 wife for the Cafe of Magdalen College •, by the fame Law by which thtle 
 F.cclefiaftical Commifiioners took upon them to turn out the Prefidenr 
 and Fellows, for difobeying the King's Mandamus, by the lame Law the King 
 might put upon any other College in either Univerfity, Popilh Heads, and Po- 
 pilh Fellows, till inltead of Nurferies for the Education of our Youth in the 
 Proteltant Religion, they may become as abfolute Popifli Seminaries, as the 
 Colleges of DoiKiay, or St. Omcrs. And though I grant that the Perfons concern- 
 ed in thefe unjuft Decrees, might have patiently liibmitted to them without any 
 Proreftations againft the Jurildidion of that pretended Court , fince they 
 might for Ibme prudential Realbns have thought fit to fubmit, without 
 making any fuch Proteftation, and yet for all that not allow their Authority 5 
 yet indeed the Matter of Fa£t was far otherwile j for when a Part of thefe Com- 
 mifiioners late at Magdalen College, to expel the faid Prelident and Fellows 
 from their Places, contrary to Law, and the exprefs Statutes of the College, 
 feveral of them protelfed againft their whole Proceedings, and appealed to 
 the King's Courts at Wejhninfler. And it is a plain Proof how willingly Dr. Hough 
 the Prefidenr of this College, fubmitted to this Sentence, by his locking the 
 Doors of his Lodgings, and leaving the CommiflTioners to break them open before 
 they could get in, and put in his pretended Succelfor by Force. 
 
 But as to what you fay, that the King was told, he might as Supreme Head of 
 the Church, let up what new Court he pleaied for the Execution of his Ecclefi- 
 aftical JurifditVion 5 ic is certainly a great Miltake. For I utterly deny, that the 
 King has Power to ereft any new Courts either Ecclefiaftical or Civil, unlefs by 
 Authority of Parliament \ the King's Power to make a Vicar-General being • 
 only confirmed by the Statute of King Henry the Eighth, as was alfo 
 the Authority of the High Commifllon, by the Statute of the firft of Qiieen 
 Elizabeth. And if either of thole high-lpirited Princes had believed themlelves 
 to have been invefted with fuch an unbounded Prerogative, they would certainly 
 have cxercifcd it without being beholden to the Parliament. But indeed it is but a 
 Subterfuge, to allcdge that this Court was not of the fame Nature with that of 
 the High Commifiion, becaufe it did not take upon it to Fine, or commit Men to 
 Prilbn, nor to adminilfer the Oath ex Officio, to thofe that were convened be- 
 fore them j fince it is not the different Name, or fome fmall difference in the 
 Manner of the judicial Proceedings, but the Caules or Matters that a Court 
 pretends to take Cognizance of, that can make it a Court of a quite different 
 
 1 Nature.
 
 4B8 BlBLTOTHECApOLlTlCA. 
 
 Nature. Now it is notoriouny known, that this late Ecclefiaftical Court took upon 
 it to judge of Matrimonial Caufes about Alimony, and concerning Simoniacal 
 Contracts, and all other Mildemeanors both ot Clergy and Laity, againll Religion 
 and good Manners, which were the fame Things the late High Commiflion Court 
 took upon them to determine. 
 
 M. I Ihall make no farther Reply at preient to what you now fay, till I come 
 to anfwcr once for all : Therefore I (hall go on to the next Thing excepted againft 
 in the Prince's D.'claration, (vi::.) the Erecting of Publick Chapels for Mais, the 
 protecting of Prietts, and the making a Jetuit a Privy-Councelior ; all which, tho' 
 I confefs they are againft the eTo^reis Letter of divers Statutes, yet fince all thefe 
 Things depend upon the Kings difperfing Power, let forth in hisMajefties late 
 Declaration, which as I will not aifert, io I will not pofitively deny ^ fince the 
 iaid Declaration of Indulgence, and all Proceedings thereupon were illiied out and 
 executed under Colour of Law, viz. of rhc llmg's Ecclefiaftical Juii(di£tion, 
 without any Force or Violence upon the Conic, ence, Religion, or Properties of 
 the King's Proieitant SubjeQs, whom the Kiii;^ in his faid Declaration folemnly 
 promifes to proteft in the fi-ee Porfeffion, and Enjoyment of their Religion efta- 
 hlifli'd by Law. And 1 cannot f?e how a Liberty granted to Popifh Priefts to iay 
 Mais, or the putting in a Jeiuit iuio the Privy Council, or making l^opiih Judges, 
 or putting a Papift into the Ecclefiaftical Commiffion, can be looked upon as any 
 Invafion of the Proteftant Religion •, the free and publick ^iofeflion of which 
 we have (God be thanked) as quietly enjoyed as we did in the Reign of tliis 
 King, or in that of his Brother. 
 
 K Since you cannot direftly juftify the King's fetting up Publick Mafs Houfesin 
 London, and in moft other Parts of che Kingdom, and his fo publick proiettingand 
 countenancing Papifts and Jefuits, even to the making a Jefuit a Privy-Counlcl!:r, 
 tho' they are all in Judgment of Law alike publick Enemies and Traytors to ihe 
 King and Kingdom •, and that all theie (as you cannot deny) are contrary to the 
 exprefs Words and Intent ot all Statutes againft Priefts and Popifli Afi'emHies; fo 
 you endeavour to palliate it undei the King s difpenfing Power, which you fuppole 
 to have had a Colour of Law (at leaft) to ftpport it. But tho' the giving Liber y to 
 Popifh Affemblies, and the Conventicles of the Diflenters, was no direO: hiudrance 
 of the free Exercife of the Proteftant Religion eftablKh d by Law, yet I nwft 
 utterly deny that the King has any fuch Prerogative, as to difpenle with thole 
 Laws, and by his fole Authority to declare thofe that the Law calls Enemies and 
 Traytors, to be good SubjeQs. And you may as well tell me, that the King has not 
 only a Prerogative -Power to pardon Highway-men •, but may alfo proteft them, 
 and put them into his Guards, with a Commiflion to rob whom they plealed 5 
 as to give Papifts power to bear Arms, or to protect and employ declared Tray- 
 tors, (as Popifh Priefts and Jefuits are by Law) as the King had done. The 
 like I may fay, for putting in Popii'h Judges and Juftices of Peace, (viz.) that 
 it was all done by Force of the King's 1 erfonal Orders, without his Legal Autho- 
 rity, which is that alone we can take cognizance of, or render any Obedience 
 to. And though 'tis true, I do not deny the King a Power of making whom he 
 pleafes Judges, yet this Prerogative is ftill to be exercifed according to Law. 
 And therefore if the King flrould make an illiterate Man a Judge, who could nei- 
 ther Write nor Read, the Writ or Patent would be void in ir felf The lame I 
 may fay of a Popifh Judge ^ the Law making no Difference (as I know of) be- 
 • tween a natural and a legal Difability. But however the turning out honett and 
 able Judges, becaufe they would not give up our Religion and Liberties to the 
 Kings Arbitrary Will, is certainly a much greater Breach of the Tinift commit- 
 ted to him by his Coronation Oath, wherein he fwore he wou'd maintain rhe Laws 
 of the Land, and mix Equity with Mercy in all his Judgments : Now where is the 
 Equity, or Juftice of this, that whereas moft of the Judges anciently held 
 their Places q./am din fe bene geffennt^ they fhould now (by a notorious Encroach- 
 ment of the Prerogative) nor only be made durante beneplaato ^but that the King 
 Ihould ftrerch this Prerogative lo unreafonably, as to examine the Judges before- 
 hand, whethet they would agtee to the difpenfing Power •, and to turn out thofe 
 that reiufed to comply, meetly becaule they would not ferve his Arbitrary De- 
 figns ? And then to put in fbme of the meaneft and moft mercenary Lawyers 
 
 at
 
 T>ialogue the Ninth. ^89 
 
 at the Bar, (nay feme who never come thither at all) into their Places for no other 
 Merit or good Qu:ilities, but becaufe they would ferve a Turn, is To notorious a 
 Breach of his Oath, that it could not fail in a little Time to deftroy all our Com- 
 mon, as well as our Statute-Laws, fince thefe were all lately lodged in their Breafts, 
 and refolved into thetr Arbitrary Determinations, which yet (as all the World knows) 
 were wholly managed by the Influence and Commands of the Court : And this I 
 fay again, was as notorious an Abufe of the King's Prerogative, as if he had put in 
 Highway-Men into his Guards, with CommilTions in their Pockets, to rob whom 
 they pleafed ■■, fince thefe Gentlemen in Scarlet have taken the fame Liberty under 
 Colour of Law, to raife Taxes upon the Subjefts, againft the Exprefs Letter of an 
 Aft of Parliamenr ^ as may be feen in their late Determination concerning Chim- 
 ney-Money, making Cottages, built for the Ufe of the Poor, and Houlesot Perfons 
 exempted from Payment, liable to Chimney-Money, contrary to the exprefs Words 
 of that Statute. 
 
 M. I cannot deny but the Things you now mention have been great Abufes 
 of Prerogative, but whether fo great as to require Refiftance I mult (till dilagree 
 with you. Therefore I Ihall now proceed to the next Particular complain'd ofj 
 {viz.) The examining of the Lords Lieutenants , Deputy-Lieutenants , Sheriffs, 
 and Juftices of Peace, to know whether they would concur with the King in 
 the Repeal of the Telt and Penal Laws, and turning all llich out of Commifiion 
 as refufed ro comply with the King's Defires in this Matter. Noiv, tho' I will not 
 fay it was well or prudently done, yet it was no more than ( what I think ) the 
 King, by his Prerogative, might juftify the doing ofj fince he may, by Law, 
 give a quietus ejl to what Judges he pleafes ^ and put in or out of any Commiflions, 
 whether Civil or Military, whom he thinks fit : And as for the Perlons Vo ex- 
 amined , they might have tholen whether they would have given any pofitive 
 Anfwers to the Queltions put to them, by the Lord Chaucel'or and Lord Lieu- 
 tenants ; and if they had refufed to anfwer poiitively to thoi.- Queltions propo- 
 fed to them, I know no other Penalty they had been liable to , more than being 
 put out of Commiflion, which fure is no Punifhment, but rather an £afe. And 
 though I do not defend thofe evil Minilters, that put the King upon this Method 
 ' of diltrufting and difobliging his belt Proteftant Subjefts, ( I mean thofe of the 
 ' Church of England) by putting them out, and putting in either Papilts or Fanaticks 
 in their Steads ^ yet all that own themfelves of that Communion, ought to have 
 been of more loyal Principles, than to have taken up Arms, as fome of them have 
 done, upon Pretence of Handing by the Prince of Oranges Declaration againft thefe 
 Abufes. 
 
 F. I fee though you cannot direftly juftify the examining of the Lords Lieu- 
 tenants, and Deputy-Lieutenants, and Juftices of the Peace , about taking away 
 the Penal Laws and Teft, and turning thofe out of Commiflion that refus'd ^ yet 
 you ftrive to mitigate it (as far as you can) by making it Part of the King s Pre- 
 rogative, to put in and out what Judges, Juftices, and other Officers he pleafes. 
 Well, granting this to be fo , yet fure you cannot deny but that the clofctting 
 of Judges, and all other Officers you have now mention d, and putting thole out 
 of Commiflion, that refus'd to comply with the King's Will, ( and that for no 
 other Reafon) was fure a Itrange Abufe of thar Prerogative -. And the Excufe you 
 make, that the Perfons examin'd had a Liberty to refufe whether they would give 
 any pofitive Anfwer or not, is yet more trivial, fince it is very well known, 
 that as well thofe who gave doubtful Anfwers, or refufed to make any Anlwer at 
 all, were as much turned out, as they who pofitively denied to comply with the 
 King'sDemands : So that no Anlwer was looked upon as Satisfaftory, but fuch as 
 leemed to give up all Freedom of Eleftions, and Votes in Parliament •, none being 
 to be chofen by the King's Direftions, but fuch as would engage before-hand to 
 repeal the Teft and Penal Laws. And I think you will not deny, but that the 
 King by thus examining all thefe Magiftrates and Officers you now mention, and 
 by turning thole out that refufed to comply, did all he could to hinder the Free 
 Election of Members to ferve in Parliament , and the Freedom of giving their 
 Votes when they came thither : And the King might as well another Time have 
 declar'd. That he would have no Members cholen, but fuch as would agree to take 
 away the Statute de Tallagio non ccncedendo, or any Branch of Magna Charta, 
 
 R r r which
 
 490 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTICA. 
 
 which he (liould think fit to have repeal'd. And as this ftrikes at the very Funda- 
 mental Conftitution of the Governmenr, (viz.) the Free Election oF Parliament- 
 Men, ib it was inferted among the Articles againit Ricbjid the Second, that he had 
 caus'd the Sheriffs to return whom he pleas'd for Knights of Shires, as I have al- 
 ready (hewed you. 
 
 Bur what lay you to the King's late calling in almoft all the Charters of Cities, 
 Towns, and Corporations in EngLmd-, and putting in Popifh or Fanatick Officers 
 and Magiftrates into the Rooms ol" thofe that were turn'd out, only to influence Ele- 
 ftions, and to procure what Perfons he defired to be return'd for Parliament-Men? 
 Is not this a grand Breach of the Fundamental Conftitution of the Kingdom, thus 
 to take away the Legal Rights and Privileges of thefe Corporations, tor no other 
 Caule than to procure the King fuch Parliament-Men as he had a mind to ? 
 And if a Parliament had been chofen by Men of thefe Principles, pray confider 
 vvhatfmall Hopes there would have been, for Men of like Principles with them 
 tharchofe them, to have redreffed the Grievances the Nation then lay under. 
 
 M. I beg your Pardon, I forgot to mention this fooner •, and though I will 
 rot take upon me abfolutely to defend the Legality of it, much lels the Delign 
 for which it was done, fince I grant that it was in order to deftroy, or at leaft to 
 humble, the Church of England ; yet fince it was done by Colour ot Law, and 
 Judgment of the Court of Kings-Bench, and no more than what has been formerly 
 done in the Reign of KingC/wr/fj; I. cannot fee how the Noblemen and Gentlemen 
 lately in Arms, could defend their Rifing upon that Ground, unlefs rhey would alfo 
 at the fame Time, jultify the Lawfulnelsof the Plot and Rebellj^on intended in the 
 iame Reign ;, and in which fo many of the Whig Nobility and Gentry were deep- 
 ly engaged. 
 
 F. To anfwer what you have faid in Vindication of this great Violation of one 
 of the Fundamental Rights and Liberties of the Kingdom , I muft in the firft 
 Place tell you. That as I Ihall not now examine into the Matter of Law, whether a 
 Corporarion can forfeit its Charter for Mifdemeanors or not ; much lefs (hall 
 I concern my felf whether it were done by or without Colour of Law, or the 
 Judgment of the Court of Kmg's-Bench, fince it is notorioufly known rhat none 
 of the Judges were permitted to fit there, nor any new ones put in, but fuch as 
 would blindly agree to all the Court would have done •, and therefore I value 
 not any Thing they did, nor think it one Jot the more legal for their Judgments : 
 Nor is it any Excufe, that the fame Thing was done in King Charles's Reign, and 
 therefore might as Well be done now without any Rifing againft it. For though I 
 mult tell you, I look upon the taking away of the Charters from the City of Loa- 
 don, and the other Cities and Corporations of the Kingdom, one of the moft ar- 
 bitrary and illegal A£ts of that King s Reign, yet there were feveral Reafons 
 which made it unlawful for the Nation to rile then ; yet it might not be fo now: 
 As in the firft Place, becaule molt of thofe Charters were either willingly fur- 
 render'd by the Members of thofe Corporations, or elfe were declared forfeited 
 by Trial and Judgment of Law. Whereas it was much otherwile in this King's 
 Time, when notwithftanding that all the Cities and Towns Corporate in England, 
 had but a few Years before raken out new Charters to their great Trouble and 
 Expence, they were now fummon'd anew to furrender thefe again, for no other 
 Reafon, but becaufe it was the King's Pl^afure it (hould be ib. For who can ima- 
 gine, that all the Corporations of England could have forfeited. their Cliarters in fb 
 (hort a Time as Three or Four Years ? And tliey were plainly told, that the King 
 muft and would have them ; and that it was to no Purpofe to ftand our ; and there- 
 iFore it was no wonder, if all the Cities and Corporations of England were forced 
 to fubmit patiently to this Violation, fince they found by Experience the Judges 
 were ready to give Judgment againit them right or wrong. 
 
 And beiides this, I have already laid it down as a Maxim , That no Refiftance 
 whatever is to be made, till Matcers become delperate, and all other Means are be- 
 come abfolutely ineffettual, which I think they were not, as long as Kmg Charles 
 lived, who beiides the Inconfcai:cy of his Humour, which feldom' perfifted long, 
 either in well or evil-doing, (elpeciaily if the ill Conlequences of it were well 
 laid open to him,) was too timerous then to have put in any Magiltrates into 
 Corporations, but fuch as were for the Proteftaiit Religion, as it Itands by Law 
 
 Efta-
 
 Dialogue the Ninth. Api 
 
 eflaWifli'd ; and fuch, however angry they might be wirh thole they call'd Whigs, 
 in refpeft of their oppofing the Duke's Succeflion to the Crown; yec I helieve 
 moft ol tiiem would never have given up the Freedom of FJeciioris of I'arlia- 
 ment-Mcn, or have done any Thing to bring in Popery among us: So that a^ 
 long as Things remained in this State, there were fbme hopes iHll left of a Re- 
 drels of our Grievances, whenever a Parliament had met 5 and that the Nation 
 was grown more cool, and had come to it felf zg^Hn after thofe Heats which had 
 rilen in the late Parliaments about the Succeffion, and other Things. Where- 
 as now the Cafe was far otherwile in this King's Reign \ wherein we found noi 
 only our Religion, but the fundamental Rights and Privileges of the Nation, 
 ftruck at by the King's difpenfing Power, and the Arbitrary Proceedings of 
 the Judges. And not only the Freedom of Fleftions of Knights of Shires, but 
 of Citizens and Burgeffes, endeavoured to be taken from usj either by thteat- 
 ning the Eltftors, or elfe by open Force ; as I fhall prove by and by, when 
 I (hall have Occafion to fpeak farther upon that Head : So that unlets a great 
 Part of the Nation had declared for the Prince of Orange^ he had been repuis'd 
 with Shame and Ruin, and our Chains tied fatter upon us, than ever they were 
 before. 
 
 M. I fliall forbear replying farther to what you have now laid, till I come to 
 conclude. But in the mean Time I cannot omit another material Grievance fet 
 down in the Prince's Declaration, {viz.) the turning out and disarming the 
 Englijh Proteftant Magittrates, Officers, and Soldiers in Jrelnnd., and putting of 
 JnV/j Pa pills in their Rooms; as alfo the late Declaration of Indulgence in Scot- 
 land,, but as I will not detend the Juftice or Prudence of thofe Councils, fo I 
 think none of them could give any fufficient Caufe for the People of this King- 
 dom to rife in Arms; for flire it is enough ( if not too much ) for them to con- 
 cern themfelves with the Grievances and Mifcarriages of their own Country, with- 
 out taking upon them to take up Arms to reform thofe of their Neighbours ; fince 
 tliey are not only ignorant of the Laws and Conftitutions of thofe Kingdoms, but 
 may alio miftake the true Reafons and Grounds on which thofe Alterations were 
 made. 
 
 I: I fee you can as little defend what has been illegally afted in Scotland., as 
 in Ireland ; only you would fain 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 ou^ht not to take any Warning, as to 
 defend himlelf againft Thieves, though he fees another Man robb'd by them be- 
 fore his Eyes ; or that the Proteftants of England fhould not take Warning by the 
 fadExampleof thofe in F>-<;;?ff, from ever luffering a Popifh King from having 
 the fame Power here as the French King has in Erance^ for fear of the like 
 tatal Eft"e£ls ; Since I never found Tap'ifis give Protejiants the leajl Forbearance^ 
 or Jhea them any Mercy., longer than vchilft it was not in their Power to hurt 
 them. 
 
 But to come to the Matter in Hand ; we cannot but concern our felves with 
 what has been fb lately done in S^orAz;?i and Ireland, for the introducing of Po- 
 pery and Arbitrary Government in thofe Kingdoms, fince the latter is notorioufly 
 known to be govern 'd by the fame Laws as England-., and it is as much againft the 
 Laws of that Kingdom, as it is of ours, for the Irijh Papifts to be put in 
 Arms, and the Proteftant Militia difarmed, and for Popilli Judges, and Ju- 
 ftices of Peace to be put in CommilTion, as hath been praQifed under the Go- 
 vernment of the Lord Tyrccnncl: And if Englijh Proteftants in Ireland cMnoi 
 enjoy their Eftates and Liberties, without being turned out of them by the 
 Papifts, how could we in England expe^l better Treatment, whenever they fhall 
 think themfelves ftrong enough -. And as for Scotland, though it be not wholly 
 governed by the fame Laws as England, yet the fundamental Conftitution of the 
 Government is the fame ui both Kingdoms, and the King can no more make, 
 abrogate, or difpenfe with Laws in Scotland without the Parliament, tlian he can 
 here ; and therefore for the King not only to iffue out fuch a Declaration of Indul- 
 gence, and Sufpenfion of all the Penal Laws in Scotland againft Papifts, but alfo 
 therein to declare, chat he expeQed an Obedience to all his Commands, nithout 
 Referve ( whether legal or nor) was fo bold a Stroke, that we could not but 
 
 R r r 2 expcft
 
 492 B I B I. 1 Cy T H E C A P O L i T I C A. 
 
 expeft the like in Englund, though His Maiefty thought it not fit at prtient, to 
 difcover his Mind fo plainly to us. 
 
 M. I (hall not any longer difpute rhefe Points with you, but own that the 
 Abufes you mention, were indeed of great Concern both to the Proteftant Reli- 
 
 ?ion, and our Civil Liberties ^ yet however, befides the Laws of the Land, (which 
 ftill fuppofe do expielly forbid all Reliftance of the King upon any Account 
 vvhatfoever ) I think there ougl^ to have been no fuch Thing done by any Subje£t 
 of this Nation, even upon your own Principles, which feem not to allow of fuch 
 Refinance, but in cafe of an actual and violent Aflault upon Mens Religion, Lives, 
 and Properties, and that by open Force of Arms. Now 1 defire you to fliew me, 
 whom the King has ever yet dragooned, or perfecuted till they would become of 
 his Religion? Or whofe Life his Majefcy hath taken away, even of the moft noto- 
 rious Traytors, but by due Tryal, and Courfe of Law-? Nay, he has pardon'd 
 divers, fevetal after they were condemned, meerly becaufe he was infbrm'd 
 they were not really guilty of the Crimes whereof they ftood condemn'd. And as 
 for Mens Civil Properties, I defy you to (hew me any Perfbn s Eliate that has 
 been taken from him without due Courfe of Law; or any Taxes that have been 
 Aflefl'ed upon the Nation, but what have been granted by Parliament j or elfe 
 raifed by the Opinion of the Judges, by whom if his Majefty hath been mifin- 
 fbrm'd. They only ought to anfwer for it in the next Parliament, who are 
 the only proper Judges of their Milcarriages, without having any Recourfe to Force, 
 which the Laws of this Kingdom fo much abhors. And therefore make the 
 worft of it you can, all thefe Grievances already mentioned, were no more 
 than fome Breaches upon the outward Splendor of our Church, Religion, or 
 Ibme of our Civil Liberties •, whilft the Main and Effential Parts of both 
 continu'd untouch'd •, finfe, God be thanked, we have hitherto enjoy 'd the Free 
 and Publick Proieflion of our Religion, together with our Lives, Liberties and 
 Eftates, in perfeft Peace, and undifturb'd by any outward Force or Violence from 
 the King , or any Commiflion'd by him : And as for thofe Grievances you 
 mention, viz. The turning out the Prefident and Fellows of Magdalen College, 
 by the late Ecclefiaftical Commiflion, as alfo the turning out of the Deputy 
 Lieutenants, and Juftices of the Peace, and all other Magifttates out of Cities.and 
 Corporations, the King has fufficiendy redrefs'd them, by reftoring the firft 
 to their Places, and by putting all the reft into Commiffion again, and 
 turning out thole that came in their Rooms, and all this before the Prince 
 o^ Orange came over-, and I doubt not but his Majefty would have been content 
 to have given the Nation any other reafonable Satisfaftion they could have 
 defired in the next Parliament : Which ought to have been patiently waited for 
 until his Majefty thought fit to call it, without going about to right our lelves 
 by Force. 
 
 F. I confefs you have made not only the moft plaufible Defence you can of 
 the King s late Actions, but have alfo'urgd the utmoft that can be fiid againft 
 thofe defenfive Arms that have been lately taken up by thofe Lords, Gentlemen, 
 and others who have affociated themfelves to ftand by the Prince of Orange, till 
 our Grievances were redrefs'd by a Free Parliament : But if what you have laid be 
 ftriQly look'd into, I doubt it will prove but a mere Subterfuge to hide ihe Naked- 
 nefs of the Caule you have undertaken. In the firft Place therefore, let me me tell 
 you, that though I confefs the King has not yet Dragoon d us to Mafs, nor has 
 mad'e an a£tual War upon the Lives and Properties of the People of this Nation -, 
 yet that he has not only invaded our Liberties, but alfb endangered the Pro- 
 teftant Religion of the Church of England eftablillfd by_ Law, you your felf 
 liave not the Confidence to deny v only you will not fuppofe it to have been done 
 by any Armed Force, and therefore ought not to have been refifted by Force, 
 but to have waited for their Redrefs by Parliament ; which is but an Evafion : For 
 in the firfi Place it is plain, that the Things complain'd againft, in the Prince of 
 Orangc\ Declaration, do moft of them ftrike at the "Fundamental Conftuution, 
 botiiof the Church and State, as I have fufficiently prov'd, and (hall do it more 
 particularly hereafter, when there is Occafion. All therefore that remains to be 
 prov'd is this. That all thele Breaches, and Violations of our Religion and Civil 
 Liberties, though done under Colour of Law, yet were afted and maintained by 
 
 Force.
 
 Dialogue the Ninth. 
 
 Force. And Secondly, That all other Hopes of Remedy or Redrefs, iinlefs by 
 ioining with the Prince of Orange^ was wholly taken from us. The fii ft of thelc 
 I prove thus : It is notorioufly known, that for the King to miiarain a Scanding 
 Army in Time of Peace, has been always declar'd againft in Parliament, as con- 
 trary to Law, and dangerous to. the Religion, Civil Rights, and Liberties of this 
 Narion. Now it is alfb as certain, that the King has, ever fince the Duke of 
 Monmoutlys coming over, fct up and maintained a Standing Army in this King- 
 dom ; in which he has alfo put in as many Popifh Officers, and they as many Po- 
 pifh Soldiers (contrary to the Laws of the Land) as ever they could find ; befides 
 the many Injh Papifts that have been of late fent over, for no other Purpole than 
 to be lilted here, and whilft Proteftant Soldiers were turn'd out of ieveral Regi- 
 ments to make room for them : Not to mention the lifting of vaft Numbers of 
 loofe and proHigate Fellows, and fome of them pardon 'd Highway-Men, who, 
 provided they had their Pay, would not have ftuck to rob or murder any body they 
 had been ordered ; as may be fufficiently prov'd, not only by their common taking 
 of free Quarter, but by their frequent taking it in the Houfes of Gentlemen, and 
 other private Perlbns, in divers Places of this Kingdom •, and that without any 
 Amends or Redrefs as I know of, tho' frequently complain'd of at Court : All 
 which being done by the King's Arbitrary Power, without the leaft Colour of 
 Law, and in Contempt of the Militia, the only legal Forces of this K'ngdom, 
 what was this but plainly to declare, that as the King had thought fit to xdi fo 
 many arbitrary Things clean contrary to Law, fo he was likevvile reiblv'd to 
 maintain "em by Force ■■> fince it is plain, that the King never durft undertake to do 
 all thefe Illegal and Arbitrary Things we have now mention'd, until fuch 
 time as his ftanding Army was railed? And tho' it is true, Mens Lives, Liberties, 
 or Eftates cannot be taken away, unlefs by fome Kind of Force; yet as for 
 thofe Civil R.ights and Privileges, which are the main Bulwarks and Defen- 
 ces of the former, they can only be invaded or taken from us by illegal 
 Judgments and Declarations-, which if fupportcd by a vifible Force beyond 
 what the Nation (in the Circumftances it was in) was able to refift, this is 
 as much a taking them by Force, as if there had been Refiftance made about 
 them. 
 
 Thus, if Soldiers come into my Houle , and fay that the King hath given them 
 Orders to quarter there upon free Coft, I fuppofe you will not deny, but this is 
 a forcible taking of my Goods, notwithftanding I dare not (becaule I cannot) re- 
 fift them. The fame I may fay for a whole Nation, when once opprelVd in their 
 Civil Liberties, and thofe Oppreffions are once back d and defended by a Standing 
 Army contrary to Law -. But that this Army was raifed chiefly to this Intent, 
 I can give you a remarkable Inftance from the Mouth of the late Chief Jultice 
 Wright, who fent for Officers and Soldiers to make the Scholars at Oxford kttjp 
 filence, becaufe they humm'd at what the Prefident and Fellows of Magdakns had 
 juli before faid againfl: the Authority of this pretended Court. So that to con- 
 clude j from that very time that the King began to keep up an Army, and to lilt 
 Popifh Officers and Soldiers, (tho' utterly difabled by Law to take Commilfions, 
 or to bear Arms) by virtue of his Difpenfing Power, and all this in Order to back 
 andfupport his Arbitrary Proceedings, I look upon this Nation under fuch a Fore;, 
 as that they might lawfully remove it by Force, whenever they could: And that 
 either by joining with fome Foreign Prince, or elfe by their own Domeftick 
 Arms. 
 
 But to come to the Second Point to be prov'd, viz. That there was no other 
 Mean" but Force left us to redrefs thofe Mifchiefs, and to retrieve us out of that 
 fad Condition in which we lately were, as alfo to hinder us from falling into worle ; 
 I fliall only fuppofe (that which I think you will readily grant) that there could 
 be no other Means to cure thefe Evils, but either by fome fudden Change in the 
 King's Inclinations, or elfe by a Free Parliament : The former you mutt acknow- 
 ledge was not polTible, as long as he continued of the Religion he is of, and fiii- 
 fer'd himfelf to be manag'd by the Counfels of the Jefuits, and i'rench King; ind 
 as for a Free Parliament, what Hopes could there be of that, as long as the King 
 had done all he could to hinder Free Elections, and due Returns of Parliamenr- 
 Men, by making either Popifh or Fanatical Sheriffs, and putting Mayors and 
 
 other 
 
 493
 
 4 94 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTICA. 
 
 I / 1 
 
 other Officers of the like Principles into moft of the Cities and Coiporate Towns 
 in EngLind^ Nor can I tell hue that Force would alio ha\ebeen ufed, if they luund 
 they could not have compafled their Defigns without it, in thole Places where Sol- 
 diers were quartered ; fince I am credibly inform'd, that at the late intended Ele- 
 Sions of" BurgeiFes for Northampton and Bfiick/y, the Officers and Soldiers quartered 
 at thofe Places, declar'd, That none of the Townfmen Ihould be admitt'.d to give 
 Voices at the Election, unlels they would promife to Vote for thofe tliat the Court 
 would fet up : And the like Inftances I believe I might give you of other Places, 
 had I time to enquire inio it. And as ibr the Houfe of Peers, pray confider how 
 many of the Bilhops and Temporal Lords the King might have gained, either by 
 Threats or fair Promifes, to his Party, or at leaft prevail'd upon to ftand Neuters, 
 and not to oppole his Defigns ; and if thefe had faifd, it had been but calling up 
 fome Popilh, or high Tory, or Fanacick Gentlemen to -the Houfe of Lords, and to 
 have fat there as Barons, Peers, pro tempore^ till this Job was done ; and I doubt not 
 but there would have been enough tound out, of each Sort, for that Purpole. 
 And that I do not fpeak without Book, I have had it from Perf~ins of ve'-y good 
 Intelligence, that fuch a Defign was lately on foot, and ihe Court Party thought 
 they had very good Authority for it ; fince Mr. fryn and Sir William Dugdale pre- 
 tended to (how us ieveral Examples of this Kind, as low as the Keiga of K. Henry 
 the IVth. And a great part of the Defign of your Dr. B.'s late Books ieein to have been 
 only to prove, That the King might not only have Summon'd to Parliament what 
 of the Commons he pleafcd, but what Lords too, and have omit:ed the relt , as 
 I have already fhown you at our two laft Meetings. And fure, if the King had 
 liich a Prerogative Two or Three Hundred Years ago, tliele Gentlemen would 
 not have deny'd his prefent Majefty rhe like Power ; fince they have, in all their 
 Writings and Addrelfes, declaf d him as abfolute as any of his Predeceflbrs. 
 
 But to make an end \ As tor what you fay of the King's Redrefling the Grievan- 
 ces of the Nation before the Prince of Orange came ^ it is very true, he did by 
 the Advice of fome of tlie Billiops, endeavour to put Things into the fame State 
 they were in at his firlt coming to the Crown. But I very much miitrult the Sin- 
 cerity of his Majefty 's Intentions, fince it is plain he never ofterM to do it till 
 the Prince of Orange was juft upon coming, and that his Declaration had been 
 fpread about the Kingdom ^ and then he did it very unwillingly. And 
 which is alfb more remarkable, his Majefty, in none of his Declarations, 
 ever difowned his Dilpenfing Power, or 16 much as put out Father Te- 
 ters from the Council, or difbanded one Popifh Officer or Soldier out of 
 his Army : All which ate no great Arguments ot the Sincerity of his Intentions. 
 So that I think this was fbfficient to convince any realbnabie Man, that there was 
 no other Means left us but Refiftance, and that by Force, and a hearty joining 
 with the Prince of Orange at his Landing. 
 
 Now, fince this Refiftance was not made either in Oppofition to the King or 
 the Laws, but for Defence ot both, againft a Standing Army kept up contrary to 
 Law, and headed by Officers, the greateft Part of which, by not taking the Sacra- 
 ment and Teft, according to the Act made for that Purpofe, had rendered them- 
 felves wholly uncapable of holding thole Commiffions, and confequently vvhillt in 
 Arms were to be look'd upon as common Enemies to the Nation. But as for his 
 Majefty 's Gracious and Merciful Difpoficion •, as I (iiall not make it my Bufinefs 
 perlbnally to retleQ upon him, 16 I muft needs tell you, the Execution of Mr. Cor- 
 nijh, Mrs. Lijle, Mrs. Gaum, for Treafons talfly alledg'd, or elle fuch as Women 
 could fcarce be capable ot knowing to be 16, were no great Evidences of fuch 
 highly merciful Inclinations. 
 
 M. I confefs you have taken a great deal of pains not only to let forth the late 
 Milcarriages of the Government, but alfo to prove that the Army which the King 
 laifed upon the Duke of AlonKouJFs Invafion, and which he hatli fince kept up 
 to prevent either irefh Rebellions at home, or Inxafions from abroad, has been 
 merely maintain'd to fupport all thele late Breaches upon our Laws and 
 Civil Liberties, which you fay were made upon them. Now this is veiy 
 uncharitably done; for as his Majefty was torc'd to vaiie tliat Army at fiitt, be- 
 caufe the late Rebellion in the Wejt was too powerful to be quell'd by the ordi- 
 nary 
 3
 
 Dialogue the Ninth. ^p. 
 
 nary Train'd Bands of the Kingdom, whom he had too much Reafon to fufpeft, 
 by the running over of feveral of them to the Rebels, not to be lb Loyal a-; they 
 ought to have been : And if his Majefty had not had a fmall Body of an Army on 
 Foot, the laft Summet before the Prince of Orange came over, he mult, upon his 
 Landing, have yielded to his Terms, had they been never fo unrealbnaLle. And 
 though I will not defend the Lilting of Popifh or hijh Soldiers, or the Granting 
 Commiflions to Popith Commanders, yet it is very hard to prove this to be a 
 making War upon the Nation, unleJs you can fuppofe there may be War made 
 without Fighting. And as for thofe Violations of the Laws, which you fuppofe 
 were made only upon the Prefumption of this Standing Army, this is likewife very 
 hard to affirm ; Cnce how can you tell that the Judges and Minifters would not have 
 given the fame Opinions and Advices, concerning the difpenfing Power, Chim- 
 ney-Money, and the Ecclefiaftical Commiffion , had there been no Army at all 
 rais'd -, fince they might, for ought I know, have prefum'd that the People of this 
 Nation had heen iufficiently convinc'd of the Truth of the Doftrines of Paffive 
 Obedience and Non-Refiltance, as not to have needed a Standing Army to back 
 what he had aliready done, though contrary to Law. But as for the latter Part of" 
 your Difcourfe , I fay ti^e People ought to have waited till the King had call'd a 
 Parliament ; and then if they had betrayed their Trult, and given up our Reli- 
 gion and Liberties, as you fuppofe 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 Dutchmen to their Deliverance. So that till this Parlia- 
 ment had been try'd, you could not fay that Matters were altogether defpe- 
 rate. 
 
 F. I lee you do all you can to prove, that the King's Railing an Army, 
 wherein he had Lifted fo many Popilh OfBcers and Soldiers, (and which were 
 like to be daily incieas'd upon us) was no making War upon the Nation, 
 becaufe they had not yet aftua'ily robb'd or murdered People ; and you may 
 with as much Realbn tell me, that a Thief upon the Highway does not u(e any 
 Violence upon the Party he robs, if he fhould only clap a cock'd Piftol to his Breaft, 
 without asking him to deliver his Money. Now, I fuppole, you will not deny, 
 but that the Paifenger would gaickly underftand the Meaning of that Sign, and 
 would foon deliver his Purle , for fear of lofing his Life. Apply this to the ta- 
 king of the Cuftoms contray to Law , and to the Chimney-Money that has been 
 rais d upon the poorer Part of the Nation, and the taking away the Charters from 
 the Corporations, merely through the Terror of this Standing Army \ and fee if 
 the Similitude does not exactly fit. And for what you fay, concerning the pre- 
 fuming upon the Doftrine of Palfive-Obtdience, and fo might have done the fame 
 Arbitrary Things, whether he had railed an Army or not ^ though I am very glad 
 
 rou confefs, that thofe Doftrines encouraged the King's Arbitrary Proceedings, yet / 
 
 muft beg your Pardon, if I annot believe the reft. Whatever Thoughts the King 
 might have of the Major Part of the Clergy, Nobility, and Gentry , yet certainly 
 he had no fuch good Opinion of the ordinary People, who compos'd the Militia, 
 (and indeed are the Hands of the Kingdom ) fince you confefs the King did not 
 look upon them as fuificiently Loyal, and therefore was forc'd to maintain a Stand- 
 ing Army for fear of them. So that it feems the Nation was not yet thorough- 
 pac'd in your Duftrines of Paflive-Obedience and Non-Refiftance , as you would 
 have had them ; but that even this Standing Army , when it was to Fight againft 
 the Religion and Liberties of their own Country , was not to [be trufted , the 
 King himlelf was convinc'd of, when he lately left them at Sdisbuiy ^ and becaule 
 fome of them delerted him , he feared the relt would not Fight , in fb unjuft a 
 Quarrel 
 
 But as for the reft of your Speech, that the People fliould have tarried till 
 Matters had become .' together defperate, and that a Parliament had aftually 
 given up our Religic *, Civil Liberties, and Properties, to the King's Arbitrary 
 Will i that had bee.i -jideed entailing Slavery upon us by a Law, and would 
 have made good the Proverb, of fhutting the Stable Door after the Horfe is 
 ftolen -, and puts me in mind of a Story 1 have heard of a Gentleman , whole 
 Houfe being befet by Thieves, who were actually breaking in at a Window, 
 
 and
 
 49^ B 1 B L T O T H E C A P O L 1 T 1 C A. 
 
 and that he was about to fhoot at "them, his over-fcrupulous Chaplain (who 
 I fuppofe had nicely i^ud'ied your Dodrine oF Non-Refiftancej defired his 
 Patron to forbear, becaufe the Thieves had not as yet iufficiently declar'd 
 their wicked Intentions by aflaulting or robbing any Body in the Houfe : But 
 I fuppofe the Gentleman was not fucli a Fool as to take his Chaplain's Advice -, 
 and a great Part of the Nation was more ftnfible of the Dangers they law hang 
 over their Heads than to follow your Opinion. 
 
 M. I fee you are very free in your Comparifons, in making the King's 
 late Army little better than Thieves ^ and then what Opinion you have of 
 the King himfelf who headed 'em, I leave it to your felf to confider i but 
 fince Similitudes are no Arguments, I fhall not trouble my felf to argue this 
 Point any longer with you, iince I fee it is to little purpofe. But yet let 
 your Right of Refiftance be what it will in defperate Cafes, yet lam fure that 
 divers Lords and Gentlemen of yout Opinion can no way juft'iy their re- 
 nouncing all Allegiance to his Majefty, by adhering to a Foreign Prince, 
 and by their late advifing the fame Prince to call a Convendon, without 
 taking any Notice of the King, or making any more Adrefles to him about 
 it, than if he had never been their anointed Sovereign •, and indeed it was a 
 great 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 hurried away 
 Prifoner by a Handful of Dutchmen, tho' his Majefty hath had fince the good 
 Fortune to efcape out of their Hands, when he faw there was no other Means 
 to help him. 
 
 f. In anfvver to what you have now faid, I muft freely tell you ; that if 
 the Refiftance that hath been made againft the Army commiffion'd by the King 
 was lawful, fo has all that has been done in Purfuance of that Refiftance 
 been alike lawful and necelfary -, and therefore what if I (hould tell you that 
 the King by breaking the fundamental Conftitution of the Kingdom, and by 
 twice going away without ever offering to repair thofe Breaches, and give the 
 Nation any fufficient Satisfaftion for the fame, has not only pur himfelf in a 
 State of War againft the People, but has alfo thereby ceafed to be King 5 or 
 if" you will have it more plainly, has loft and forfeited his Right to the 
 
 Crown. 
 
 M. This is a rare Commonwealth Doarine, and of the lame Batch with 
 that of BraJJhaw's and Cook^ Speeches .againft King Charles the Fitft ; but 
 I thank God I have learned loyaller Principles, and do firmly believe, that 
 a King of England cannot for any Tyranny or Breach of Laws whacfoever, 
 forfeit his Crown or Royal Dignity, as you fuppofe. But fince this is a 
 new Doftrine, 1 (hall not be unwilling to hear what you have to fay upon 
 this Subjeft another Time, fince it is now too late to purfue this Argument 
 any further. 
 
 I. Before I make any Reply to what you have now faid, I defire not to 
 be mifunderftood, as if I call all the King s late Army Thieves, or himfelf the 
 Captain of them, fince in Similies it is fufficient if they agree in fome common 
 Property, without being the fame Things to which they are compar'd \ tho* 
 this much I may fafely fay, that thofe that take Free Quarter without Con- 
 fent of the Owners in Time of Peace, and thofe who fupport 'em in it, are no 
 better than Thieves j but fince you defire to heat my Reafons for this Opinion 
 I have now given you, I defu:e that we may have another Meeting to debate 
 this weighty Quelfion : and then I will likewile hear whatever you have 
 to lay againft it. But I muft tell you by the way, that you are very much 
 out in making my Opinion of the fame Batch with that of the Regicides ; 
 for it appears plainly by the prinred Tryal of King Charles the Firft, that 
 they acknowleged him for King of England at the fame Time when they read 
 his Indiftment ; whereas I affirm the contrary, and fay that the prefent King 
 cannot be judged or depofed by the Parliament or People j yet that he has 
 without any A£t of ours abfolutely abdicated the Government, and depofed 
 himfelf •. But tlat 1 may not feem to fpeak out of any Prejudice to this 
 King's Perfon or Government , I defire we may firft debate it in general, 
 whether a King of England can ever tall from, or forfeit his Royal Dignity, 
 
 let
 
 'Dialogue tie Ninth. ^^j 
 
 let hjm behave liimrelf never To like a Tyrant : And when that is dllpatch'd, 
 it will be then Time to conGder, whether the King has lb behaved hinnfelf 
 .or not 
 
 M. I like your Propofal well enough; only let me defire you to come 
 again as loon as you can •, for fince I hear there is like to be no Term, I 
 intend to vifit lome Friends in the Country, till I fee the Times clear up a 
 little better. 
 
 f. I will not fail to wait on you, within a Night or Two ; and in the mean 
 Time am your Humble Servant. 
 
 M. And I am Yours. 
 
 r •> V 
 
 sff. a^ibUDtljcca 
 
 .i*-' 
 
 *»• 
 
 % 
 
 ^■■i""""""' 
 
 
 X
 
 498 
 
 Bil3Uotl)eca ^olittca* 
 
 DIALOGUE X. 
 
 Vj. Grot, dc 
 Jur. feell. L. 1. 
 Cap. 4. §.7,8, 
 Fuffcndoif dc 
 JttreN^t. 1.7. 
 cap. 8. 5. 5,7. 
 
 I. Whether a King of England can ever fall from, or forfeit his 
 Royal Dignity for any Breach of an Original ConiraSlj or 
 rrilful Violation of the Fundamental Larvs of the Kingdom ? 
 
 \\. Whether King William {the Norman) did by his Conqnefl. 
 acquire juch an abjolutc unconditioned Right to ih^Crorvn of 
 this Realm, for Him f elf and his Heirs, as can ne'ver be law- 
 fully refijied or forfeited, for any Male- Adminif ration or 
 Tyranny whate'ver. 
 
 M.'^^^'T^ H '. Are you come at laft ; I have looked for you thefe two Nights -, 
 p^ "^ and now began to fear you were not well, or elie had diftrufted 
 *M> *^ ^ your Caufe, and declined another Conference. 
 ^f ^^3 t. I beg your Pardon for difappointing you ; which yer I had 
 a!ii!b&'.JaK not done, had not Ibme Bufinefs hindred me ^ but however, to 
 let you fee I do not decline another Conference with you upon this Subjeft, pray 
 let us go on where we left off ; and tell me freely your Senfe of my Notion of 
 the Kings Forfeiture, or Abdication of the Government by his Violation of the 
 Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom, and Refulal to repair thofe Breaches, when 
 he might have done it ? 
 
 M In anfwer to your Demand, I will deal freely with you, and muft tell 
 you, that I have perufed all Writers that have writ any Thing confiderable con- 
 cerning the Laws of Government, or of Nations ; and cannot find in any of them 
 any Thing to countenance your Notion of Forfeiture, or Abdication of an Abfblute 
 Sovereign Prince, as I mulf (till take ours to be, notwithftanding all you have yet 
 laid to the contrary •, unlefs what you have cited at our Third Meeting, out oi Bar- 
 clays Third Book centra Momircho-machos ; where he allows the Subjefts to refill 
 their Prince, in cale he go about to deftroy the Body of the People or Common- 
 wealth, whereof he is the Head : To which I may alio add another Cafe which 
 you have omitted, viz. If the Prince make over his Kingdom to another, without 
 the Conient of his People : And I confefs, that both Grotius and Fnffendorf agree 
 with Barclay in this Notion : Becaufe they look upon both thele Cafes, as plain 
 downright Renunciations of their Civil Authority, over thofe whom they were 
 o*bliged to Govern. But indeed, the firft of thele Cafes is fo improbable •, nay, al- 
 molt impoflible to happen, that were it not for the over-great Nicenefs of thefe 
 Writers, it need not to have been fb much as mentioned •, fince none but 3 
 Madman, can ever go about to deftroy his whole People •, and therefore fuch a 
 Prince may be Refitted as a Man out of his Wits j and locked up, if ever it 
 fhould fo fall out (as you your felf have contelfed it hath very rarely) for a Nati- 
 on to be fo unhappy as to have fuch a Prince ; but as for the Second, viz. the 
 making over their Supreme Power to a Foreign Prince -y that likewife fo very 
 
 rarely
 
 Dialogue the Tenth ,j.nn 
 
 hretv happens, that it is fcarce worth the while to make any Difpute about It : 
 But in all other Cafes, they held the Supreme Power of every Nation to be ab* 
 Iblutely Irrefiftible in any Cale whatlbever j and if irrefiftible, then certainly unca- 
 pable of forfeiting their Right to govern, by any pretended, or real Violation of 
 the Liberties and Privileges of the People. And Bodin, in his firft Book de Re- Caf. i. 
 pul/ica, though he grant, that abfblute Princes are obliged in Confcience to keep 
 and maintain all fuch Privileges which have been granted to the People by either 
 themfelves or Predeceflbrs, which are for the good of the Commonwealth j yet 
 fince the Prince is fole Judge, whether thefe Privileges are confiftent with his Su- 
 preme Right to Govern and«Prote8: his People, he may therefore haveoccafion 
 Ibmetimes, not only to DetraQ: from them, or difpenfe with them in fome Cales ^ 
 but may wholly break and lay them afide, by turning Tyrant •, yet neverthelefs in /^ ^;^ 
 all thefe Cafes People are Itill bound not to refill them. And that he looked upon c,»/'. 5. ' 
 the King of England as fuch an Abfblute Monarch, as well as others he there men- 
 tions, you may read in the Place I now cited •■, where after he has allowed Refiftance 
 to be lawful againft thofe Princes, who were not properly Monarchs, as enjoying 
 but a Share of the Supreme Power, and among which he reckons the German 
 Emperor, and the Kings of Denmark, Sweden and Po/and : But then, when he 
 comes to fpeak of Real and Abfblute Monarchies, his Senfe is quite different ; as 
 you may fee by thefe Words ^ ^uod ft Monarchia quadam eji, fumnta un'im pO' 
 teftate conjlituta, qualis eji Francorum, Hifpanorum, Anglorum, Scotorum, 8cc. (I 
 fhall flip all the reft, becaufe not to our Purpofe) ubi Reges fine controverfia jura 
 omnia Majeftath habent per fc •, nee fingulh civibus, nee univerfis fas eft fumm't 
 Principis vitgm, famaw, i'ortunas in difcnmen vocare, feu ui, feu Judice conUituto 
 Id fiat, et'tmfi omnium feeler um, ac Flagitiorum quae in TyrannU convenire antea 
 diximus, lurpitudtne infamk effet. Where you may obferve that Force or Refiftance, 
 by which fuch an abfblute Prince's Life or Regal Power (here called Fortunar) 
 are as much forbid, as calling him in Queftion by appointing Judges to fit upon 
 him. And he there gives us a very good Reafbn for it, Becaufe all SubjeBs of 
 what Degree foever, cannot pretend to any Coercive Power over the Perfon of a 
 Sovereign Prince. 
 
 F. We have difcourfed enough concerning the Refiftance of Abfblute Monarchs, 
 at our Third and Fourth Meeting, and therefore I defire we may not fall again 
 upon that Subject, which can produce nothing but needlefs Repetitions •, and I 
 have already proved, at our Fifth Converfation, that our King is not an Abfolute 
 Defpotick Monarch, but is limited and tied up by the Fundamental Laws of the 
 Kingdom, from making of Laws, or raifing Taxes without the Confent of his 
 People in Parliament ; and that our Government is mixed, and made up of Mo- 
 narchy, with an Allay of Ariftocracy, and Democracy in the Conftitution -, the 
 former in the Houfe of Lords, the latter in the Houfe of Commons, as K. Charles 
 the Firft himfelf confefTes, in his Anfwer to the Parliaments 19 Propofirions. And 
 "I have farther enforced this from divers Authorities out of our Antient as well as 
 Modern Lawyers -, viz. Glanvill, BraSon, Forte fcue, and Sir Edward Coke. So 
 that fince we have fuch clear Proof tor our Conftitution from our own Hiftories 
 and Authors, nay from the King himfelf, befides the whole Purport and Style of 
 the very Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom, I do not value the Authority of 
 Bodin a Foreigner, whofe Bufinefs it is to fet up the Authority of the French King 
 to the higheft Pitch he could ^ and therefore being fenfible that antiently the Go- 
 vernment of France and England were much the fame, he could not with any 
 Face make his own an Abfblute Defpotick Monarchy, unlefs he had made ours 
 lb too j but this is not the only Error he has been guilty of in our Hiftory and 
 Conftitution, as I can fhew you when there is occafion. But Arnifceus, who, as 
 well as Bodin, is fo much for Abfolute Monarchs, yet does in his Treatife of Go- 
 vernment called his confefs, that a Tyrant in an Here- 
 ditary Monarchy, who violates all the Laws of Jujlice and Equity, to the endangering 
 the Ruin of the Commonwealth, d©th excidere Jure h.ereditario, fall from, or forfeit 
 hpi Hereditary Right. But pray make it out by fome convincing Proofs, either 
 from Hiftory, or Law, that our Kings are llich Abfolute Monarchs as you would 
 make them, that by the fundamental Conftitution of the Government they cannot 
 be refifted, nor can fill from tlieir Regal Power, let them carry themfelves never 
 fo Tyrannically ; for I do not fee you have been y« able to do it by any Argu- 
 ments you have hithetto made ufe of 
 
 Sff2 ;il. Ihave
 
 c:00 B 1 B L T 0*T H E C A P O L 1 -^ 1 C A. 
 
 M. 1 have already at our Fifth, as well as at our bft Meeting, given you divers 
 Arguments and Authorities, whereby I proved the Kings of this Realm to be com- 
 
 i.i.ap.9- pleat and abfolute Monarchs ; efpecially that Place from Bracion^ where he thus 
 fpeaks of the King, That every one is under him •, and that himfelf is under none 
 but God •, that he has no Peer in his Kingdom , becaufe ib he would lole his 
 Power, fince an Equal has no Command over an Equal •, much more has he any Su- 
 perior, becaufe then he would be inferior to his Subje£ls -, and Inferiors cannot be 
 equal with their Superiors. Which fufficiently deftroys that Notion of yours. That 
 Subie£ls can be in any Cafe equal with their Princes, fo as to iudge and refift their 
 Anions. Which is alfo farther enforced by another PaflTage juft aforegoing, de chat-' 
 
 9 fis vera Regiis, & fjctis Regum , non debent , nee pojfunt jfuflicinnj^ nee private 
 
 ferjon.c dijfutare , nee etiamji in itlis diibitatio ulla oriatur, fojfunt earn interpre- 
 tart ; 6? tn dubiis, Ci obfcuriis, velfi aliqua dklio duos continent intelleBus, Domi- 
 ni Regis erit expe&jnda interpret ado £?' vo/untof , cum ejus Jit interpret ari citji^ eji 
 coneederc : From which we may conclude. That t'le King's Actions were above ail 
 Cenfure and Difpute, much more forcible Oppofition of his Subjefts. And I defy 
 you to (hew me any Paflage in BraBon, Fleta, or even your beloved Author For-, 
 tefcue, that in the lealt countenances your Doftrine of Refiftance, much lefs your 
 Opinion of the King's Forfeiture of his Crown and Royal Dignity for Tyranny, 
 for the higheft Violation of Laws 5 but rather the contrary, in all thofe Paffages 
 that I have either obferved my fel^ or found quoted out of them by others. For 
 though I grant both BraBon and Fleta call the King, if he prove a Tyrant, or one 
 that governs contrary to Law, notGcd's but the Devil's Minifler s yet for all that, 
 they no where maintain, that then he ought, or may be refilled by his Subjefts ; 
 or that they are dilcharged of their Allegiance towards him. For Bramn tells us, 
 in the fame Place, That if the King do any Man wrong or Injury, Loet^s eritfup- 
 
 Lit.2. cap. 7. p/j^^ii^„i quodfa^umfuum eorrigat^ £?' emendet •, quod quidemfi non fecerit, jatk 
 fufficit ei adpifnam, quod Dominum expe3et ultorctn ; nemo quidem de faSis Juis 
 prdfumet difputare., multo fortius contra faBum fuum venire. The fame he I'jys 
 likewile word for word in another Place, of any other King or Prince , who has no 
 fuperior Lord, againft whom there is no Remedy by AiTize (or legal Trial) as againft 
 an Equal, but only Place left for the injured Subject to Petition. And BraBon gives 
 us a very good Realbn for it in this Maxim, omnis quidem fub eo , i$ ipfefub nulb 
 nifi tantum Jub Deo. So that though I grant this Moral Obligation, which the 
 King hath to obferve the Laws, is farther increafed by his Coronation-Oath, as Bra- 
 
 H. J. p. 244, S"" obferves in his Third Book de ABionibm : But then, as in the Oath of Alle- 
 
 24). cap. 9.' giance, the People fw-ear nothing to the King, but what they are bound to oblerve 
 unlworn : So the King in his Coronation-Oath promifes notliing to the People, but 
 what in Juftice and Equity he is bound to perform, whether he fwear or not : For, 
 ad hoc (iaith the fame Author of the King) eleBiis, & crcatm eft ut Judicium faci- 
 atuniverfis, ^c. zxA fcpar are debet Rex, cum Jit Dei vieariw. Jus ah injuria,^ c. 
 But then if he will pervert this great End, for which God made him King ; if he 
 will not aft as it becomes God s Vicar ^ if he will obllruct or pervert the Laws, 
 and govern never fo Tyrannically ; yet ftill there is left no Remedy to his Subjefts 
 by the Law, but Moral Peifuaiion : For the Laws Imperial of this Realm, have de- 
 clared him ro be a free, unconditioned, and independent Sovereign, exempted from 
 all Coertion, and outward Force , much more from any Forfeiture of his Crown 
 or Regal Authority. 
 
 F'. I hope I fliall be able to return you a fatis&ftory Anfwer to the Authori- 
 ties you have now brought : For, as for Reafons I fee none. In the firft Place, a? 
 TO what you fay concerning Barclays^ and all other Writers agreeing , that in 
 thefe Two Cafes you mention, the People may refift their Prince , becaufe he does 
 as good as renounce the Government of them , and abdicate the Crown he 
 wore : Pray obferve, that tliey alfo allow the People to judge for themfelves, 
 when the King thus goes about to deftroy them, to make over his Crown to a 
 Foreign Prince. Now I defire you to fhew me, why the People in a limited 
 or mix'd Kingdom (as ours is ) cmnot as well judge when the King has broke 
 the Fundamental Laws of the Government, whereby it is diftinguifhed from an 
 Abfolute Defpotick Monarchy ; and hath either aftually fet up, or is going about 
 to bring in Tyranny or Arbitrary Power; fince according to the Rules I have 
 laid down at our lalt Meeting, the Matters to be judged of may be as plain and 
 evident, not only to a fingle Perfon, but to a whole Nation. All that you have 
 
 to
 
 ^Dialogue the Tenth. :;oi 
 
 to fay againft this is, only anHypothefis you have bid down, without any juft 
 Grounds, That the King is a Sovereign Prince, who holds his Crown without any 
 Condition whatever ^ and therefore free from all Forfeiture of his Crown, or 
 Regal Authority j which is the Point to be prov'd. Now if I have already rnade 
 out (as I fuppofe I have) that the King of England is not fuch an Ahfolute Mo- 
 narch, as not having the two main Parts of it, viz. the Power of raifing Money, 
 and making Laws, in his own Difpofal, without the Confent of his People •, and 
 thefe referv d to them by his own Conceflions, or that of his Predeceflbrs, ftom 
 the very beginning ot Kingly Government in this Ifland •, and if I have alfo proved 
 at our iait Meeting, that if we have fuch Fundamental Rights, we have alio fome 
 Means left us to keep and preferve them inviolable •, and that this Means is only 
 a defenfive Refiftance, in 'cafe they are forcibly invaded by any of the Kings 
 Officers or Soldiers, nay, by his own perfonal Power, if he fhall be fo ill adviled 
 as to join himfelf with fuch Inftruments of Tyranny ^ it will then alfo follow, 
 that fuch a Refiftance is really a Sufpenfion of their Allegiance to the King for 
 the Time it lalts ; and till they can fee whether there be any Hopes left of a Re- 
 conciliation v.'irh him, and that he will amend his Errors and Mifgovernment. 
 And if he does lo, and that he will give his People any fufficient Tettimony of 
 his Amendment and Sincerity, by giving up fuch evil Minifters to Punifhment, 
 that put him upon fuch delperate Courfes •, I do then readily grant, that 
 the People ought to lay down their Arms, and be again reconciled to their 
 King, and fubmit themfelves to him as before, according to that Claufe in King 
 John^ Magna Charta I have already cited, wherein there is a Power left for the 
 Barons, in cafe of any Breach of it, to take Arms, and conftrain the King by 
 taking of HTs Caflles, Lands, and PofFeflions, to amend thofe Tranfgrefiions ; and 
 when all was thus amended, the Charter lays, Tunc cumfuent emendatum (then 
 and not before ) intendent nobis ficut prius fccerunt., they fhall be fubjeO: to us, 
 as they were before. But what followed upon this ? The King not only re- 
 fuftd to oblerve this Charter, bur procured the Pope's Difpenfation to be 
 abfolved from the Oath he had taken to obferve it ; and alfo railed what 
 Forces he could at home, and lent for Foreigners into this Kingdom to 
 fupport his Tyranny •, whereupon the Barons at laft were forced to re- 
 nounce 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 fhew us at large. Now what the Barons did in the Cafe 
 of King John, may be alfo done by the People of this Kingdom in all fuc- 
 ceeding Times ; or otherwife, the King will be in a better Condition after 
 he has done the worft he can by Force of Arms againft the People, than he was 
 before •, for jf ( as I have already proved ) he may be refifted, till he give the 
 Kingdom Satisfaflion that he will furceafe from fuch Tyrannical Courfes -, and 
 if fuch Refiftance is really a Sufpenfion of Allegiance for the Time it lafts ; it will 
 likewife follow, that if the King will ftill peifift in thefe wicked Courfes, he muft 
 at laft forfeit his Crown, and difcharge his Subjefts of all Allegiance to him ; or 
 elfe he would be in a better Condition, by his wilful perfilVmg in his Tyranny, 
 than he could by quitting it, and reconciling himfelf to his People : For whereas 
 by this Method the beft he can expeft is to return to the Exercife of the lame 
 Limited Power he before enjoyed ^ if he pufh Things to the utmoft Extremity, he 
 may, perhaps, get the better of his People, and then will fet up for an Abfblute 
 King by Conqueft •, or if he fail in that, and be beaten, or taken Prifoner by them, 
 he can lole nothing, fince by your Principles he ftill continues an Abfblute Sove- 
 reign Prince, as he was before, and mult be immediately put in the fame State 
 and Ability of deftroying the Government, and enflaving the Nation. But 
 your Civil, as well as our Common Law, has a very good Maxim, Kemo 
 ex proprio J^eliUo beneficium capiat, no Man may take Advantage of his own 
 Wrong •■, and therefore fuch a Prince ought certainly to lofe, and not to gain any 
 thing by his own Illegal and Tyrannical AQions^ and therefore I grant, that the 
 King is not tied, by his Coronation-Oath, to oblerve any new things that he was 
 not, before he was Crown'd, bound to do •, only there is the higher Obligation 
 of an Oath added thereunto. So if the King be a Limited Prince, whole Autho- 
 rity depends upon the right Exercife of it, and that he can claim no Allegiance 
 of his Subjetts but upon that Condition j if fuch a Prince wilfully breaks all 
 thole Conditions, and abfolutely lefiifes to ameod, hs muft at lalt forfeit his 
 
 Crown,
 
 ^01 BlBLIOTHECA PoLlTICA. 
 
 Crown, and lofe all Allegiance from his Subjefts, or elfe all their Refiftance would 
 fignify juft nothings and they would after all be in a much worfe Condition than 
 thev were before. 
 
 Now if this be fo, all your CJuotacions out of BraBon and Fleta will fignify no- 
 /. 7. f. 7. thing : ' For, as fuffendorf very well obferves, a Supreme Power may lelide in a 
 s 7. 10. ' Limited King, in refpeft of all his particular Subjefts ^ yet they may all toge- 
 
 ' ther have a Right to difobey him in thole things to which his Power does not 
 ' extend : For, fays he, it does not follow, that becaufe I am not bound to obey 
 ' him in all things, therefore I muft he his Equal or Superior ^ or becaufe I can- 
 ' not in any wife command him, therefore he may enjoin me what he pleafes. 
 ' For Stiprcme and Abfolute are by no means one and the fame •, for the former de- 
 
 * notes the Abfence of a Superior, or an Equal in the fame Order, but the latter 
 ' a Faculty of exercifing all the Rights of Government, according to his own 
 ' Judgment and Will :' And therefore this Author in the next Chapter fays very 
 
 Lib. 7. «^ 8. rationally concerning refitting of Tyrants in extreme Cafes, '' That their Scruple 
 ' is nothing, who will not admit any Liberty of refitting the moft cruel Tyrai]ny 
 ' of Rulers, becaufe there cannot be fuppofed any lawful Call of Subjefts taking 
 ' Arms againft the Supreme Power, fince no Jurifdiftion can belong to any Subjeft 
 ' over fuch a Power : As if (fays he) that Self-defence were an FfFeft of JuriG 
 
 * diftion, or that there is reqiiired any peculiar Call or Precept for Men in cafe 
 
 * of extreme Neceffity to defend themfelves, and to repulfe any unjuft Force 
 ' from taking away their Lives or Eftates; any more than there is for thofe who 
 ' are like to ftarve, to allay their Hunger by eating, tho' it may be the Meat they 
 
 * eat is not their own, but another Man's.' So far he. And if rhis be lawful 
 even in Abfolute Monarchies, in cafe of Defence of Life, the fame,^ fay, may 
 be alfo by the fame Realbn exercifed in Limited Kingdoms, when the King goes 
 about by Force to take away the Religion, Lives, Ettates, or Liberties of the Peo- 
 ple, contrary to Law ; fince both are founded upon the fame Principle, that aKing^ 
 by deftroying the Fundamental Laws and Conditions by which he is to govern, 
 renounces the Government ; and indeed ib far diffolves it, that he ceales to be 
 King. 
 
 And tho' I grant BraBon and fleta, and other old Lawyers, have not 
 in exprefs Words taught this Doftrine , yet they do it in efle^l: •, fince the 
 
 Lib t c 8 fortner tells us, J\on eji Rex, uhi domimtur voluntas , ^ non Lex j that 
 ' is, he is not a King, when his own Will, and not the Law governs : And 
 
 Lib. 9. c. 9. in another place , Rex efi dum bene Kigit, Tyrannus diim Fopulum fibi 
 creditum v'wlenta opprim'it domlnatione \ and in the very fame place, ( as 
 you have alfo obferved ) he tells us, exsrcere debet Rex poteflatem Juris, 
 lit Vicarius ^ Mmifier Dei , potejhs out em injurlt Diaboli efl , non Dei 5 
 cu7n declinat ad injuriam Rex, Diaboli Minifler efi. Now, it what BraHon 
 fays be true, that the King, when he does Injury, is the Devils Minifter, 
 and not God's ; I cannot fee how he can then aft as God's Lieutenant \ or 
 why it is not as lawful to rtfift the Devil's Minifter, as the Devil himfelf And 
 as to what you alledge out of the lame Author, that there is no Remedy left 
 againtt the King, in cafe he does Wrong, or oppreffes any Man, but only Peti- 
 tion •, and after that, the only Remedy is expeUet Deum uhorem, in cafe he refufe 
 to do Right : This is to be only underttood of Remedy in ordinary Courts of 
 Juttice, and by ordinary Means \ for otherwife this Author would contradift him- 
 felf ; whereas he tells us exprefly, (as I have already noted out of Br.iiion and 
 \leta) in Ropulo Rej^endo Rix habct Superiores, Legem per quamf actus ejl Rex, €5* 
 Curiam /nam, viz. Comites ^ Barones, that is, the highett Court of Parliament, 
 called by way of Eminency, the Earh and Barons \ who, he here fays, debent ei 
 freenum impcnere, in cafe he tranfgrefs the Law -, and therefore if he go on ftill 
 wilfully to violate all the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom, by the lame Power 
 by which they may put this Bridle upon him, by the fame Power may they alfo 
 declare (in cafe of manifett and downright Tyranny,) that he has forfeited his 
 Crown •, and tho' they cannot depofe him as his Superiors, yet they may declare 
 that he hath by violating the Original Contrail between him and his People, ceafed 
 to be King , and that both themfelves and all his Subjefts are difeliarged of all 
 Allegiance to him. 
 
 And agreeable to this Opinion, the old Mirrour of Jiijiices tells us in the Place 
 I have ibrmerly cited at our Third Meeting, That tho' the King have no Peer in 
 
 the
 
 Dialogue the Tent If. t^orj 
 
 the Land, nererthelefs, if by his own Wrong, he offends againft any oF his Peo- 
 ple, none of thofe that iudge for him, (/. e. none of his Juftices) can be both 
 Judge and Party. Therefore it is agreeable to Right, that the King (hould have 
 Peers or Companions to hear and determine in Parliament all Writs and Complainti 
 concerning the Wrongs of the King, Queen, and their Children, of which Wrongs 
 they could not otherwife have common Right. Now can any one imagine that 
 any private Perfon might have Right againft the King, or his Queen, and Chil- 
 dren j and that there iliould be no Remedy left for the general OpprefTion, and 
 Violation of the Laws and Rights of the whole Nation in general, and that whe- 
 ther the King would or not ? For if it had lain in his Power to have hindred it 
 by dilfolving the Parliament, this Law had been wholly in vain. So that this will 
 lerve to anfwer your other Quotation out of BrnBon, concerning the King's 
 Charters, or Grants, (for fo 1 fuppole/^?<.7/i- is to be rendred in this Place) That 
 no private Perfons, no, not the King's Jultices, could in thofe Days take upon 
 them to difpute about, or interpret their Meaning ^ but it was to be left to the 
 King himfelf But how ? Not to his private Interpretation in his Chamber, or 
 Privy-Council, but to his Interpretation in his Great Council in Parliament •, which, 
 as I proved in our Fifth Meeting, confilted of all the great Officers of the Crown, 
 together with the Judges j who, the King being prelent, were in the Nature of 
 Counlellors or AfFefibrs to him ; and there all Matters not determinable in ordi- 
 nary Courts, were heard and determined ; and of this Nature were the King's 
 Charters ; tho' now that Power, fince the DiiTolution of that great Court, is 
 fallen partly to the Chancery, and partly to the KJng\ Bench, who do both of 
 them at this Day judge of the King s Grants, whether they are according to Law, 
 or not j antl can declare them to be void, if they are not. 
 
 M. This is right Rump-Par/iament DoBrine, or rather worfe, (if worfe can be,) 
 for whereas Bradjhjw , and thofe Mock- Judges, appointed by that pretended 
 JunUo, plainly aflerted an Inherent Right in the People of England, and the Par- 
 liament, as their Reprefentatives, to call the King to an Account, and to judge 
 and condemn him, as his Superiors ; you, to evade that Doftrine, as being ex- 
 prefly condemned both by the Firft and Second Parliament of King Churles II. in 
 the Statutes I have already cited, do fall into a much more dangerous Error. For 
 whereas thofe Men fuppoled it was only in the Parliament ( and in themfclves, as 
 the Commons of England), to judge and depofe the King, and to put him to 
 Death tor Tyranny -, you take this Power out of their Hands, and place it in every 
 private Perfon, which you call the diffufwe Body of the People ; which are not 
 only more fallible, but more dangerous Judges, as being more apt to Errors and 
 Miitakes. But if you would have better confider'd the Words and Meaning of 
 that Aft I have formerly cited of King Charles II. for attainting the Regicides, 
 you would there find thefe Words in the Preamble to that Aft exprefly againft '^ '"•^•'■•S' 
 you : ' Wliereby it is by both Houfes of Parliament declar'd, That by the un- 
 '■ doubted and Fundamental Laws of this j Kingdom, neither the Peers of this 
 ' Realm, nor the Commons, nor both together in Parliament, nor the People col- 
 ' leBivcly, or rcprefentatively, nor any other Perfons vohatfoever, ever had, have, 
 ' hath, or ought to have any Coercive Power over the Perlbns of the Kings of 
 ' this Realm.' Where you fee by this Aft, that all Power of judging or depofing 
 the King is exprefly renounced, not only for the Two Houfes of Parliament, but 
 for the whole People, whether colleftively, or reprefentatively, or for any other 
 Perfons whatfbever. But as for what you fay, that the King in cafe of a wilful 
 and conftant Violation of the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom, is not then de- 
 pofed by the People, but depofes himfdf, and thereby renounces the Government 
 over them ; this is a meet Evafion, which you, and thofe of your Party, have now 
 found out to make the King to have forfeited his Crown, without any Judgment of 
 the Parliament or People •, for who can believe a King will ever depofe himfelf^ 
 or do any Aft, befidesan exprcfs Refignation of the Crown, whereby he can ever 
 be conftrued to have parted with it. And therefore your Notion is no better 
 than the Fquivocation of the Jefuits \ who, if they are ask'd whether it be law- 
 ful or not for Subjefts to murder their Kings, will rell you by no means ; byt it is 
 ftill with this mental Refervation, that Princes excommunicated and depofed 
 by the Pope, do thereby ccafe to be Kings -, and therefore their Subjefts 
 being thereby difchaiged of all their Allegiance to them, they may not only be 
 
 refifted,
 
 ^04. BiBi. iQTHECA Politico. 
 
 refifted, but murdered by them as Tyrants and Ufurpers. Put the People here 
 inltead of the Pope, and fee if the Parallel does not hold exa£tly. 
 
 But as to your Argument, from a Neceffity of Refiftance, to a Neceflity of 
 laying the King afide, becaule he has forfeited all Rights to the Crown, upon 
 his perfifting in the Violation of the Fundamental Laws, and refufing to make the 
 People Satisfaction, and this upon the Account of I know nor what Original Con- 
 tracl^ for as to the Coronation Oath, I fee you dare not infift upon it-, fb that 
 I do not now wondei that the Gentlemen of your Principles are lb violent for 
 this Right of Rciilbnce, fince it is only in order to introduce your Darling 
 Do£lrine of the Peoples Power of depofing or laying afide their Kings ( as you 
 term it) whenever they (hall judge they turn Tyrants, and have thereby forfeited 
 their Crowns •, which is a moft dangerous Doftrine : And if it'fhould take EfFeSl, 
 Princes had need look about them, fince the People may make up fuch a Pre- 
 tence (for ought I know) even againft the very belt of them, that are now Regnant 
 in Europe. 
 
 But lure abfolute Monarchs ought not to be outed of their Crowns by ftrained 
 Confequences, or forced Interp'etations of Laws ^ therefore pray (hew me this Ori- 
 ginal ContraO: you lb much iniift upon, and thofe Conditions on which you iv^- 
 pofe our limited Monarchs hold their Crowns. I confels if you could (hew me 
 any Ciaufe in our Laws, or Ancient Forms of the Coronation of our Kings, as 
 yid. Hottoman there was at the Coronation of tlie Kings of Arragon, wherein the Chief Juftice 
 Franco-Gdlliai ^^ ^j^g behalf of the People plainly told him, that they made him King upon this 
 Condition, that they would have more Power than himfelf-, or that in the con- 
 ferring of the Regal Power, it was exprelly refer\'ed in what Cafes it Ihould 
 be lawful for them to refill the King, or to abfolve his Subjects of tneir Al'egiance, 
 as Bodin tells us it was exprelly inferred in the Coronation Oath of Hcr-y n. 
 Duke of Anjou ( afterwards King of I'rance, ) when he was made King of 
 Toland-^ that if he broke his Oath and violated the Laws and Privileges of rhe 
 ' Clergy and Nobility of Foland, then the People of that Kingdom fliould not 
 
 l-.e obliged to render him any Obedience : I grant rhen, that the Liberties of 
 fuch a People might be preferved. But the King that took upon him the Rfegal 
 Power upon fuch Conditions, would not be properly a Monarch, but an Inferior 
 Prince, liable to the Judgment of his People, whenever he really did, or that 
 they imagined he had thus violated their Laws, fince the Supreme Authority would 
 ftill refide in them. 
 
 But indeed the Cafe CGod be thanked ) is much otherwile with our Monarchs 
 who are Kings by Right of Inheritance, whether ever they take any Coronation 
 Oath, or not: hsYSr\gEivcard xhs Firft was, whilft he was in the Holy-Lani 
 alnioft Two Years before he could come over ro be Crown'd •, and King Hemy rhe 
 Sixth was not Crowned till the Eighth Year of his Reign, as well as of his Age. 
 But that our Kings are fo by Inheritance, and by the Laws of God and Man, pre- 
 vious to any Coronation Oath, or Confent of the People, is exprelly declared by 
 the A8; of Recognition of King JamesX. y\nd that Trealon could be committed againft 
 vu. ccokv him before he was Crowned, Sir Edvodrd Cooke tells us in Ca!v'in\ Cale, was the 
 fth Kiji). Opinion of all the Judges of England on the Plot for which Watfon and Clerk 
 the Priefts were Executed, and Sir Walter Rairlcigh Condemned. So that 
 what you have now utged from Reafon, or Authority of our Ancient Lawyers, 
 is either quite miftakcn, or elfe does not reach the Matter in Hand ; That it 
 cannot be made out from Reafon, is plain-, fince your whole Argument is 
 built upon this falle Foundation, that it is lawful in iome Cafes to refill the King, 
 as upon a notorious Breach of rhe Fundamenral Laws, and therefore it is ne- 
 ceflary alfo to declare him to have forfeited his Crown, if he perfill in this Vio- 
 lation 'j whereas I deny your AITumption, for I hold it utterly unlawful ro 
 refill on anv Pretence, or for any Caule whatfbever : And therefore it is impof- 
 fible for ibe King, who (as I faid but now) is an abfolute unconditioned Monarch, 
 to forfeit his Crown jfor any fuch Violation of your Original Contracts, or Fun- 
 damental Laws of Government. So that let me tell you, the Citations you 
 have brought out of Hiltory, as alfo Braclon and ¥leta, do not prove either the 
 one or the other of thele. For Firft, As to the Ciaufe in King Johns Charter con- 
 cerning Refiftance, and the Barons having a Power thereby to conltrain the King 
 to amend his Violations of it, by making War upon him, and that ihey fhould 
 
 not
 
 .^»3& 
 
 Dialogue the Thtpk. toi^ 
 
 not return to their former Allegiance tilKalF was redrefled ^ make the mbft of 
 it, it could be no more than a particular Conceflion for himfdf alone, and wis 
 not intended to reich his Succeflors, who are not at all mentioned in this 
 Clau(e. And that it was never intended to reach them, mjy i'urthci- appear 
 becaufe tliat this Claufe of Refittance is omitted out of all the fublequent 
 great Charters, that were granted by Henry III. or his Son Eivcari I. nnd irdtead 
 of this, it was thought a fufficient Security upon the latt C;onfirmjtion of 
 thefe Charters in the 57th Year of King /ff/7/7 III. for tlie Kings, Bidiops, Earls, 
 and Barons to agree, that the Archbilhop of CWrri^//';^, and all the reft 'of the' 
 Bilhops fhould declare all thofe that wilfully tranrgreffed or infringed the 
 great Charters in any Point, excommunicated ipfoJaBo, not excepcinr; riie King 
 himfelf, according to the Form which you will find in Mat. Bar^ , and 
 other Writers of this Tranfaclion. But for the Places you have cited out 
 of Brazen, there i? none of ihem reach rhe Point in Queftion ; for as to the 
 lirft, ^on eft Rex ubi dommatur voluntas iS' non Lex ; the Meaning of it is not 
 that he is no King, but that he dees not aft as a King, but a Tyrant, when he 
 thus governs by hi^- meer Will, and nor by Law. And to the fameEfifeit is the 
 nextPaflage, Rex eft, d.:mbene regit ; Tyrunnm^ diim?opi(Iumfibi tradldum violent a 
 opprimit dominutione ; ai I whch we readily gra.nt : Yet fince he is ftill an abfolute 
 Monarch, all Writers hold, .iiat his joveming wichouc or againft Law, cannot 
 give the Subjefts a Power to refill: him, much left can it be conftrued 'as a Re- 
 nunciation or Foifeiture of his Imperial Power. And therefore tho'it is true, that 
 as Bni&on and Fleta tell us, whillt he thus a£ts, he does not zEi as God's 
 Lieutenant, buttheDevil'sMiiiifter ; yet does it not follow that we may therefore 
 refilt him with carnal Weapon-^, or Force-, fince we cannot fo refill the Devil 
 himfelf And tho' he may in this Matter of Breach of the Law, which he has 
 Iworn to obferve, aft as the Devil's Miniiler, yet notwithflanding in all other 
 Points of Government, as in the Puniihment of Robbers, and other notorious 
 Offenders, and in the due Adminiftration of Juftice between Man and Man, 
 he ftill a8:s as God's Lieutenant ; and it is much better that we ihuuld have fome' 
 Civil Government, tho' mixt with Tyranny and Opprefl'ion, than tliat we ihould 
 fall into all the Mifchiefs and Confufions of a Civil War, nay, that Anarchy too 
 which has often been produced by it. And tho' I confefs the laft Place you have 
 madeufeof, to wit. Rex habet Superiorem, Legem, iff Curiam fiuvn, viz. Co- 
 mites (^ Baroncs, 6?V. who ought, if he tranfgrefs the Law, to put a Bridle upon 
 him i yet by this (as I have already proved) neither Bra[ion nor iieta could mean 
 any co-atlive Force, but only a Moral Reftraint upon the King by Petitions, Re- 
 monftrances, or denial of Aids, till he would be reform'd by fair Means : But 
 that it does not go farther, appears by the Parallel BruBon there makes be- 
 tween our Saviour Cbrift aiid ihi \ rgin Mary, who being both free from the 
 Law of Mofcs, yet voluntarily chofc to be obedient to it •, which fufficiently proves 
 that thole Authors never defigned that the Parliament fhould malve the King, by- 
 Force, or whether he would or no, to amend his Faults j fince that wa'^, as you 
 your felf muft acknowledge, againfi their very Inftitutlon ; fince both their Meet- 
 ing, and their Diflblucion, vvho'Iy depend upon the King's Will. 
 
 F. I confefs you have made a long and elaborate Speech in anlwer to my Opi- 
 nion, that the King may forfeit his C'roivn, that is, by his own A£l: ceafe ro be 
 King j but I fhall be able to give you :. fitisfaftory Anfwer to all this, if you 
 pleale to take it. In the firlt Place therefore I cannot but obferve, that all your Dif 
 courfe depends upon Two Principles, alike lalfe ; firft, that no ablblute Mo- 
 narch can by his own A6t forfeit or lole his Rigiit to the Government, without 
 a formal Refignation of the Crown: Secondly, That the Kings c£ England 
 have ever been fuch abfolute Monarchs. W hich if they are both great Miftakes, 
 all that you have laid on this Head falls of it felf NoW that a King, tho' an 
 abfolute Monarch, may dufach an Aft as fliall make a Forfeiture of his Crown, 
 without any folcmn Rcfi[^:iation of it, you your felf are forced to allow, in the 
 Two Cafes you have put, viz. iliat of fuch a Monarch becoming an open Enemy 
 to his People, and going about to deftroy them •, and that of his making over his 
 Kingdom to another, without the Peoples Confent. Now if the diftiiliveBody 
 of the People in an abfolute Government, can judge of thefe Two Cafes whenever 
 they haopen, without appealing to any general Council, or Aflembly of the whole 
 Nation ; 1 defire to know (for you have given me no Anlwer to this Queftion) 
 
 T t t Why
 
 50<5 B I B L 1 O T H E C A P O L 1 T I C .A. 
 
 Why it may not be aseafyand lawful for the the People to judge without a Par- 
 liament, when the Fundamental Laws of the Conftitution are generally and wilfully 
 broken and violated •, and that Violation perfifted in bythe King, for the Intro- 
 duclion of Tyranny and an Arbitrary Government ? Since the Rules I have laid down 
 to know it are but a few, and eafy to be known and judged of by the moft common 
 Capacities. 
 
 Now that a Superior or Governor may lofe all that Power and Authority he 
 once had, and that without any Aft of the Party governed, may appear by thofe 
 great and natural Relations of a Hulband and a Mailer ; in the former of which, 
 if a Hufband, in the State of Nature, u(e his Wife lb cruelly, that ftie can no 
 longer live or cohabit with him without Danger of her Life, I doubt not but fhe 
 may quit him •, and may alfo when (he is out of his Power, marry her felf again 
 to another Man that will ufe her better: So in the other Relation of a Mafter, if 
 fuch a one, in the Stare of Nature have a Slave, and will not allow him fufficient 
 Cloaths, Viftuals, or will beat him, or ule him fo cruelly for no juftCiuIe, that 
 he cannot enjoy the ordinary Comforts of L.ife ; no Man will deny but that fuch 
 a Slave may lawfully run away from fuch a Matter, and is at Liberty eirher to 
 live of himlelf, or to chufe another Matter if he think good : And this Inftance is 
 much more ttrong in an hired Servant, who is to ierve his Matter for iiich and fuch 
 Wages, or to do fuch and fuch Work, and no other; if in this Cafe the Matter 
 refufe to pay him his Wages, or put him to do other Work than what was agreed 
 upon between them, or inftead of an hired Servant will make him his ablolute 
 Slave ; in thefe Cafes no Man can doubt, but by this unjuft Treatment of the Ma- 
 tter, the Servant is difcharged of his Service, and may go whither he pleafes. And. 
 of theic Aftions. I have already proved at our firtt Meeting, the Party injured, 
 be the WMfe or Servant, mutt be the only Judges in the State of Nature, where 
 there is no Civil Power over them •, or elle if the Hulband, or Mafter, fhal! judge 
 for himlclf, the Wite or Servant is never like to get any Redrefs, Apply this to 
 the Caie of a limited or conditional King, and his Subjefts, and fee if it be not 
 abfolutely the fame, upon the total Breach of the Original Conttitution of the Go- 
 vernment ; and whether the Bond of Allegiance is not then as ablblutely dilTolved, 
 fcy the fole A8: of the Prince, without any authoritative Power in the Subjefts, as 
 it is in the Caie of fuch a Wife or Servant, by the fole Acl of the Hufband, or Ma- 
 tter, without any Superior Authority, in fuch Wife or Servant, to quit them, and 
 fo to difcharge themfeives of their Wedlock, or Service. 
 
 Therefore as to your Accufation, that my Notion is worle than that of the 
 Rump-Parliament, that put the King to Death ; I deny it. For they fuppofed that 
 there was no way of being rid of a Tyrannical King, but by making the People 
 (and conlequently the Parliament as their Reprefentatives) his Superiors or Judges, 
 to call him to an Account, and judge and punifh him for his Tyranny. This I 
 abhor as much as your felf, for I grant that a King cannot be properly the Supreme, 
 and at the fime Time own another Power above him, to punifh or call him to an 
 Account for his Milcarriages : But this Power that I inlift on, is not (as I have all 
 along told you) a Power of Puni(hment,but a Right of Refittance for Self-Defence,in 
 the Hrft Place; and of judging and declaring the King to have forfeited his Crown, 
 or Right to govern, if he perfitt in his Tyranny, without any Amendment or Sa- 
 tisfaftion given rb the People. 
 
 Nor is this Doctrine of the People's thus judging for themfeives, lb dan- 
 gerous as that of our late Commonwealth's-Men, who put this Right of judging 
 when the King had thus forfeited his Power, in the Parliament, of which they 
 thought thenifelves the only lawful or neceffary Members -, but indeed it was 
 not fb, for they ftill fuppofed him to be tlieir King, and yet at the fime Time 
 pretended to arraign him, as you may lee by the Title of tire Charge, or Indi£f- 
 ment they drew up againft him •, all which I grant to be altogether unjuft and 
 illegal. But it is not more, but far lefs dangerous, to put. this Power of judging 
 when the King has thus dilTolved the Government, and forfeited his Crown, 
 upon fuch notorious and wilfull Breaches of the Fundamenral Laws, in the 
 whole or diftufive Body of the People, rather than in the Parliament, or great 
 Council of the Naion. For as to your Afl'ertion, that the whole People arc more 
 fallible, and conlequently more dangerous Judges in fiich a Cafe, than the great 
 Council, I deny it ; fince all rhe Matters of Fa^t mutt be fo evident and notorious 
 to the Senfes and Feeling of the greater Part ot the People, that there can be no 
 
 Doubt
 
 ^Dialogue the Tenth. 507 
 
 Doubt or Denial of it, by any realbnable and iiidiflFerent Judges. And the great- 
 eit Part of the People are willing to live in Peace, without making any Difturbaiice 
 or Alteration in the Government, if it may be avoided. Whereas in any great 
 Aflembly or Council, there are many, and thole of the moft eloquent znd. 
 leading Men, who commonly carry the reft which way the pleafe, who are govern 'd 
 by Faftion, Ambition, or Self-Inrereft 5 and upon all, or Ibme of thefe, &c. may 
 be defirous to raife Civil Wars, or to declare the King to have done Things that 
 require Refiflance, or to have forfeited his Crown, when indeed he has not. 
 And for this the very long Parliament you mention is an evident Example, fince 
 you cannot but grant, that if the Difterences between the King and that Parlia- 
 ment had been freely left to the Judgment of the whole People, there had never been 
 a Civil War at all, nor had the King ever been beheaded ; fince it is notorioufly 
 known, that before the Parliament Itirr'd up the People to War, by feizing of the Mi- 
 litia, they were not at all inclined to it •, it being a reftlefs, faftious and ambi- 
 tious Party of Men on both Sides , who brought on the late Civil War. Not but 
 that I defer much to the Judgment of 3 free and unbyafled Parliament, who may 
 confirm and declare what the diffufive Body of tiie People have already juftly 
 done, to be right and lawful ; which may be as great a Satisfa£l:ion to private Men's 
 Conlciences in Civil Difputes, as a general Council is in Spiritual Controverfies 
 about Matters of Religion ; wherein, tho' fuch a Council cannot make new Articles 
 of Faith, yet we Proteftants hold that it may declare what were anciently be- 
 lieved. But if the People have a Right of judging during the Intervals of Parli- 
 ament, when the King has notorioufly broke the Fundamental^ Conftitution, and £0 
 may make Refiftance accordingly, (as I have already proved they have) fince other- 
 wile the King may abfolutely refuie ever to call any Parliament at all, or at leaft 
 may not let them fit till all Grievances are redrefled j ^o I cannot lee why they may 
 rot alio judge when the King has ^0 wholly broke his Original Contraft, 
 and fb cbftinately perfifted in it, as to create a Forfeiture of his Crown ■, fince th# 
 one is not hardei to judge of than the other. Nor is your Parallel between our 
 Opinion and that of the Jefuits at all true ^ unlefs you could alio prove, that I 
 had put the lame Authority in the People to depofe their Kings by a Right 
 conferred on them by God, as the Jefuits do in the Pope by fuch a pretended 
 Power, as fuperior to that of all the Monarchs in the World. But there is 
 nothing like it in my Hypothefis. Since I do neither allow the People to judge 
 or depofe the King, much lefs totput him to Death, tho' a Tyrant ; but only to 
 judge, and declare, when he has made fuch notorious Breaches on the Fundamen- 
 tal Conftitution, as do necefiarily imply a Forfeiture, or rather an implicit Ab- 
 dication of his Royal Power, and thereby depoies himlelf 
 
 But to come to the Set ond Point, to prove, that our Kings were never abfb- 
 lute Monarchs, or had the Ible and abfolute Authoiity over the People of this 
 Kingdom 5 and if ^0, that there was fomewhat ftill relervedby the People at the 
 firft Inftitution of the Government, and which the King by the Original Contraft, 
 when he or his Anceftors took the Crown, muft be ftill fijppoied as bound 
 to maintain. Now that there muft have been fuch a Thing as an Original Con- 
 traft (however light you pleafe to make of it) I thus make out. You may 
 remember that at our Fifth Meeting, I ptoved, that at the firft Inftitution 
 of Kingly Government in this Nation, it was not by Right of Inheritance, but 
 Eleftion. 2. That this Eleftion was made either by the whole Body of the 
 People in Perfon, or by their lawful Repreientacives in the great Councils, 
 or My eel Synods of the Englijh Saxons. 9. That this great Council did 
 then referve to themfelves thefe material Parts of Government : Firft, A Right 
 of meeting or aflembling at Hated Times of the Year, and that without any 
 previous Summons ftom the King. Secondly, A Right of propofing, or at leaiii; 
 of aflenting to all Laws that Ihould be made in all future Times. Thirdly, 
 A Right of granting general Aids or Taxes tor the People, and that without 
 their Confent no Taxes could be impofed. Fourthly, and as fublequent to all 
 thefe, a Right of agreeing to all Wars, and Treaties of Peace, to be made 
 with Foreign Nations. But the firft and lall: of thele, tho' I could prove to 
 have been conftantly obferved, during the Saxon Government, yet fince the 
 People have parted with'their Right in tliefe Matters, Ilhallnotnow ftifift upon 
 them, only that the People hue ftill a Right to Parliaments, once in Three 
 Years at leaft, and oftner if Necefiity require. 
 
 T t t J ■ Thefe
 
 5o8 
 
 B I B L I O T H E C A P O L 1 f I C A. 
 
 Tbefe then being the Original Conltitutlon? of the Kingdom, the King muft 
 have either entred into a Compact with the People, for the maintenance and ob- 
 iervation of thele fundamental Rights, or elfe it mult have been left to his Difcre- 
 tic'n, whether he would lliftet the People to enjoy them or not. If the latter had 
 been true, then I grant they had made him an Abfolute Monarch, and had left it 
 wholly at his Difcretion, whether they ihould enjoy thefe fundam.ental Rights and 
 Privileges or not. But it appears plainly to the contrary that they did not, for I 
 can prove (if need be) that the Succefiion to the Crown v. as at firft Elective, and 
 not Hereditary. Now in all F.lev-'tive Kingdoms of the Gothkk Model, it is very- 
 well known that their Kings were fo far From being abfolute, that the AiTembly of 
 FitateSjOr great Councils of thofe Kingdoms, refer ved to themfelves a Power of De- 
 pofing their Kings for Tyranny and Mif government j as I have already proved 
 was trequently done, not only in England, but in all the Neighbouring Kingdoms, 
 without any Imputation of Rebellion. And I have alfo given you a Quotation out 
 of the ancient Mirror of fuHices, which tells us, that upon the Election of the 
 firft King of this whole Ifland, " The Princes that chofe him then caufed him to 
 Mncur. r- 8. « fwear, that he would maintain the Holy Chriftian Faith with all his Power, 
 " lliould Rule his People juftly without regard to any Perlbn, and (hould be obe- 
 " dient to fuffer Right or Juftice, as well as others, his Subjefts. And if this 
 '* were not an Original Contract, I know not elfe what to make of it. 
 
 And now that upon a Failure to perform thefe Things, a Forfeiture of the Cfown 
 would follow, and that thereupon he would ceale to be King •, Pray fee thofe an- 
 cient Laws in hambard^s Saxon Laws, and Sir H. Spe/mans Councils, which go un- 
 Sfel.r.md. ^gj. jj^g 'Name of King Edward the Confeflbr's •, (though they were made as Hoven- 
 elf! 6. Hnven- dt:n fliews US, in the time of King Edgar his Grand fither) where among thofe 
 dens Ann.i!s Laws of King Edward that were confirmed by K. William \. this is one .- Rex 
 Fart 2,p. 6o8. atitem qui eft vicariM fnmmi Regis ad hoc ejl conftirmw, ut Regnumterrenum^ G? 
 fopulum Don/ini, (S> fuper omnia Jan[{am veneretur Ecclcfiam, iSf ab injuries de- 
 fendat, i^ malfficos ab ea eveUat, ©' penitns difperdat, quod nifi jecerit nee nomen 
 Regis in eo confiabit ; that is, not fo much as the Title of King fhall remain to 
 Of' 24- him. And in the fame Senfe BraBon is to be underftood, in his Second Book ; EJl 
 eriun Corona Regis facere Juftitiam, & Judicium, iff pacein tenere, fine quibus con- 
 fifiere non pot eft, nee teneri ; which may be thus rendered. That it is of the Royal 
 Office or Dignity, ('for fo I conftrue Corona Regis) to do Jultice and Judgment, 
 and to maintain Peace ; without the Obfervation of which, his Crown or Royal 
 / Dignity cannot hold nor confift. So that this is but an Explanation of my Senle 
 
 of that other Paflage I have already cited out of this Author, Ncn eft Rex uhi do- 
 minatur voluntas, i!f non Lex, i. e. He is not a King, ("that is, ceafes to be a 
 King) when his Will, and not the Law Govetns ; and he-gives the Reafon for it 
 in another Place, fpeaking ot the King, who was not then Hereditary, for, ad hoc 
 ele8u? eft Rex, tf conftitutus, tit facial Juftitiam univerfis. 
 
 Therefore if he thus totally deviate from the End ot his Creation, his Autho- 
 rity ceafes, and is at an End. So that nothing is 'plainer, than that our Ancient 
 Laws have declared the King to have lolt the Title and Right of being King, in 
 cafe of notorious Tyranny, and Breach of this Original Contraft -, and that the an- 
 cient Lawyers BraBon and Fleta, gave the fame Interpretation of this Law, is alfb 
 as plain. 
 
 So that what you have faid to evade or mifinterpret the Authotity of thefe Au- 
 thors, as to the Points of Non-Refiftance dnd Forfeiture of the Regal Power, will 
 fignify nothing j for as to what you fay of that Claufe of Rehltance being left 
 out in all fubiequent Charters after this of K. Johns, and therefore that it was' no 
 binding Law to his Succeflbrs, I do not deny the Matter of Fa£t, that it was fd 
 omitted ^ yet that does not prove, that the whole Nation ever renounced their 
 Right of Refiftance in the Cafes mentioned ; fince as they exercifed it before that 
 Charter was given, fb alfo they continued to do it in the Reigns of his Succeflbrs ; 
 as I have fliown in the Hiilory I have given you of this Refiftance atour laft Meet- 
 ing. And therefore conftanc Practice is the belt Interpreter of this Fundamental 
 Law. As for my E\afion of that Place of BraBon, Kon eft Rex, iffc. I have fuffi- 
 ciently coyfirmed my Senle of it, by this Law of K. Edward, as alfo by other 
 Pafiages out of this Author \ and I will leave it to any Man to judge which is the 
 mott genuine Interpretation of this Place, He is not a King, Ahat is, ceafes to 
 be fo) when his Will, and not the Law Rules , or, That he dees not aB as u Kjn£, 
 
 as
 
 Dialogue the Tcuth. toQ 
 
 as you interpret it. But you grant fuch a King is really a Tyrant, yet tnay not be 
 refifted, nor can lofe his Power. And vvliy ? Becaufe it is abfolute and unconditio- 
 nal. This is to take that for granted which we deny •, for he that hath not the full 
 and fole Power of making Laws, and impofing Taxes, is not abfolute Monarch ^ 
 but the King of England has iieither of thefe ; Ergo, ijfc. And if this be lb, lee 
 what Grctius lays exprefly of fuch a Prince (as high as he is for the Non-refiftanee ui. i. cr^.n, 
 of Abibluie Monarchs.) Si Rex partem habeat fummi Imperii, partem alteram popu- ScU. 1 3. 
 liis, aiit fenatiis, Regi in partem non fu am involunti vk jujla oppcni poterit, quia 
 eatenus Impcrium non halnt ; quod loeum habere cenfeo, etiamji dictum Jit, belli 
 poteftatem penes Regem jore \ id enim de Bello externa intelligendum efl, earn atio- 
 qui quifquvs imperii fummi partem habeat, non pojjet non jus habere earn partem 
 tiiendi, quod ubi fit, poteft Rex ettam fuam partem belli jure amittere : Where 
 you fee, that the Opinion of this learned Author is, That a limited King may not 
 only be refitted in Cale he invade that Part of the Supreme Power that does not 
 belong to him., but may alfo lofe his own Share of the Empire by Right of War. 
 Now further, that our ancient Lawyers believed, that our King had not the whole 
 Power, or 7at^'i<n/HK in their Hands, appears by that PaflTage fo often cited out of 
 BraBon, Rex habet fupertores. hegem per quam faUus eft Rex, & curiam Baronum, 
 iSfc. which you ftrive to evade, by fuppofing I know not what Moral Superiority, 
 which the Court might only exercife towards the King by Remonflrance, or Peti- 
 tion, in letting forth his Deviations againft a Law. But what if he had refufed 
 to hearken to them ? Why then, fay you, all the Remedy was expe[tet Deum 
 Vltorem > Now if this was all, then every private Subjeft had fuch a Moral Supe- 
 riority s for BraBon lavs of them, locus erit Jupplicationi, ut faBu7n corrigat, ^ 
 emendet, quod Ji non jecerit, ijfc. then he was to look for God to revenge it. But 
 BraSon and Eleta are more exprefs in this Point, and lay, that this Curia Baronum 
 were not only !tocii but M.ig'ifiri ; for lay they, qui habet Socium, habet Magiftrum: 
 So that furely this Bridle muft have been fomewhat more than bare Prayers, Re- 
 monftraiices, or denial of Money ; nor is your Reafon to the contrary cogent, 
 fince it is only drawn from a Simile between Chrift, the bleffed Virgin, and the 
 Law of Mofes. Now you know very well that Similes are not Arguments, nor 
 can any Argument be drawn from them. But indeed it plainly appears by what 
 follows in Bracicn, that hefuppofed this Power to be Ibmewhat more than meerly 
 Moral ; for he there lays, that if the People cry to God for want of Juftice 
 againft the King, he uill fend for a Foreign Nation, who (hall come and deftroy 
 both them {viz. the Barons) and their King ; which would have been a vain Threat, 
 if He might have chofen whether he would be reformed by them or not. 
 
 And that King James the Firit. himlelf was fatisfied of this Original Contrail, 
 may appear by his own Words, in a Speech to both Houfes of Parliament, 1609 i 
 where he exprefly tells them, that the King binds himfelf by a double Oath to 
 the Obfervation of the fundamental Laws of his Kingdom ; Tacitly, as being a 
 King, and fo bound to Proteft, as well the People as the Laws of his Kingdom -, 
 and Exprefly by his Oath at his Coronation ^ fo as every King in a fettled King- 
 dom, is bound to obferve that Paction made to his People by his Laws, in framing 
 the Government as agreeable thereunto, according to that Paftion which God 
 made with l\oah after the Deluge, i^c. 
 
 To conclude ^ if the fiift King of the Saxon Race took the Crown upon Condition 
 to maintain the Fundamental Laws and Conftitution of the Government, and that 
 he was never invelfed with an abfolute Defpotick Power of making Laws, and 
 tailing Money at his Pleafure ^ but the People referved to themfelves their Share of 
 both, at the firft Inititution of the Monarchy ■■, all thofe Princes that claim by Vir- 
 tue of their Right, are tied by this firlt Original Contraft, whether they ever 
 took any Coronation Oath, or not. Nor though the Crown is now become no more 
 F,le£live, does it at all alter the Condition or the Limitation of his Anceftors, as 
 long as the prefent King holds by, and under the fame Tide, and by vertueof the 
 fame Original Contraft ^ lince, as it was by the Peoples Will that it was at firft 
 Kleftive, lb it was alfo by their Will, that it became fucceflive ^ fince every En- 
 tail of the Crown upon Heir';, can only proceed from the People's Agreement or 
 Conlent to maintain it as a Handing Law j or elfe every King might alter it at his 
 Pleafure. 
 
 a As
 
 ^lo BibltothecaPolitica. 
 
 As fbr your next Reply, That if we refift the King, becaufe when he turns Ty- 
 rant he acts not as God's Lieutenant, but the Devil's Minifter ■■> for that iho' it is 
 lawful to refill the Devil, yet we cannot u(e carnal Force againft him : This Af- 
 fumption is precarious 5 fince if we can fuppofe the Devil does ever ufe carnal 
 Force, we may alio repel the lame by Force 5 or elle thole famous Stories of 
 Witches and Spirits being afraid of, and flying from naked Swords, are all falfe. 
 I beg your Pardon for fpeaking fo long, which I could not well contraft into lels 
 Ccmpafs, without pafiing by your Arguments and Anfwers to my Quotations. 
 
 M. You have indeed outdone me in making long Speeches ; but I have heard 
 you patiently, becaufe I cannot deny but that you have argu'd fairly, had it been 
 upon a right Foundation •, but fince it is not, pray give me Leave to fet you right, 
 and fhew you, that notwithftanding all you have urged to the contrary, yet all 
 cur Kings fince the Conqueft were abfolute Monarchs ^ and if lb, not only irre- 
 filtible upon any Breach of their Coronation-Oaths, but alfo have been invefted 
 with fuch an abfolute, uncondition'd Power, as can never be loft or forfeited up- 
 on account of the higheft Afls of Tyranny. But before I come to my Proofs, give 
 me Leave to lay fomewhat to thole laft Citations you have brought from King 
 EdwunVs Laws, as alfo from BraBon and Fleta. Firft, As to that Law you have 
 cited, that pafles under the Title of one of thole confirmed by King William the 
 Conqueror •, give me Leave to tell you, that I much queftioa whether it be 
 genuine, and not foifted in by Ibme of the Monks tliat had the kee^/iiig of the Co- 
 pies of thole Laws in their Monafteries, after the Original ic lelf was no more to 
 be found. For in the firft place, I muft obferve, it does not lavour of that abfolute 
 Power that I take King WiUiam to have acquired by his Sword, to own his Royal 
 Dignity forfeitable \ or that he could lofe the Name of King upon any Account 
 whatfcf-ver •. as this pretended Law feems to intimate, by thele Words, nee nomen 
 'Regis in eo conftahit. Nov*? that it ftrongly favours of the Ignorance of the Monks, 
 I (hall lliew you by the very Law it felf, wherein the chief^ Points fbr which the 
 King muft lofe his Royal Title, is not only if he does not defend his Earthly 
 Kingdom, but alio the People of God, that is, the Clergy •, and alio fhall fail to 
 reverence Holy Church, that is, the Bifhops and Clergy \ of whom the Monks 
 looked upon tiiemfelves as the chief^ and moft confiderable Part •, as alio, if he 
 fail to deftroy Fvil-doers, (that is, Hereticks out of the Church), then, forlboth, 
 not lo much as rhe Name of King muft remain to him. Now, pray fee the 
 Conlequence of this, and whether you will own this to be u Fundamental Law 
 of the kingdom •, for then at this rate, Henry VIIL who fupprefled Monafteries, 
 and took away Abby-Lands, and let injurious Perlbns fpoil the Church by Sacri- 
 lege ■, and alfo all other Princes who have not extirpated thole, who, when this 
 Law was fuppoled to have been made, would have palTed lor Hereticks, (that is, 
 all Proteftants,) nruft have all forfeited their Royal Dignities : And confequently 
 the Pope did Uenry VIII. and Queen Elizabeth no Wrong, if in Purfuance of this 
 Law, he excommunicated them, and declared they had forfeited their Crown ; 
 fince this Law fays, that Pope John teftify'd this Truth, quod nomen Regis pcrdet. 
 But nothing makes out more evidently to me the Forgery of this pretended Law, 
 than the notorious Faults there are in the Chronology, where the Sentence of Pope 
 John againft King Childerick, is mention'd as an Evidence to make it good ; where- 
 as indeed, it was not Pope John, but Zachnry, who gave this Sentence. But in 
 Hovenden's Copy of this Law, there is yet a more grols Error •, for it makes 
 7epin, and h\s Son Charles, to have wit to King ri/;//w;« the Baftard. upon their 
 bearing this definitive Sentence ib wifely given concerning the Title of a 
 King •, all which is fo notorious a Piece of Folly and Ignorance, that it needs no 
 other Confutation. But granting that Parr containing the Law it felf, to be 
 genuine, it does not at all fet fcrth your Original Contract, or make it a Forfei- 
 ture in the King to do any of thofe ihings which you fuppofed to be main Parts 
 of the Fundamental Conftitution ; only fays in general, ' That unlefs he defend 
 
 • his Earthly Kingdom, and the People of God, and reverence Holy Church, by 
 ' defending it from iniuriousPerfons, and removing Evil-doers from it, the Name of 
 
 * the King will not belong to him.' Now all this the moft abfolute Monarch in 
 Chijlcndom, even the King of Yrance himfelf, will fay he performs xo a Tittle. 
 And therefore there is no fear of a Forfeiture for any King, tho' never fo Abfo- 
 lute and Tyrannical, uponthefe Terms, unlefs he will do that which I think he is 
 too wife ever to go about, to deftroy \i\% People wilfally, or to IjII upon the 
 Church and Clergy. ' In
 
 Dialogue the Tenth, 1 1 
 
 In Anfwer to your firft Authority out of the Mirror^ I think it oF no Authority, 
 fince that Author writ in the Time o^ Edmard I. and II. long after the S^ixon Times ^ 
 and befides, his Relation ot Fony Princes chufing a King, founds like a Fable, 
 there being no fuch thing mention'd in rhe Saxon Chronicle, or any other ancienc 
 Hiftorian. And as for the reft of the Places you have cited out of Briitlon and 
 FIctj, to prove this Notion of a Forfeiture, I muft freely tell yoii, that they do 
 not feem to me to come up to the Point for which you bring them ; for as to that 
 Place you have cited out of Bra[ion, Non eft Rex, h'c. you and I differ about the 
 Senfe of it -, and I fee no Realon why I may not (till keep my own Opinion. 
 The other Place I contefs feems more exprefs, viz. ' That it is the Crown or Dig- 
 ' nity of the King to do Jultice or Judgment, without which it cannot hold or 
 ' conGft 5' This alio does refer only to fuch Juftice and Judgment as the King is 
 to give and diftribiite between Man arid Man, without any Relation to his own 
 A£tions towards his Subje£ts. And if a Prince will not do this, either by himfelf 
 or Deputies, I grant, his Crown or Royal Dignity cannot long fubfift to be main- 
 tain'd j fince this will bring all things to utter Confufion, fo that Strangers will 
 foon be encourag'd to invade rhe Kingdom j nor will the People be at all con- 
 cem'd to aflift fuch a King againft them, fince they can be in no worfe a Condi- 
 tion under a Stranger than under him. But as for the ancient Superiority of the 
 Law and Court of Barons, there mention'd, to be over the King, that ftill 
 feems to me to be only a Moral, and not a Coercive Power ; fince the Law alone 
 is but a dead Letter, and can force no Man of it felf^ without the Power of Men 
 to fupport it ■, and there can be no Interpreters of this Law but the King, and his 
 Judges out of Parliament ; and the Parliament fitting, that alone, that is, not the 
 Houfe of Peers or Commons alone, or both together j but the King, Lords, and 
 Commons, jointly, that can interpret Laws. But let the Power of this Court of 
 Barons have been anciently what it will, it feems to relate only to the Peers and 
 Tenants in C'piie, and not to the Commons at all, fince none ever heard them 
 tailed the King's Companions : And as tor any Coercive Power in the Two Houies 
 over the King, I have already fhewed you, that the two firft Parliaments of King 
 Charles II. have exprelly renounced it for themfelves and the whole Nation 5 and 
 therefore I muft ftill ftick to my firft Conclufion, That the King is not to be refitted 
 upon any Terms whatfoever, neither can forfeit his Royal Dignity by certain gene- 
 ral, antiquated Laws ^ or by the forced Interpretations of fome doubtful, oblcure 
 Faflages in our ancient Lawyers. But I fhall now proceed to prove, — - — 
 
 ¥. I pray give me Leave to reply to what you have now faid, before you go to 
 any new Head. Firft, In anfwer to what you have now objected againft the Au- 
 thority of that Ancient Law-Book, the Mirror, I think you have no Reafon to ob- 
 jeO; againft it, lince the Author is fuppofed by our Antiquaries, to have perufed 
 many ancient Saxon Laivs, that are now loft j as you may fee in thole that relate 
 to King Alfred^ Proceedings againft his corrupt Judges, and other things. Then as 
 to what you object againft the Genuinenefs of this Law of Edtvard the Confef- 
 Ibr's, it is certain, that it is found in thefe very Words, with very little Alteration, 
 in all the Copies of K. Edward s Laws-, only in Hovenden, inltead^of Rex quia Vtca- 
 rius fummi Regis, it is, Rex atqueVicarius ejus; which is no great Difference, and 
 may relate to the King's Lieutenant, in his Abfence beyond the Sea, for which there 
 was often occafion for our Kings, when Dukes of T^ormandy, after their Acceflion 
 to the Crown. And therefore tho' I grant ibme Clergymen (they having then all 
 the Learning of rhe Nation among them) might draw up this Law into the Form it 
 was made, and fo render it as advantageous for the Church as they could 5 yet that 
 this Claufe was not the Addition of any ignorant Monk (as you fuppole) will ap- 
 pear from this. That it is recorded by Hovenden, who lived and wrote about a hun- 
 dred Years after it was thus confirmed : And we cannot fuppofe all the Copies of 
 thefe Laws to be loft, and one fingle Copy to be left, and corrupted in fo Ihort a 
 Time. And tho' it is true, this Law is not found among thofe fet forth in the laft 
 Edition of Jngulph, yet does it not therefore follow, that there was no fuch Law 
 ever made or confirmed by KingH^///ww ■, fince thofe Laws in Ingulph leem to be 
 more like an Epirome of the criminal and feudal Laws, confirmed or added by that 
 King, than an exaft Body of all rhe Laws of the Confeffor ; thole having been writ 
 in Latin, and confirmed by King Wil/iam in the Fourth Year of his Reign ; whereas 
 this Copy was publilhed in Frctich, fur the life of the King's Norman and I'rencb 
 Subjctts, and that long after King William % coming x.o ihe Crown ^ for Ingulph 
 
 3 ' tells
 
 512 B 1 B L I O T H E C A P O L 1 T I C A. 
 
 i^lls us, ' That after Doffirfd try -Book was made, he brought thofe Laws down 
 ' from London in the Trench loiigue, (in which they were put forth, left he, or 
 ' any ot his Monks, fhould thro' Ignorance, happen to oftend his Royal Majefty, 
 ' by an unwary Breach ol- them).' Bur as for the Faults in the Chronology in the 
 Story of Charles and Tej'w, in all the belt Copies of thefe Laws, thi.s Letter is 
 faid to be written by them to the Pope, and not to King WUfuwi at all ^ and then 
 it will be at mcft but a Mif-nomcr. or Error of the Tranicriber, putting in Pope 
 JoTn for Ziuhiiry. But if you will have my Opinion of this Matter, 1 do freely 
 grafit, that this Paffage in the Law concerning thele Princes writing to the Pope 
 about the Depofition qx YJmgCbildenck, might be an Addition ot thofe Monks 
 ■who firft tranlcribed tliole Laws, and madelhort Gloffes upon them ; and yet the 
 Law it felf might be genuine iiotwithltanding •. and it the Law it felf be fo, it 
 muft be undciitood in a larger Senfe rhan what you would put upon it: For fure 
 by defending of his Kingdom, mult be meant, not only the bare defending it 
 againtt Foreign Enem.ies, but alio againft the Wrongs and Oppreflions of his own 
 Miniiters and Officers •, wh'ch if he fuifer by a wiltul Negligence, or on let Fur- 
 pofes, he will as much oftend againft this Law, as if he had done it himfelf, and 
 fb will lie under the fame Penalty. Much leis will thefe PalTages concerning de- 
 fending the Clergy, and reverencing the Church, render this Law either void, or 
 impracticable ; for fupocfe you take Popa/us Del, in the itriftett Senfe, to lignify 
 the fam.e with Serviis Dei, (which I grant always to fignify the Clergy in our ancient 
 Saxon Laws and Charters) yet all this does not make this Law void and imprafti- 
 cable ; firce lure, maintaining the VVorfhip of God is one Part of the Duty of a 
 Chriltian King -, nor can this be well pertbrm'd without fome Men fet apart for 
 that Purpofe, and tha: liiefe Men cannot attend their Sacred Function, without be- 
 ing maintained in their jult Rights and Liberties -, neither is it any Conlequence, 
 that thefe Clergy mult always confift of the very fame Orders of Men, as when 
 this Law was made. So thar fuppole the Monks were then held as a neceflaiy Part 
 of this Clergy, Will it ioWov^, that it was not lawful for the State to alter or take 
 them away ? For then no Religious Order that was then in being, could liave been 
 fuppreffed afterwards ^ which noPapift will fay. So that the Meaning of th'sClaule 
 in the Oath is no more, than that the King fhould from time to time defend all 
 fuch Clergymen, llich as the Nation, (that is, the Legiflative Power) fliould think 
 uleful and neceffary for God's Service, without being tied to any certain Orders 
 or Degrees of Men, provided thole that are particularly ordain'd by Chrift and his 
 J\poftles, for the Service of his Church, be inviolably maintained and prelerved. 
 So liktwile for the Church it felf, granting, (which may alio be queftion'd) that 
 at theTirne when this Law was made or confirmed, Popery was come to its Height, 
 and lb was the cftablii'if d Religion of the Nation ; and conlequently that by the 
 Church here mcntion'd, was then to be underftood the RomiJJ} Church or Religion, 
 (as we now call it) •, yet does it not follow, that the King by this Law is to forfeit 
 his Crown, if he ever alter it ; for the Law only f .ys in general, that he fliall re- 
 verence the Church of God, that is. That Profcflion of Chriltianity, or Way, 
 which he and the great Council of the Nation fhall, upon the moft mature Judg- 
 ment and Deliberation, think to be fo. So that all that can be deduced from this 
 Claufe, is. That the King fhall reverence Holy Church, that is, maintain thePr<?- 
 feflion of Religion, which fhallbeeftal)li(hedby Law, andlliall make no Alteration 
 therein, without the general Content of the whole Nation in their great Councils or 
 Synods, confilting as well of Ecclefiaftical as Secular Members -. And lb likewife 
 he fhall defend it from all injurious Perfons, that would invade the Rights of the 
 Church and Clergy contrary to Law, and fhall root out all Evil-doers, that is, all dc- 
 bauch'd and wicked ProfclTors oi' Chriftianity •, for fo jMi/eJicos properly fignifies, 
 and not Hereiicks, as you would render it, (who are not Evil-doers, but falfe Be- 
 lievers) -, or if it fh.ould be interpreted for Hereticks, it is not thofe that then might 
 be looked upon a? fuch, but what the prefent Church fliall fo determine ; or ellewe 
 muft own the former Church to have been infallible in all her Determinations. So 
 that I can fee no Reafon upon the whole Matter, why this Law fhould now become 
 void ci unprofitable by reafon of any Alterations in Religion, or of thofe Men that 
 were then to exercife the Functions of it, as long as all the neceffary and material 
 Parts of both are preferv'd, as they are to this Day ^ for otherwife this Law would 
 have tied up the King and Nation from making any Retbrmation in Religion, tho' 
 never lo much for the better j or tho' the National Church kad never lb much re- 
 quired
 
 Dialogue the Tenth. 5 i 2^ 
 
 quired it, which I fuppofe no true Proteftant will affirm. y\.s fur the Authority of 
 that Ancient Law-Book, calfd The Mirror of Juflkes^ I think I may very well infift up- 
 on it, notwichftanding any thing you have urg'd to the contrary. 
 
 But as for thofe Paflages out of" Bra&on and Flcta, which I have brought to 
 confirm and fupport our Senfe of this Law, and which you labour to ;i\oid, by 
 putting too general and loofe an Interpretation upon them ^ whereby you would 
 make them only to fignify, that the King is to maintain right Judgment and Juftice 
 between Man and Man, without which his Royal Dignity cannot hold or fubfift : 
 But that he is not obliged upon any Penalty to obferve the fcime Things in relpe£l 
 of himfelf, or his own Officers or Minifters; this is all one, as if a Shepherd, 
 who had a Flock of Sheep committed to his Charge by the Owner, having fiift 
 tleeced, and then killed and deftroyed them, and converted the Wool and Carcafles 
 to his own private Ufe, Ihould then tell the Owner, that he was indeed to defend 
 the Flock irom Thieves, Wolves and Foxes, but that it was no parr of his Bar- 
 gain to keep them fafe untouched from himfelf, or his Servants, or fo much as his 
 own Dogs. But that the Senfe of Brdton and Ylcta is quite otherwife, fufficient- 
 ly appears by thefe Places I have now cited 5 and if thole will not do, pray confi- 
 der ihefe that I fhall here add. For EraUon alfo, in the fame Chapter, tells us, ^'^- ?• "■• ?• 
 Ai. hoc creatus eji [Rexl & ekRus^ ut Juftitinm jaciat un'iverfis. And he alfb 
 there recites the ai.cient Coronation Oath in thefe Words : Y^ehet enim \Rcx\ in 
 Coronatione fua nomine Jefu Chrifti h<tc tria fromittere Vopulo Jibi fubdito, Impri-- 
 mis,fe effe pr£cepturum, il^ pro viribus opcm impcnfurutn nt omni Vopulo Chrifliano 
 vera pax omni fuo tempore ohfcrvetur. 2. Ut rapiuitates iS' omnes iniquitutes in- 
 terdicat. ?. Ut in omnibus Judiciis £quitatem prxcipiat, & jnifericordium^ in in- 
 dulgeat cifiiam mifencordiam clemens Deus. Now, how can a King obferve this 
 Oath, that robs the People of their Goods, and railes Taxes contrary to Law ? Or 
 how an he continue a King , who violates all the Ends of his Inftitution ? From 
 all which it appears, .liat by this Jiifiice and Judgment muft be meant, not only 
 the King's own obferving juftice towards his People, hut alio his prohibiting his 
 inferior Minifters an J (.yiiicers from fpoiling and opprefling them. And that no 
 Prerogative can juftify him in the doing otherwife, is as evident from another 
 Place in BraBon, where he tells us. That Regia potejfof Juris eft , non Injuru^ ©' 
 nihil almd pot c ft Rex nifi quod jure poteft. But I'leta is fomewhat larger on this 
 Head, tho' to the fame Eftefl, when fpeaking of the King's Power or Prerogative, '" *^' '^' 
 he lays thus-, Et licet omnes potentia pnecellat, cor tamen ipfms in manu Dei cj]e de- 
 bet, ^ ne pctentia fua maneat injnenata fr.enum imponat temperanti.ty t!f lora mo- 
 derantidi \ ne trahetur ad injuriam, quia, nihil aliud^ hoc eji in terra, nifi quod dc 
 Jure poteft : nee obftat quod dicitur, quod Frincipi placet legis habet poteftatem^ 
 quia Jequitur cum lege Regia, qas de ejus Imperio lata eft, non quicquid dc volun- 
 tate Regis tantopere prsjumptum eft, fed quod Magnatum fuorum confilio Rege au- 
 thoritatem prsfiante, iff habitafuper hoc deliberatione, & trailatu 7-eBe fuerit defi- 
 -nitum. Which not only Ihews, that our Ancient Knglifh Lawyers in this agreed 
 with the Civil Law, and gave the fame Account of the Original of the Royal 
 Power as that Law does, viz. that it was conferred by the People of Rome, on the 
 Roman Emperor, by the Rex Regla, mentioned in the old Civilians I have former- 
 ly cited i and alfo fhews, that our Ancient Lawyers fuppofed that by a like Law 
 among us, the Royal Authoricy was originally derived from the Confent of the 
 People of England ; without whole Advice and Aflent, included in that of their 
 Reprelentatives, here called Confilium Magnatum {Confdium being taken for Conlenc 
 in this place, as I have piov'd it often fignify'd) no Law can ever be made. Now, 
 if the King will not be ruled by this Bridle of Moderation, this Author, as well 
 as BraBon, tells us. That the King then hath his Superiors, the Law and his Court 
 of Barons, who were as Matters to put this Bridle upon him. But admit, he 
 will run away with this Bridle between his Teeth ; all this had fignified nothing, 
 if there be no other Remedy left us, belides bare Supplication or Remonitrances to 
 the King of his Duty •, and he might have diftolved the Parliament before ever it 
 could have any Time to do either the one or the other. 
 
 To conclude ; That the King was at firlt elected and created for this End, that 
 he may do Juftice to all Men ; and that this Jultice does not only concern his 
 maintaining Juftice between his Subie£ls one towards another, but alfb in relpeft of 
 himfelf, his Children and Subordinate Officers and Minifters that aft by his Com- 
 miflion, appears by what follows in Bratlon, after the King's Coronation-Oath: 
 
 U u u Poteftaf
 
 5 1 /]. B I B L 1 O T H E C A P O L I T I C A. • 
 
 FoteJIas (Jcil. Regis.) itag; Juris eft non injurlt, £?' cuvi ip/e Jit Author Juris , Kan 
 debet indc injui-iarum najci occajw^ i^ etiam qui ex ojficio juo alios prohibere neceffe 
 hiibet, id ipfum in propria pcrfona cominittere non debet. So that it is plain, that 
 jf he either command or permit thele wilful Injuries generally all over his King- 
 dom, he fails to defend it according to King Edward\ Laws; and if he thus fail 
 to defend it, he thereupon loles or forfeits his very Title or Office of a King, 
 fince he cannot keep or hold his Crown, or Royal Dignity s for without Juftice it 
 cannot fubfiff, and this by the Original ContraQ. Since upon whatever Terms the 
 fivft King of this Race took the Crown, upon the fame Terms all his Pofterity 
 who fuc'ceed either by Eleftion or Right of Blood, by virtue of that firft Com- 
 paft, are to hold it under the like Penalty of a Forfeiture, in Cafe of a wilful 
 Negleft or Violation of their Duty. 
 
 M. I confefs you have made a fpecious Proof of this Original Contra£l you fo 
 much talk of, and more than ever I thought could have been faid for it : But let 
 it be what it will, it is certain, in the firil place, that whatever coercive Power the 
 Two Houfes of Parliament might pretend to when Bra[ton wrote, they have fo- 
 lemnly renounced it in Two fucceffive Parliaments in the Reign of King Charles 
 the lid ; therefore I Ihall not infift any longer upon Old Antiquated Laws, or Ori- 
 ginal Contrails, which are not direftly expreUed, but confequently deduced at 
 beft. But I mutt now tell you, that let the firft Inftitution of this Government have 
 been what it will in the Saxon Times, and what Original Contraft foever you may 
 pleafe to fancy between them and their Subjects ■, yet this was all gone, and out 
 of doors, by that abfolute Conqueft which King William the Ift made of this King- 
 dom f^r himfelf and his Heirs, who do not at all claim under the Title o^th^Saxon 
 Kings. For fince this Anceftor of our new Kings had no juft Title to the Crown 
 but by the Sword, and that he gain'd this Kingdom by the Conqueft of King Ha- 
 rold, and the People of England, who had elefted, and fought for him ; as afib by 
 the fubfequent Recognition of this Right by all the People oi England, in their 
 Oaths of Allegiance fo often repeated to King Willuim and his Succelfors, they 
 have thereby acknowledged it to be as abfolute a Monarchy by Ccnqueft, as ever 
 was inftituted by any Prince in the World. And tho' I granr, that leverai of the 
 Conquerors have been gracioufly pleafed to grant divers Privileges to the People of 
 this Nation, and fome of thern perhaps the fame they enjoyed in the SaxonTim^i, 
 yet can they not enjoy it by vertue of that Original Contraft you fuppofe to have 
 been made between the firft King of that Saxon Race, and the People of England: 
 For, as I faid but now. King W'lUitm bad no Right by any Title from King Edward 
 the Ccnii:l^;<r but wholly by hfs Sword, as 1 (hall prove by and by. 
 
 But h.vvcvcT, thefe Conceflions ought not at all to derogate from the Abiblute- 
 nefs of the Pc v\ er, or the Indejcajiblenefs of our King's Title ; For fince thefe Li- 
 mitations of Abfolute or Imperial Power did not proceed from any orher Original, 
 than the free and voluntary Conceflions of our Kings, and not from any Compadt 
 with their People j they do not at all derogate from the uncontrollable and unac- 
 countable Sovereignty thereof: So thar we may very well diltmguifh between the 
 Being and Eflence of Imperial or Sovereign Power and the Exercife or Emanation 
 thereof A- to the Being and Effence of it, it is iii as full Perfeftion in the Li- 
 mited., as in the Arbitrary Sovereign, tho' the Law confiiics and limits him in the 
 Exercife thereof-, but to be confined in the Exercife doth not deftroy the Being, 
 nor diminiHi the Perfection of Sovereign Power : for then the Power of God him- 
 felf could not be Sovereign, becaufe there are ceraiu immutable Rules of Truth 
 and Juftice, within which it is necelfarily limited and confined ■■, butGodis neverthe- 
 lefsa perfeQ Imperial Sovereign over the Univerfe, tho' the Exercife of his Govern- 
 ment over his Creatures be limited by the Eternal Laws of Truth and Equity. It 
 is true, that this Limitation of Almighty God is intrinfical, and proceeds from the 
 PerdQion of his Righteous and Holy Nature -, but yet it fhews, that the moft per- 
 feft and abfolute Imperial Power may, without a Contradiclion, be confined with- 
 in Bounds, and limited in the aftualExercife thereof-, and that fuch Limitation of 
 Abfolute Imperial Power ('proceeding wholly from it felf) doth only qualify and 
 temper, but not defttoy the Eflence of it. And therefore Coke, in Qiwdrys Cafe, 
 faith. That by the Ancient Laws of this Realm, England is an Ablblute Empire 
 and Monarchy, and that the King is furnifh'd with plenary and entire Power, Pre- 
 rogative and Jurifdiftion, and is Supreme Governor over all Pcrlbns within this 
 Realm, 
 
 Therc- 
 
 jy. /. p. 211
 
 dialogue the Tenth. f i r 
 
 Therefore whoever will confider the Original of this Limitation of Sovereign 
 Power, to have proceeded wholly nb mtrmfico ^ from the voluiicary Gr.iius of 
 our firft Monarchs after the Conqueft, and will alfo diftinguiihrhe Elience 
 from the Exercife of Sovereign Power, will find there is no Contradiftion be- aid. 
 tween the Fulnefs of Sovereign Power in the Root, or Edcnce of it, and a Le- 
 gal Limitation of the U(e and Exercife thereof ; and from hence it comes to 
 pafs, that the King of England, tho' he be thus limited in the Life and Exer- 
 cife of h'S Power, yet he is ttill as much the Fountain of all Power and 
 Jurifdiftion within his Dominions, as if he were Arbitrary j he hath none to 
 Ihare with him in the Sovereignty, but all Power and Authority is derived 
 from him, like Light trom the Sun : In him alone it is radically and origi- 
 rally placed; he hath no Sharers or Copartneis with him in the' Sovereignty, 
 none co-ordinate with him in the Government, none Equal, no Superior' 
 but only God to whom along he is fubjeft. Hence faith BriBon, Omn/s tj::idcm 
 fub eo, 6" ipfe fub nulla, fed tantum fub Deo, non cji inferior fibi fubjcciis, ^'^- '• <^- 8- 
 non Torem kibet in regno fm •, and afterwards, lj>fe autem Rex non debet ejfe 
 Jub homine Jed Jub Deo. 
 
 Therefore tlio' I grant the King is obliged by his Coronation Oath, to keep 
 to thefe Limitations, which both he and his . PredecefTors have fvvom to ; yet 
 if he anv ways fail in the Perfoimuiico of i' , this Failure cannot give his Peo- 
 ple any Manner of Right to take up Arms againlt him, and to refill him in any 
 ftch Cafe, much lets can it caufe a Foireiture of his Royal Power ^ fince being 
 at firft the lole Sovereign Power, he did not by putting this Limitation there- 
 unto, intend to part with any Share of it to the great Council of the King- 
 dom, or Parliament, but only to take them into a Part of the Care and Trou- 
 ble of the Government, and to limit his Prerogative from pafFing any Laws 
 or raifing any Money without their AfTent, unlefs in Cafes of great Neceflicy j 
 and then, if he is ftill Judge of this NecefTity, as certainly he is in the Intervals 
 of Parliament, it can never be fuppofed, that the firft Prince, or his Succellbrs, 
 that parted with thefe Privileges to the People, ever intended to be fo ftraitly 
 tied to them, as that in no Cafe whatever, tho' never fb prefling, they fhould 
 not depart from them, much lefs that he fhould forfeit his Crown if he li)ould 
 wholly break them, nay fliould perfift fb to do, and refolve to turn this Li- 
 mited into an Abfolute Defpotick Monarchy ; (ince the Obfervation of thefe 
 Laws being but Conceffions of liis own, or his PredecefTors, can never be looked 
 upon as Conditions of his holding the Crown, nor of the Subjefls Allegiance to 
 it ; there being, as you your felf confefs , no fuch Clatife exprefs'd in either 
 Part, neither in the King's Coronation Oath, nor yet in theirs of Allegiance to 
 him, as you your felf cannot but acknowledge •, and tho' it is true, the King 
 Iwears at his Coronation to keep and maintain the Laws, yet Grotim telli us, 
 L/A. I. <:tp. ?. T/;(7/ an Empire or Kingdom does not ceafc to be abfolute, ahho he 
 who is to ri:!c ^lomfcfomc Things to God, (/r to his Subje8s, even fuch which may 
 iippet tain to ihe Manner of the Empire-, and that not only concerning the Obfer- 
 vation oj the 'Natural cr Divine 1 aw.but cj certain Rules to which without a Rromife 
 he vcere not obliged. So that in all Promifes of this kind, the Manner of the Ob- 
 ligation is not reciprocal, or of ihs fame Sort on both Sides. As for Example, 
 it is only moral in refpcft of the King, and it is left wholly to God to judge 
 between ilie King and his Subie8:s, and to punifh him when he breaks his Part : 
 But to the King as God's Lieutenant en Earth, it belongs not only to judge 
 of his Subjefts Breach of theii Oaih and Contraft, but alfb to punifh them for 
 To doing, zvA compel them to the Performance of it. And of this Judgment are 
 all the mcaein Civilians. As for Bodm I have given you his Opinion in the 
 Chapter 1 laft cited, concerning this Matter, and he as well as Grutim is clear- 
 ly of Opinion, that abfolute Monarchs, fuch as he reckons the King of England 
 to be, are not to be called in Q^reftion or deftroyed, let their Breach of Laws 
 and Tyranny be never fo notori.":s, much lefs can they forfeit their Royal Dig- 
 nity for Inch Male-ndminiitraticn. And tho' Grotius is of Opinion, that in Cafes 
 of great and evirienc Dangers of Life, Subjects may have a Right of Refiftance 
 againlt ablblute Pvinces, and thofe commiffroned by them ; What is this to the 
 Cafe in Hand ? viz. a Refiftance againft an abfolute Monarch for Violation of 
 thofe Privileges and Liberties that weie granted by himfelf or his Anceftors, and 
 without which Sub jefts may very well live and fubfift 5 as we fw they do, under 
 
 U u u 2 thf
 
 51(5 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTiCA. 
 
 the moft abfolute defpotick Monarchies, where they enjoy no fuch Thing-, tho' 
 perhaps they do not live lb well and freely as we do. Nay, 'Puffindorf, the Author 
 you lb much make ufe of, in his Seventh Book, will not allow " Subje£is to take up 
 i. vir. C.I^S. " Arms, or refift abfolute Princes, for too great Cruelty in Punilhment, nor for 
 §6. ' ' " impofing too immoderate Taxes-, fince the Prefumption of Juftice, and Neceffity 
 *' for the doing of thele Things is always on the Princes Side ; nay, if his Pro- 
 " mifes are not kept, or Privileges formerly granted are taken away, if the 
 " Prince be abfolute, and will pretend any Fault, NecelTity, or remarkable Be- 
 " nefit thereby to the Commonwealth, lie Ihall be deemed to have aQed by a 
 " Right, of which the Faculty of judging is wholly wanting to the Subjefts ; 
 " fince all Privileges have this Exception, unlefs the Welfare, or Neceffity of the 
 " Commonweal forbid them to be obferved. 
 
 y. Since your lalt Dilcourfe confifts of Two Parts -, Matter of Fact, and Mat- 
 ter of Right deducible from that Faft , I (hall fpeak to each of them in Order. 
 Firft as to^the Matter of Facl, it is a great Miihkein you, and D^c. Brady, to main- 
 tain that KingTl7/iM;;; I. was really a Conqueror, and by hii-Sword (without any other 
 Title) obtained fuch an entire Vi&:ory over K.Haro/d and the whole Englijh Nation, 
 as gave him an Hereditary Right ibr himfelf and his Heirs, to the ablblute Allegi- 
 snce of the whole Eng/ifh Nation, without any Referve or Condition whatever : 
 So that all our ancient Liberties arid Privileges being thereby loft and forfeited, this 
 Nation can claim nothing of that kind, but from the Grants and Concefftons of that 
 King or his Succeflbrs-, every one of which Propoficions contain many notorious 
 Miftakes in Matter of FaQ : For in the firll place,K. I^/Z/irfw never claimed the Crowr> 
 by Conqueft,hut by the Adoption andTeftament ofK.Edzo.the Contellbr-, and I defy 
 you to Ihew me any ancient Law or Charter, either of his own, or any ofhisimmedi- 
 ate Defcendants, wherein he is ftiled Conqueror : 'Tis true, in his Charter to 
 ^'''■,^'''p^;^|; the Abbey o\: Wepn'mjhr, he fays, that by the Edge of tne Sword he obtain'd 
 m.26'.Vid.'s:i- the Kingdom by the Conqueft of Harold and his Accomplices, yet does not found 
 den'i Rcvien; his Right on that V^ictory alone, bur on the Donation of King Edward his Cou- 
 P-483' fin^ the Words are remarkable, i/i ore glaii'i adeptt/s fum Regmnn Anglorum, de- 
 
 viBo Haroldo Rege^ cumfim Compfidbus ; qui mhi Rcgmm divind providentia de- 
 ft'matujti tSf hcneficio coiicejjionk Domini £? cognati tnei gloriofi Regis Edwardi con- 
 cefjiitJt coihui funt aufcrre. And this Donation he calls an Hereditary Right 
 in divers other Charters, as particularly in one alio recorded by Infpeximus^ be- 
 ci/jiTa. 4- £4. ginning thus, In nomine Fatris &f Fi/ii ^ Spiriti fanBi^ Amen. Ego Willielmus, 
 w^7.;>er n- ^Lcx Anglorunihxreditiitio Jure fdUus. So likewile his Son King i/e/;;^ L in his 
 'vid'.Seldcm ad Charter to the Abbot o'iEly, creating him a Bidiop, calls himfelf the Son oiWtHum 
 Eadmtr.not£, the Great,(not zheConqaexor,)^ui'£Awixdo Regi Mcrcdirariojure fuecejjit inRrgnum, 
 fyc. Fol. 111. ^„,j[ jn vertue of this Donation, he was alter his Victory againft i/j/rV^, by pub- 
 lick and full Confenr of the whole Nation, or People of England, as alfo of the 
 Korffians he brought with him, Eletied or Crowned King, and at his Corona- 
 tion took the lame Oath at the High-Altar at Wcftminfter, which his PredeceflTors 
 Flor.Wig.Will. xh^Suxon Kings had taken before him ^ with this one Claulefarther, which was very 
 ^Jnn'w^l'""^ nccelTary ro be done at that time, viz. quod squo Jure Anglos ^ Francos tra^n- 
 mims'. ' ^'ct ■' So that let his Title by Conquelt have been what it would, it was eiciier by a 
 jul'c Right of War, to recover his Due, or by none at all ^ if the former, he 
 could only lucceed to fuch Rights as King Edward the Confeflor before exerci- 
 fed and enjoyed j fince he came hither only to take the Crown that was fo be- 
 queathed to him, and to hold it under that Title -. But if he had no Title at all, 
 but his Sword, he then could obtain no jult Right to the Crown oi' England, either 
 for himfelf or his Succefibrs. So that if they will only infift upon their Title by the 
 Sword without any preceeding 01 fubfequent Right, they may be as lawfully turned 
 out again by the Sword ; fince it is ow-n d by allWriters on this Subject, that a Con- 
 queror in an unjulf War can obtain no Right over a free People. 
 
 So much fbr the Matter oi" Faft : I come in the next Place to the Point of 
 Right by the Laws of Nations. I grant indeed that a fimple Oath, or Pacf between 
 an ablblute Monarch and his Subjecls, to do or perform fuch or fuch a Thing -, or 
 to let thum enjoy liich and fuch Privileges, does not immediately give the People 
 a Power to compel fuch a Monarch, and his Succellors, by Force of Arms, to 
 the Uriel: Obfervance of them, in Cale of a Violation on his Part. But our Cafe is 
 very different from this -, for here a Foreign Prince recovers a former Right to the 
 Kingdom, and that by Force; and is invefled with the Crown, in virtue of that 
 Right by which he claimed it, and is alfo Iworn to maintain the ancient 
 
 Govern-
 
 Dialogue the Tenth. 517 
 
 Government and Laws ^ according to which the whole Legillative Power wa?; not 
 in the King alone, but jointly in the King, and the great Council uF the Nation, 
 without whole Grant, or Confent, he ought not to have laid any Taxes upon, or 
 othervvife opprefled the whole Nation, as I fhall prove if there be occafion. Now 
 all our AFwient Rights lieing granted, and acknowledged by him, and a conftanr 
 Common Council of the Kingdom appointed to meet, to fee them obferved, as it 
 did many Times in this King's Reign, as alio in thole of his Succeflbrs, they were 
 not bare Privileges conferred of Favour, and which might be obferved or broken 
 at the Will of the Prince that granted them \ but a Form or Rule of Government 
 by Laws, confirmed and agreed upon in a Itanding Council, appointed not only to 
 make them but alfo to lee them obferved : As appears by that PafTage fb often 
 cited, wherein the King isexprelly faid to have a Superior, viz. the Law, and the 
 Court of Barons, who were to put a Bridle upon the King, in cafe of his go- 
 verning without Law. And this farther appears, by the great Charters of Henry 
 \. K. Stephen, and K. John, 2ic. in the firft of which it is declared, that the Na- 
 tion having been oppreGed by unjull (/. e. illegal) ExaQions, he therefore forbids 
 all Common-Money , or Taxes, not taken through all Cities or Counties, in the 
 time of K. Edward ^ and alfo confirms the Laws of his Father, whereby his Ba- 
 rons, and Tenants in Capite, fhould be free from all Taillage or Taxes ; and he 
 alio thereby reftored ro them the Laws of K. Edward., with thofe Emendations 
 which his Father had made by the Common Council of his Barons. Now the 
 great Charter of K. John was but an Addition, or rather Explanation of this Char- 
 ter of K. Uemy L which was at firft demanded by the Barons to be again con- 
 firmed by this King, at the Inftigation of Stephen Langton Archbilhop of Canter- p. 240, 241, 
 bury, as Mat. Park Ihews us at large. 
 
 Now lince neither K. William the L nor his SuccefTors, ever changed the Fun- 
 damental Cbnftitution of the Government, as to the Legillative Part of it, (as hath 
 been already proved) and that thole Breaches that had been made upon it, by 
 taking Taillage or Taxes, without the Confent of the great Council, are all hereby 
 expreily forbid ^ thele are certainly more than fuch meer Privileges, which the 
 King himfelf is the only Keeper of, and can difpenle with at his Pleafure^ but are 
 indeed fuch Fundamentals as concern the very conftituent Form or Rule of Go- 
 vernment ; which, as I liave alio proved, was mix'd not limited, in the very firft 
 Inftitution. And though the learned Pieffendorf agrees with you in the Cafe of 
 Compacts between an ablblute Monarch and his Subjecls ■., yet as to tlie Point in 
 hand he is wholly of my Mind, as you may fee in his Academick DifTertations, 
 in his Difcourfe de Interregna ; where arguing againft Mr. Hobbs, who will nor r. 272. 
 allow of any Compafts between an Abfolute Prince and his Subjefts, he has this 
 Palfage, which I fhall here read to you in Englijh. " That though in Pa£ls, in 
 " which a Submifiion on either Part is wanting, certain and defined Performances 
 " may be fet forth, to be observed on either Side, from an intrinfick Impulfe of 
 " Confcience ; when either of thefe refule to perform them, nothing but War or 
 " the Compulfion of a Superior Lord, common to both of them, remains ; yet 
 " in Pafls, by which one Party is made fubjeft to the other, it belongs to the 
 " latter to define what ought to be performed by him, as alfo a Power over the 
 " other, compelling him to the Performance whether he will or no-, which Power 
 " does not telong reciprocally to the other Party againft the former. Hence the 
 " Party commanding cannot be queftioned for a Breach of Compa6t, unleis he ei- 
 *' ther wilfully abdicate all Care of the Commonwealth, or put on an hoftile Mind 
 " towards his Subjects ^ or manifeftly, or deceitfully, (in 'Latin, dolo malo) depart 
 " from the Rule of governing ; on whofe Oblervance, as upon a fubfequent Con- 
 " dition, the Suhjefts Allegiance depends, which is ealily to be avoided by any 
 *' Ruler ; if he will conlider, that not the higheft of Mortals are free from the 
 " Laws of Human Chance. So that let the Power of your Conqueror have been 
 never fb great, or abfolute ^ it is plain, he not only renounced it himfelf, but leve- 
 ral of his Succeflbrs have done the fame fbr themfelves, and their Heirs •, there- 
 fore make the moll of it, they muft Itill claim by vertue of the firft Contra^, to 
 maintain the Conftitution as they found it ; or elle relblve all their Right into 
 meer Force •, and then vim vi pellerc licitum eji. 
 
 M. It is no wonder that you and I differ in our Conclufions^ lince we alfo differ 
 fb much in the Fremifes c, and in the very Matter of Faft, concerning King William 
 the Conqueror's coming to the Crown •, you faying, be ume to it partly by 
 
 3 the
 
 5i8 
 
 B i B L T O T H E C A P O L 1 T 1 C A. 
 
 the Sword, but founded on a Donation of tdzcard the Confeflor ; and partlv by 
 the Confent and Eleftion of the People of England. ; yet you your felf cannot de- 
 ny, but Force or Conquell had a great Share in the Bufinefs, and indeed was all 
 he had •, for as for that Donation of K. Edward it is either forged, or el(e K. 
 Wtlfiam could claim nothing by it, fince England was then either an Hereditary 
 Kingdom or Elective ^ and take it which way vou will, this Donation of the Con- 
 feffor's could fignify nothing, either to the Prejudice of the People that were to 
 Elecl, or the next Heirs who were to fucceed after K. Edwards Deceafe -, neither 
 could he claim as Heir to him by Blood ; for the Relation between him and K. 
 Edward was by his Mother Enima^ Sifter to Richard the Second Duke of Nor- 
 fKandy,\.h\s William's Uncle ^ fo that the Conqueror was no way defcended from the 
 Blood Royal of England : Therefore his true Quarrel with Harold, (let his Pre- 
 tence be wliac it will) was not, becaufe he kept a Kingdom bequeathed to him 
 J/-', ikvcndcn \^y i^ Edward •, fince feme Writers relate this King named not him but Harold for 
 fan prnna, p. j^j^ SjjcceGor -, tho' Others fay, that he recommended Edgar to the good Will of 
 "MaimKLib.s^^^ Engfjjh Nobility. So that the only true and iuft Caufe Duke H^/Z/mw had of 
 making War upon Harold, was his breaking the Promifes and Oath he had not 
 long before made him of fecuring the Kingdom of England for him upon the 
 Death of K. Edward ; inilead of doing which he had leized it for himlelf ; and 
 which is worfe retlifed toreitore it, or fb much as hold it of" Duke Wiliiam as his 
 I Homager. So that though for the ftrengchning of his own Title, he pretended to 
 
 the Will or Donation of King Edzvard ; and to avoid the Envy of the Name, 
 might out of Modefty, or to put a better Colour upon this Matter, refule to take 
 the Title of Conqueror, and to infilt upon the Donation of King Edward ^ yet 
 nothing is plainer, than that he could claim by no ocher Title but the Sword. And 
 that he looked upon himfelf as no other than an abfblute Conqueror, may appear 
 by theie great and evident Inftances : i. His Change of the Englijh Laws, and in- 
 troducing ""he ]\crn:an Cuffoms in their Stead -, and alfo changing the Tenures of 
 Lands, nor only of the Laity but alfb of the Bilhops and greater Abbeys. 2. By 
 his debarring all thole of the Englijh Nation, from enjoying any Honour, Office, 
 or Preferment, either in Church or State ; and alfo in taking away the Eftates of 
 all the Nobility and Gentry, not only of thole Heirs that had been ilain in the 
 Battel of Hajlings, but alio of the relt -, fo that they had left them but what they 
 could purchale of thofe Korman or Yrench Noblemen, to whom King William had 
 given their Lands, as a Reward of their goad Service. For the Proof of both which 
 Aflerrions, 1 have fo very good Authority on my Side, and that of Writers of 
 or near thofe Times in which thefe Things were done, that I think no indifferent 
 Man can have any Caufe ro doubt the Matter of Fatf to have been as 1 retate it j 
 nor did he by any After-Aff ever renounce this Right of Conqucft as you liippofe, 
 much lels refer it to the Eleftion of the Englijh ot Kormans ^ iince the former 
 were not in a Condition to make any farther Reliltance againfl him, the Clergy 
 and great Men of the Kingdom having been forced to fubmit themlelves to him 
 •without any other precedent Conditions or Stipulations, than for the laving of 
 their Lives. And as for the J\ormans, they were his Subjeds, and they conquered 
 the Kingdom only for his U(e and Benefit, as his Soldiers and Vaffals •, and it is 
 not likely he would owe the Kingdom which he had thus acquired by the Sword, 
 to their Votes or Ele£fion ; neither does any Author that I know of mention any 
 Eleftion before his Coronation •, when tho' it is true, he took fuch an Oath as you 
 jnention, yet it was in too general Terms to bind him to any Oblervation of the 
 Ancient EngliJI) Laws, much lefs to prelerve their Rights and Privileges, farther 
 than lie thought fit, and therefore could never take the Crown upon your Condi- 
 tions of Refiliance or Forfeiture, in cafe of any Alteration in that which you call 
 the Fundamental Conftitution. 
 
 This being the true Matter of Fa8: without any Difguife, it is eafy to anfwer 
 all that you have faid againft K William's acquiiing an Abfoluce, Hereditary 
 Right to the Crown of England for himfelf, and all his Defendants by the Sword. 
 Fiilt then, As to the Tuitice of the War, and Conqueft it feifj I fuppole you will 
 not deny, but that Duke William had a good Caufe of War againft Harold fot the 
 Breach of his Oath ; and if lb, againft all that took his Part at the B:ittel of Ha- 
 Uings ; fo that upon the Conqueft oi' Harold, and thofe that were in that Fight, he 
 alio acquired a Right by Conqueft to all that they enjoyed •, and conlajuently had 
 a Right to Harold' sCjovin, as well as his other Eftate -, as alio to the Ettates of all 
 
 thofe 
 
 XI
 
 Dialogue the Tenth. 1 1 p 
 
 thofe that were either flain, or elcaped alive from that Battel ; and not only to. 
 thefe, but alfo to all the Lands of the whole Kingdom ; fmcc the War was made 
 not only againft Harold'sYtx^^n, but againlt the Kingdom of Enghmd-^ the People 
 of which, according to their Allegiance, aflifted him in that War, either with Men 
 or Money. But admitting the War to have been in it felf never fo uiijult, yet all 
 Writers on this Subjeft (even Grot'ws :xx\A Tujfendorf) grant, that Conqueft even Y-.A.Grof.l.a. 
 in an unjuft War, ivith a thorough Settlement in the Conqueror and his Succef- <:■ 4; 
 Ibrs, by the Non-claim, Dereliftion, Submiflion, or Extinftion of the next Heirs ^"fi-J- 7- <:■ o- 
 of the former Kings, together with a long uninterrupted PoflTeflion beyond all Time f',' §. -. 
 of Memory, will confer a good Title ^ efpecially when all thefe were confirmed by * ' ' " * 
 a conitant Submiflion and Recognition of the People, teftified not only at the firlt 
 Conqueft, but in all fucceeding Times, by as abfblute and unconditioned Oaths of 
 Allegiance as can be invented, or that were ever taken to the moft Abfblute Mo- 
 narch : And fuch Oaths are always to be interpreted in Favour of the Prince to 
 whom they are fworn, and as Itriftly againft the People that take them ; as all 
 Writers al(b agree. Now , granting this to be the Cafe of King Wil/hm the Con- 
 queror, that by all or fome of thefe Means he acquired a Right to the Crown, not 
 only for himfelf, but his Heirs ; this Power was Abfolute, without any Conditions 
 to be obferved on their part : For the Oath of Allegiance is pofitive, without any 
 Condition or Reftriftion. So that I can fee no manner of Pretence that the People 
 of this Nation can have, of forcing their Kings to the Maintenance or Oblervation 
 of thofe Rights and Privileges, which they, their Predeceffors, or Anceftors have 
 lb freely granted to them •, as Fujfcndorf. whom you now cited, very rightly ob- 
 ferves •, and confequently can have no Right to repel Force by Force \ fince our 
 Kings do not now hold their Crown by Force or mere Conqueft, but by all other 
 Things required by the Law of Nations to create a full and abfolute Right, viz. a 
 long uninterrupted Poffenion, and the Abfolute SubmifTion of the People for them- 
 lelves, and all their Defendants. So that tho' I grant bare Conqueft, confidered 
 as a Force, can give no Right alone, yet it may often be the Mother of Right, 
 and may at laft grow to a fufficient Right, by the Means I have already men- 
 tioned. 
 
 F. Before I reply any thing firther to what you have now faid to the Matter of 
 Right acquired by your Conqueror and his Heirs, pray, in the firft place, prove 
 the Matter of Faft to have been as you lay it-, and therefore produce your Quota- 
 tions from the Authors you mention. But firft give me leave to tell you, that 
 Dr. £. and you are the firft I have heard to make fo light of this Teftamentary Do- 
 nation ot Edward the Confeffor, which the greateft part of the Writers neareft 
 that Time, do fuppofe to have been really made on the behalf of Duke William ^ 
 and that notwithftanding this Bequeft, Harold unjuftly, and contrary to his own 
 Oath, did by Force fet the Crown upon his own Head, without any precedent 
 Elcftion of the Clergy, Nobility and People, as was required at that time, fince 
 it was impoffible for them to meet in fb fliort a time. For King Edwurd dying on 
 the Eve of Epipba/iy, was buried on Twelfth-day ; and on the fame Day Hnrdd took 
 upon himfelf the Crown, by the Content of Ibme of the Bifhcps and Nobility of 
 his Faftion then at London : So that he was certainly no better than an LJfurper. 
 And therefore by the Conqueft of Harold and his Party, your Conqueror could 
 acquire no Right over all the Free People of England, fince they never gave their 
 Confents to place Harold on the Throne ; and confequently King Willuwi could 
 have no iuft Caufe of making a Conqueft upon the whole Nation, fince neither 
 did he ever in all his Reign (as I can find) call a Common Council of rhe King- 
 dom to recognize , or confirm his Title. And tho' it is true, Harold proving a 
 Valiant and popular Prince, got the good Will of the common People by divers 
 A£ts of Grace, (which he had loft by his violent taking the Crown from Edgar 
 Atheling, the only remainiiig Male Heir of the Saxon Race ) and found very many 
 who were willing to fight for him, not only againlt the King of Norway, who 
 had a little before invaded the Kingdom, but alfo againlt Duke William; yet all 
 thofe in his Army ccaild amount to nothing near the whole Nation, who never 
 contributed to the War by any publick Vote or Tax ; and therefore did not coun- 
 tenance it by giving Money, or raifing of Men, as you fuppofe : So that Duke 
 William could not pretend a Right of making War againlt any body, but only Harold 
 and his Accomplices. But as for the Teftamentary Donation of Edmird the Con- p_ ^g. Eth:. 
 telTor, tho' you make fo light qf it, yet Ingidpb fays expreflV; that Edward the oxm. 
 
 Con-
 
 ^'20 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTICA. 
 
 Confeffor, fome Time before his Death, fent Robert Archbiihop of Canterhury^ as 
 his Ambaffador to Duke William^ to let him know, " That he had defigned him. 
 " his Succeflbr, not only by Right of Kindred, but by the Merit of his Virtue : 
 And that after this, Harold, coming into Kormaniy, promifed upon Oath to aflift 
 F.'ge 9$. him in it. And Wi//. ALi/mcsbury fays alfo, That Edivurd^ the Father of EJ^ar 
 Athcling, dying allnoft as foon as he came into England, King Edward his Coufin 
 being dead , gave the Succeflion of this Kingdom to William Duke of Kormandy. 
 With whom alio agrees WUliam of Foi&ou, and moil of the relt of the Hiftorians 
 of that Age, as well Engfifh as JNorfmns : Nor do I know any of them, except 
 Simeon of Durham, and Roger Hoveden, who make Harold to have been appointed 
 Succeflbr by King Edz\:ard. 
 
 But 1 confefs your main Objeflion is ftill to be anfwered, viz. What precedent 
 Right Duke William could have to the Crown of England by this Tellameut of 
 King Edtoard, fince it was then either an Elective, or elle an Hereditary Kingdom , 
 and fo th's Donarion could confer no Right on this Duke, in Prejudice of the 
 People's Right to eieft, or elle of the next Heir to fucceed ? In Anfwer to which, 
 1 muft tell you that which perhaps you may have never confidered. That the 
 Crown was then neither properly Eleftive nor Succeffive, but a Mixture of 
 both. 
 
 M. That feems a Kind of a Paradox, and what I never heard before : Pray ex- 
 plain your lelij for I do not underftand how it could be. 
 
 F. Why then, I will tell you : The Crown of England, in thofe Times, was 
 very like what the Crowns of DenfuarA and Sweden were not long fince, and as the 
 Empire is at this Day •, in which tho' the Eltates or Diet might chule whom they 
 pleafed for King or Emperor, yet rhey ftill kept to the lame Family or Line, as 
 long as there were any Males left of it fit to fucceed. Which Cuftom often gave 
 the King in Being a Power, ( which by degrees came to be looked upon as a Kind 
 of Right) either upon his Death-bed, or elle at any Time before, to nominate 
 or recommend one of his Sons, or near Kinfmen, to be his Succeflbr, by his 
 laft Will or Teftament-, elpecially if he had no Sons of his own, as happen'd 
 in the Cafe of King Edward the Confeflbr. Now this Nomination , tho' it did 
 not alone confer a Right to the Crown, yet it made the Perfon fo named the faireft 
 Candidate for it ^ and was fuch a Recommendation to the Eltates, or great Coun- 
 cil of the Kingdom, as they never pafled by or denied , as I can ever find by the 
 beft Enquiry 1 have made. And for Proof of this, I ihall appeal to the Teftament 
 oi' King Alfred, as you will find it Printed from an Ancient Manufcripr, in the 
 Second Appendix to his Life, in Latin, puhlilh'd at Oxford. Which begins thus : 
 " Ego Alfredus divino rnunere, lahore, ac jfudio Athelredi Archicpifcopi, nee non 
 " t otitis Wejifjxpnitf 'Nobilrtatis confenfu, pariter.ilf Ajjenfu, Occident alt urn Saxo- 
 " num Rex •, t]i;os in TeJUtnomum mexuhinu voluntatis complementi, tttfint Advocnti 
 " in dijponendii pro fabte amm.e mex regali eletlione, confirmo, tarn de b.ereditate, 
 " //uam Dei/i ac Prncipes, ctim-./enioribus Populi mifcricorditer ac benigne dcde- 
 " runt ; qiuim de hxrcditate quam Vatcr mei^s JEihelmiljus Rex nobis tribm jru- 
 " trih/(S delegavit, viz. JEthelba.'do, JEtbelrcdo, t? ?nibi ; ita, quod qui nofirum 
 " diiitius forct fiiperfles, ilk tctius Rcgni dontinio congauderet, &c. From whence 
 you may collect, firlt. That tho' this King, in the very Beginning of his Tefta- 
 ment, afcribes his obtaining the Crown, not to any Hereditary Right, but the 
 Confenr and Aflent of the Nobility of Wcjl-Saxony ; vet he alio here mentions the 
 Entail of the Crown by his Father's Will, upon his Two Elder Brothers, and 
 himfelf fucceflively, betbre any of 'his Elder Brother's Sons, who were living 
 at the Time of the making oi' this Teftament of King Alfred's, as appears by the 
 Will it felf, in which they arc exprelly mentioned. Now how could thjs be, that 
 he was Ki-ig, as well by the Confent or Eleftion of the Wejl-Saxon Nobility, as 
 by his Father's Will, unlefs both thefe had been required to make him lb ? And 
 Will, of Malmeshury tells us of King Athclftan, the Grandfon of King Alfred, 
 that Jujfu Patris in 7efiamento, JEthclftan.ts'in Rcgem eji acclamatus: But in the 
 Beginning of this Chapter he alio tells us, that jEthclfanus e'.elius apud Regiam 
 aulam qua. vacatur King ft en Coronatus eft, quamvis qitidajnA-if'cdas cumfaUiofts fuis 
 obviare tentajjct ; upon that Pretence that Atheljlan was a Bajlard. So that you 
 may lee, that his Father's Teftament was not lufficient without the Election of 
 the Witt emu Gemot -, who preferred him, tho' perhaps Illegitimate, before this 
 Alfred, tho' Son to King Afred% Elder Brother, who was fet up againft him- 
 
 3 And
 
 Dialogue the Tenth. t2i 
 
 And I doubt not, if more of the Teftaments of the Englijh S^ixon Kings were 
 now extant, that I could give you more Inftances of this Nature. But that the 
 Perfbn f) nominated and elefted, tho' not the neareft always of Blood, claimed 
 Jure Wreditivio, is alio as certain, fince BraBon exprefly tells us, " That Hjere- 
 *' dhamentum^ or Inheritance, is not derived ab Herede, but Heir from In!;eri- 
 " once ; and that Inheritance is the Succeflion to all the Right which the Prede- 
 " ceffor had, by whatever Means acquir'd. With whom alio the Civil Law- 
 agrees, H-fredii fignijkatione omnes fign'ijicare fucceffares credendum ejl^ etfi verbis 
 nonfint expre/Ji. Nor did this Cultom, of thus recommending a Succeflbr, pre- 
 vail in England alone in thofe Times, but alio was in Ufe among the French Kings 
 of the Race of Charlejnain ; wherein the laft Will or Adoption of the King, being 
 confirmed by theEle£tion or Recognition of the Eftates of France, gave a fufficient 
 Title to a Prince of the Blood Royal, tho' not Legitimate, nor the next Heir by 
 Blood, to fucceed : But the Will of the Prince was not alone fufficient, as Mon- 
 fieur Mezeray has very well obferved in his Chronological Abridgment of the 
 'Hiftory of Irance^ in the Reign of King Oota'ir the Second. 
 
 So that to conclude s If Duke IViUiatn ot Kormandy was thus adopted, named 
 by King Edward the Conteflbr for his Succeflbr by his laft Will and Teftamentj 
 and this had been without any Blows confirmed by the Council of the Kingdom, 
 by a fubfequent EltQion and Coronation and that he had received the Oaths and 
 Recognitions of the Englijh Subjefts, which always followed that Solemnity ^ I 
 doubt not but he would have had as good a Title to the Crown , as any of the 
 Kings of the Eng'ijh Saxon Line : I am fure a much better than Harold, who I 
 am not fatisfied came in either by the Adoption of King Edward, or by the EleOrion 
 of the People •, and therefore Duke William had a good Title againft him, as an 
 Ufurper : And conquering him and thofe of his Party in the Battel, and being 
 thereupon Ele^ed, and Recognized, and Crowned by the general Confent both of 
 the Englijh and l\ormans •, I cannot fee why his obtaining the Crown againft Ha- 
 rold by Force of Arms, (hould extinguilh his former Right, and create a new 
 Title by Conqueft, which he never claimed by •, or fuppofe his renouncing the 
 Confeflbr's VjS\\\, which gave him a Right to be Ele^ed King, according to the 
 Cultom of thofe Times ; and to demand the Crown from an Ulurper, who had 
 folemnly Iworn to affitt him in his Right. But fince you fo pofitively affirm, that 
 no Author whatever mentions Duke Williams Eleftion j I doubt not but to fhew 
 it you from more than one Author, and thofe of or near thofe very Times. 
 
 I Ihall, in the firft place, give the Account that a flioit Hiftory, printed at the 
 Eno ot Mr. Taylors HifcTy of Gavel-kind, from an Ancient Manufcript in the 
 Bodleian Library, gives us of this Affair, and who leems to be an Author rhat lived 
 very near thofe Times. Londoniam Convenientibus Francis, & Anglis ( ad nativi- 
 tatem Domini ) illiji/; omnibus concedentibus, coronam totius Anglidi, & Dominatio- 
 nem Jufcepit. And William vjf Foitiou, this King's Chaplain, in his Hiftory, re- 
 lates ic thus: Die ordinationi decrcto locutus ad Anglos concedenii fermons Eboraci 
 Archiepif copies fapiens, bonus, eloquens, an confentirent cum fibi Dominum Coronari 
 inqitifivit ; protefiati funt hilarem confeiifum univerji minime hsfit antes, ac ft edit us 
 tind mente data, unaq., voce ; Anglorum qua/n jaciUime Normanni confonuerunt 
 fermocinato apud eos, ac fententiam prxcunllatoriam Conflantini Priefule, Jic EleBum 
 confecravit Archiepifcopus, impofuit ei diadema, t^c. 
 
 So likewife Ordoricus Vitalis, a Norman Author, who flourifhed not long after 
 in his Son's Reign, relates it thus: Die natalis Domini Angli hondonis ad ordi- L. 3. f. 503. 
 nandum Regem convener unt, ijf Gulielmum Due em Normannorum in Regem Anglo- 
 rum confecravit Archiepifcopus, iffc. And goes on to relate the Manner how, jutt 
 as the namelefs EngfiJI) Author had done before i but then agrees with Wil/iam of . 
 Foi&cu in ill the relt. Dum Aldredus Artful Alloqueretur Anglos, i!f Godofredus 
 ConjUntinienfis Normannos, an concederent Gulielmum Regnare fuper fe, & Vni- 
 verfi confenfum hilare7n protrjlarenti<r una voce non unius Lingu£ locutione. With 
 wiiom alio agrees Will. Gemeiicenfis, in the Hiftory of the Dukes of Normandy, 
 who was alfo an nuihor that lived in, or very near the Times of this King. His 
 Words art.\ Anno incaimat. Domini ab omnibus tarn Normannorum, quam Anglorum 
 froccribus Rex eft electus, Hf facro oka ab Epijcopis Regni detibutus, atq:, regali 
 diademule Coronalus. 
 
 So th it you le;; here are no lefs than Four Ancient Authors, of or very near that 
 Time, who all agree' upon the folemn EleQion of King IK/V/w^Wi and yet your 
 
 X X X Dt, 
 
 K.288.
 
 522 B I B L 1 O T H E C A P O L 1 T I C ^. 
 
 Dr. has the Confidence to tell us, that Mr. Tetyt only endeavours to prove this 
 Ele^ion of King Wtlfuim out of fome Fragments of Authors, who lived at fonae 
 Diftance of Time from his coming over hither. 
 
 M. I confefs you have fliew'd me more for this mix'd Right of King William's 
 by Teltament and Succeflion, than ever I knew before. But you had dealt more 
 fairly, if you had alfo added what Dr. B. takes notice of out of Giilielmus Piffa- 
 B. A. P. vicnjis, concerning King Wil/iams being advanced to the Crown : For immediately 
 j>. 200. after the Mention of his being Crowned, he concludes thus : djus Liberi ^ nepotes 
 
 jufla fucccjjione prafidebum Angli<£ terrx, qucnn hinreditaria delegatione Sacrament is 
 Aaglonmjv-mata, ifj Jure Belli ipjc pojfedir. So that here you fee he grounds a 
 Tide to him and his Pofterity, not only on his Hereditary Right, but the Oaths 
 of the Englrjh, and the Right of War. But as for the Word EleSus^ made ufe of 
 by thofe Ancient Authors, Dr. B. hath made it very plain in his Hiftery of the 
 Succefhon of the Crown of Englind, as alfo in his Gloflary, that this Word does 
 not there fignify Elected, but Recognized and Acknowledged, that fiich a one is or 
 ought to be King. And I very much doubt, whether this could be properly term- 
 ed an Eleftion or not, fince the fame Hiftorians alfo tell us, that Part of King 
 William's Army kept Guard without the Church-Door, during his Coronation, by 
 this good Token, that when they heard fo great a Shout given upon the People's de- 
 claring their Aflents, the Soldiers fufpeQing fome Trealbn, fet Fire to the Houfes : 
 So that I cannot lee how that could be properly an Eleftion, when the People 
 durft not refufe. And I know that even at this Day, the King is fliewn to the 
 People on all the Four Sides of the Scaffold on which he is Crowned, and their 
 Confent is formally afked. Whether they will have this Man to be th.ir King? 
 Yet no Man will fay that their Acclamations and crying. Yea, yea, will make our 
 Kings Eleftive, any more than it could do it in the Cale of King William^ who 
 had a Title by Conqueft precedent to this pretended Eleftion -, tho I grant this 
 Cuftom may have been in ule ever fince this Coronation of the Conqueror. 
 
 But that King William claimed indeed by Conqueft, and by no other Title, let 
 us not mind his fpecious colourable Pretences, but his Anions, which are the beft 
 Interpreters of the Thoughts of Princes •, and we Iliall find, that through all his 
 Reign he governed this Kingdom as a Conqueror : And this I fhall prove, by 
 making good the Three Inftances I have already given, of his great Alterations of 
 the Property, Laws, and Civil Liberties of the People of this Nation. To begin 
 with the firft of thele. 
 
 For the Proof of which, I fhall make ule of the Authority of Gervace of Til- 
 bury, a confiderable Officer in the Exchequer, in the Time of Henry the lid. and 
 B.A.F. ^j^Q received his Information from Henry ot Blois, Bifhop of Winchejier, and 
 ^' '^* Grandchild to the Conqueror, who is moft full to that purpofe ^ which he thus 
 
 delivers in the Manufcript Treatife, called the Black- Book of the Exchequer, 
 which I fhall read to you according to the Learned Dr. £.'s Tranflation of it. 
 
 * After the Conqueft of the Kingdom, and the jult Subverfion of the Rebels, 
 
 * when the King himfelf, and his great Men, had viewed and furveyed their new 
 ' Acquefts, there was a Itrift Enquiry made, who they were which had fought 
 
 * againtt the King, and fecured themfelves by Flight. From thefe and the Heirs 
 
 * of fuch as were flain in the Field, all Hopes of pofTefling either Lands or Rents 
 
 * were cut ofl:\ for they counted it a great Favour to have their Lives given them : 
 ' But fuch as were called and follicited to fight againft King William, and did not j 
 
 * if by an humble Submiffion they could gain the Favour of their Lords and 
 ' ' Matters, they then had the Liberty of poffelTing fomewhat in their own Perfons, 
 
 ' but without any Right of leaving it to their Pofterity, their Children enjoying 
 
 * it only at the Will of their Lord -, to whom when they became unacceptable, 
 ' they were e\'ery way outed of their Eftates, neither would any reftore what they 
 ' had taken away. 
 
 ' And when the miferable Natives reprefented their Grievances publickly to the 
 
 * King, informing him how they were fpoiled of their Fortunes, and that with- 
 ' out Redrefs they muft be forced to pafs into other Countries-, at length, upon 
 
 * Confultation, it was ordered, that what they could obtaijp of their Lords by way 
 ' of Defert or lawful Bargain, they fhould hold by unqueftionable Right ; but (hould 
 
 * not claim any thing from the Time the Nation was Conquered, under the Title 
 
 * of SuccelTion or Delcent. Upon what great Confideration this was done, is manifeft 
 
 * (fiy% Gervace ;) tor they being obliged to Compliance and Obedience, to purchafe 
 
 ' their
 
 dialogue the 7Vnth. t^rt 
 
 • their Lords Favour ; therefore whoever of the conquered Nation poflcfled 
 ' Lands, iS^c. obtained them not as if they were their Right hy Succeffion or In- 
 ' herirance, but as a Reward of their Service, or by Ibme intervening Agree- 
 ' ment. 
 
 This alone were fufficient, coming from an Author of fuch Credit, and Iivin<^ 
 lb very near the Time; but befides this, I fhall give you the Authority of divert 
 other Authors to the fame Purpofe^ and particularly OrdcricusVita/is (whom you 
 but now cited) tells us how JVU/ium I. circumvented the two great Earls of 
 Mercid ; and that after Edtvin was (lain, and Murcar imprifbned, then King 
 William began to (hew himfelf, and gave his Afliftants the belt and mo'ft confidera- 
 ble Counties in England, and made rich Colonels and Captains of very mean AV;- 
 mins : And that he thus difpofed of whole Counties to divers great Men, appears by 
 Lome/day Book ; wherein it is feen, that as the whole County of Chejler was given 
 by the Conqueror to Lupus, a Korman , fo likewife the greateft Part of Shropfhire 
 was given to Montgomery. 
 
 And further, he took away from the Englijh their Eftates, and gave them to 
 his Kormans ; and this he did from his firft coming in : For litz Oshorn was 
 made Earl of Arundel and Hereford, at his firft coming in, and was Lord of Bet- 
 tivil in Kormnndy, and eftablifhed the Laws of that Town zt Hereford. Alan Earl 
 of Britain, had all Earl Edwins Lands given to him at the Siege of Tor-k, about 
 three Yeats after his Arrival. To thefe I may add the 795 Mannors Robert Earl 
 of Mcrcton in Normandy and Cornwal in England, had given to him by King Wil- 
 liam s fo likewile Alan Karl o{ Britain and Richmond had 442 Mannors, and Jeffery 
 Bilhop ot" Ccnjlance, had 180 Mannors given him by the Conqueror -, befides ma- 
 ny other Lands of x.\\e Saxon Earls, Thanes, iSc. were all given to the Normans 
 who took their Title fiom King William's conquering Sword. 
 
 So that I think it is very evident, that this King had diftributed moft of the 
 Lands of the Nation to his Normans, long before the famous Survey of Dome/day 
 Book was begun •, and by that infallible Record, it is clear, that he gave near all 
 the Lands of the Nation to his Followers, and very little or none to the En^IiJh 
 who held what they had by a new Title, and new Services from the Conqueror or 
 his great Lords -, or became Tenants to, or Drudges upon their own Lands ; as' we 
 alfo learn from BraHon and Eleta. Here is enough to fatisfy any unbyafTei 
 Perfon, that the Conqueror did not lay by his Sword after the Battel of 
 Hdjlings. 
 
 E. In anfwer to what you have now faid concerning your Conqueror's taking 
 away the Lands of a great many of the Englifh Nobility and Gentry, it is fo atv 
 parent in Matter of Faft, that it were a high Piece of Impudence to go about to 
 deny it ; yet will it not therefore follow, that what he thus difpoled of was 
 near all the Lands of England, as I (hall (hew you by and by : Bur in the mean 
 time, to let you fee that 1 am a fair Adverfary, I will at prefent fuppofe, that 
 King William took away all the Lands from the former Owners, and gave them to 
 his Followers, who helpM him in his Conqueft ; but thefe were not only the 
 Normans, his Subjecfs, but Irench, Elemmings, Anjovins, Britons, Poiflovins, and 
 People of other Nations, who made up a great Part of his Army, and catrie in 
 with him under divers great and coniiderable Men, their Leaders •, and whom, 
 your Do£lor tells us, came not out of ftark Love and Kindnefs, without any Con- p.Ap 
 fideration of fharing with and under him in the Conqueft. Now I defire to ' 'P'^*' 
 know by what Law or ASt of theirs, they thus conftituted King William an Ablb- 
 lute Monarch over them, and their Defendants ? For, as for the Normans, tho* 
 they were (it's true) his Subjefls; yet they enjoyed divers coniiderable Rights 
 and Privileges at home, and furely nerer intended to come over hither, to make 
 themfelves as great Slaves as the People they had conquered ; much lefs can it be 
 fuppofcd of thele of other Nations, who were not SubjeQs to Duke William be- 
 fore he was made King. Nor can I fee how their taking of Lands from him, 
 could make him become an abfolute and irrefiftible Monarch over them, and their 
 Defendants. So that ii" upon your Suppofition, all the Owners of Land in Eng- 
 land at this Day, hold their Eftates either by Defcent orPurchafe from thofe An- 
 cient Normans, or Trench Proprietors, they muft alfo fucceed to the fame Liber- 
 ties and Privileges as thofe under whom they claim, did formerly enjoy-, and 
 therefore can no more than their Predeceflbrs, be abfolute Vaffals by Right of 
 Conquelt. But before I conclude, I cannot but take Notice of what you have 
 
 X X X 2 faid.
 
 5H 
 
 B. A P. 
 
 B I B L I O T H E C A P O L 1 T I C A. 
 
 faid againft my Proofs of the formal Eleftion of King Willium •, for if the keep: 
 ing of a Guard about the Place where the King is Elefted and Crowri'd, fhould 
 void the Freedom of the Eleftion, I doubt whether the Eleftion of any eleftive 
 Kings or Monarchs, even of the German Emperor himfelf, would hold good. 
 As for the other Reafon, that they could not chule but elcft him, that is yet more 
 trivial-, for there being no more than one that Hood to be chofen, they could in- 
 deed chufe no other : But if not having a Liberty to refufe, mull void the Right of 
 EleSlion, pray confider (as I told you before,) AViicther there be any Canonical 
 Eleftion of Bifhops in the Church o{ Engldnd zi this Day. Tiieretbre I doubt 
 not but that King 1^/7//./;;; I. was as lawfully and freely elefted, as King £.'>:/wi;;-i the 
 Confelfor, his Predeceflbr, whom all Authors agree to have had no other Title $ 
 and Willielmiis Gemet'icenfis^ in the Place I now cited, tells us, he was elefted 
 King as well of the Korman as Engliflj Nobles : And if the Cuitorn had not then 
 been to eleft the King before he was CrownM, it is not likely that your Conqueror 
 would have introduc'd a new Cuftom to the Prejudice of his pretended Right by 
 Conqueft. But indeed there is not any more cogent Argument to prove that 
 the Crown was formerly ele£live, than the conftant Ulage ( as you youc 
 felf confefs ) ever (ince your pretended Conqueft to this Day, of asking 
 the People whether they are content to have fuch a one for their King, 
 As for your Do8:or's Qiiotation oMX.o'i William oi' Poilhu, pray take Notice, that he 
 places your Conqueror's Hereditary Bequeft, together with the Oaths of the 
 EngliJ})^ as his bell Title, and the Right of War lalt •, by which this Au- 
 thor did not underftand a Conqueft of the People of England, but his pre- 
 vailing againft Harold. 
 
 M. I do own with the learned Dr. B. that the Defendants of thofe ancient 
 'Kor7nan and Trench Earls and Barons that came in with the Conqueror, 
 and their Pofterity afterwards, feeling the Yoke of feudal Tenures, and other 
 Prerogatives this King and his Defcendants exercifed over them, ro preis as hard 
 upon them, as on the ancient Engltjh, were thofe that made fuch a Difturbance for 
 their Right and Liberties in the Reign of King John, and Henry III And tho" 
 I grant their Anceftors were never conquered, and conlequently could not be 
 obliged to him, as to a Conqueror •, yet I may, for all this, maintain, that they 
 and their Pofterity were as much bound to jn ablblute Subjedion, without any 
 Refiftance, as the Englijh whom they conquer d •, for they were either his own 
 Subjefts in Kormandy, before his coming over hither •, or elie were fiich Volun- 
 tiers who followed him out of Hopes of Eftatesaud Preferment, ki tor ail thofe 
 of the former Ibrt, and who were his Subjefts before, they were tied not only by 
 their own Oaths of Allegiance which they had taken in Normandy^ but were alio 
 bound by the lame Obligation of Non-Refiftance, as all other SubieQs muft always 
 be, both in that and all other Governments. To all which was added another Obli- 
 gation in refpe£t of thofe who were not his Subjefts before his Entrance ^ fince 
 this whole Kingdom was by Conqueft the Conqueror's, as appears in that he be- 
 llowed the greateft Part of it upon his Followers, (whofe Blood tuns at this Day 
 in the Veins of moft of our f;?^///^ Gentry and Nobility,) as a Rew^ard for thek 
 Service and Affiftance : Tho' he might leave fome part to the Englifl) Natives and 
 their Heirs ; yety^ as that he altered the Tenure, and made it deicend with fuch 
 Burdens as he pleafed ro lay upon them. So that as well his own Countrymen, Nor- 
 )nans, as thofe of all other Nations, who thus became Subjefts and Feudataries to 
 him for all the Lands they poiTefled in England, (fince he was the only DireclusDo- 
 w/ff«j, or Lord Paramount of the whole Kingdom) were alfo his Vaffals and Sub- 
 ^efts; for in cafe of Treafon and Rebellion, or Death without Heir, thoie Lands 
 were to return to him again, and to be at hisDifpofal. So that all Sabjefts, as well 
 Kormans as other Foreigners, who had L^fnds granted to them by the Conqueror, 
 thus became his &tf//?/Wj Lf^fi, Liegemen, and did owe Faith and true Allegiance 
 to him, as their Supreme and Liege Lord, as the King is called in feveral Sta- 
 tutes ; and the Definition of Liegeancy is let down in the grand Cuftomary of 
 Kormandy, Ligeanriaefl ex qua domino tenentur vajiillifui, iTc. that is, Liegeancy is 
 an Obligation upon all Subjefts to take part with their Liege Lord againft all Men livinr, 
 to aid and aflift him with their Bodies and Goods, and with iheir Advice and Pow- 
 er ; not to lift up their Hands againft him, nor to fupporr in any wife thole who 
 oppole him. And tho' I grant, that the Supreme or Liege Lord is likcvvife 
 bound to govern and defend his Liege Pt;ople , accoiding to the Rights, 
 
 Cuftoms.
 
 T>iahgue the Tenth, 525 
 
 Cufloms, and Laws of the Country ; yet is_ he not liable to Refiftance, much lefs 
 Forfeiture if he neglect it. For though if Subjcfts break their Covenants, and 
 prove difloyal, all their Lands and other Rights are forfeited to tlie King ; ye:, if 
 the King or Supream Lord break his Oath, notwithftjnding his failing therein, 
 neither his Crown, nor any Rights belonging to his Royal Dignity are thereby for- 
 ieiced. The Reafon of this Inequality is becaufe the King gave Laws to the Peo- 
 ple, hut the People did not give Laws to him. So that it is plain, that however 
 you ftate the Conqueror's Entrance, whether by the Sword, or (to avoid the Envy 
 of the Title of a Conqueror) by a voluntary Submifllon of the Englijh Nation to 
 him, as to their Sovereign ^ the Conclufion cannot vary, becaufe the Duty of Non- 
 refiltance arifes from their own A3:, they taking an Oath of Allegiance to be his 
 True and Loyal Subjects, with which Oath Rehltance ctn by no means confift. 
 
 F. Imuft beg your Pardon if I cannot take what you have now faid fora ftcisfa- 
 flory Anfwer ; fince I doubt it will do you little Service, whether you make ule 
 of it either in refpe£l of the Kormans, or other Foreigners. For as to the former, 
 it appears from the ancient Conftitution of Norma/iJy, that the Duke was no 
 Abfolute Monarch there, but a Feudatary to the King of France •, and farther, 
 could make no Laws, nor impofe Taxes in Normandy, without the Conienc of the 
 Eftates of that Dutchy •, as appears by the Title to the Latin Cultoms of Nor- 
 mandy, which are at the End of the Old French Edition of the Conjhinier de Nor- 
 mandy, Printed at Roan, 1515 •, the Title of which is thus, fura & Ccnfuctudines 
 Ducatus Normania:. The Pr logue to which begins thus •, ^uoniam Leges ^ Infli- 
 tuta qu£ Normanorum Frincipes, non fine magna provifionis Indujlria Frj^/atorum^ 
 Oniilum, £7' Baronuffi, nee non £?" c£terorum v'lrorum prudent urn conjilio, £5" Ajjen- 
 Ju ad falutem huniani fa'dcr/s Statteerunt. Whereby it is apparent, that the Anti- 
 ent Laws of Normandy were made by the Advice and Conlent of the Eftates, for 
 the Prefervation of that Covenant they had formerly made with their firlt Duke 
 B.0II0, when he had that Dutchy granted him by the King of France. And who- 
 ever will conlultthe antient lliftories and Laws of that Dutchy, will find the Dukes 
 of Normandy no more abfolute Monarchs there than the Kings of Norway, from 
 whence they came ; fb that if their Duke (hould have gone about to take away 
 their Eftates, or enflave the Peifons of the Norman Nobility and People, he might 
 ^uftly have been refitted by them. And therefore their taking Lands from K. 
 William after his pretended Conqueft here, muft either have conferred an Eftate 
 upon them according to the Laws of England, or Normandy ; not according to the 
 former •, for you aflert, that Tenures in Capite, and Knight's Service, were intro- 
 duced by his coming ^ fo that if they were by the Normans Law, fas you fuppofe) 
 they were then no farther Subjefts to their Duke by that Tenure, when made 
 King of England, than they where whilft he was Duke of" Normandy, viz. only 
 according to the Laws and Cuftoms by which they held theie Eftates : So that if 
 their Duke was irrefiftible by them in Qfe of Tyranny in his own Country, fb he 
 was alfo here by the fame Reafon ^ fince whatever he did in refpeO: of the EngliJh^ 
 he could acquire no new Right over them. 
 
 And that an Oath of Homage alone, doth not make the Petfon to whom it is 
 taken irrefiftible, if he makes an unjuft War upon his Vaffils, appears by the 
 Dukes of Normandy themfelves, who though they held that Dutchy by Homage 
 to the King of trance, and took the fame Oath to him upon every l<^ing's Accefli- 
 on to the Crown, of being his Liegeman, and to be True and Faithful to his I^ord 
 the King of France, for the faid Dutchy of Normandy ; yet might the Dukes of 
 Normandy, without any Imputation of Rebellion, have refitted the King of France, 
 in cafe he made an unjutt War upon them ; nor were ever thofe Dukes accufed of 
 Rebellion for fo doing, in all the Wars that they had with the Kings of France. 
 And theiefbte the holding of an Eftate by Homage and Fealty, doth not fuppofe 
 that the Lord of whom it is held was irrefiitible, nor doth the Word Allegi- 
 ance fignify any move than that Duty which th^ Liegemen, by the Old Norman 
 Law, owed to their Supreme Lord of whom they held their Lands. And there- 
 foro when the King or Supreme Lord of the Fee did not perform his Part of the 
 Contraft, hui went abi.'>ut to turn them out of their Eftates, or to invade any of 
 their jult Rights by Fv^rce, it was ufual for the Tenants in thofe Times to defy ^y_ Spclman'i- 
 the Lords, and renounce their Homage to them ; for which ilicv uled the Barba- G'oflary, "ui' 
 rous Laiin Wuid diffliare, in French to defy, that is, to renouiice that Faith and veto MJfid.vi. 
 Allegiance, which before they owed them •, and the Supream Lords alio often- ^- 388. 
 
 3 times
 
 526 BibltothecaPolitica. 
 
 time$ defied their Tenants. Thns Mdt. Pam tells in Anno 1233, that K.Herny 
 the Third, by the Counfel of the Bi(hop of W'wchc^e>\ defied Richard the Earl 
 Marefchal And the Year following we find the Earl iuftifying himfelf in this 
 manner (being then in Irclnnd) •, " Firft I anfvver, that I never acled Treafonably 
 /f.rf. f. 59?. " againft the King, for he has unjuftly fpoifd me of my Office of Marefchal, 
 " without the Judgment of my Peers, aud has proclaimed me banifli'd thorough 
 " all England •, he has burnt my Houfes, deftroyed my Lands, iS^c. he has more 
 *' than once defied me, when I was always ready to ftand to the Judgment of my 
 " Peers •, from which time (faid he) I ceafcd to be the King's Liegeman, and was 
 " abfolved from his Homage, not by my felf, but by him. And whereas you fiy^ 
 that the King, or Supreme Lord, cannot forfeit his Right, though he breaks his 
 part of the C ompaQ:, becaufe of the Inequality which there is between a King 
 and a Subjecl : If lb, then this Prerogative of Non-Refiftance doth not belong to 
 the King, as he is Supreme Lord of the Land, but as he is King, and giveth Law 
 to the Subjefls •, which may have Ibme Colour of Truth in Ablblute Monarchies, 
 but vv?as of no Force either in the Government of Kormaniy or England, where 
 the Duke or King, without the Conlent of his Eftates, never could alone make 
 Laws. But as I will not deny our Government to be a Monarchy, lb it is as cer- 
 tain, that it is limited in the very Conftitution, either by the Saxons or Nonnans, 
 begin where you pleafe : And therefore my Conclufion ftill holds good, that if 
 the Englijh have now fucceeded to thofe very Lands and Privileges which the Nor- 
 mans anciently enjoyed, then whatfoever Right or Liberty the Englijh Proprietors 
 of Eftates do at this Day enjoy, they do not only hold them as the Succeffors 
 and Defcendants of thofe Normans and frenchmen, but are allb reftored to them 
 Jure poft/iminii (as you Civilians term it) fince they never fubmitted themftlve?, 
 or took an Oath of Allegiance to King Wi/liam and his Heirs, but only to himfelt" 
 Feribnally •, there being no fuch Claufe in any Oath of Allegiance, till it was fo 
 ordained many Ages after in the Reign of King Henry the Fourth •, nor was this 
 Oath ever taken by our Englijh Anceftors to K. William as to a Conqueror, but the 
 lawful Succeflbr of K. Edward the Confeflbr •, and K. WiUiam^ actual taking away 
 the Eftates of a great many of the Englijh Nobility and Gentry, contrary to his 
 own Oath, and without any jult Caufe, could no more give him a Right fo to do, 
 than if Henry the Fourth, or Henry the Seventh, both which came to the Crown 
 by the Aififtance of a Foreign Force, fhould upon a Pretence of being Conquerors 
 have governed by an Army, and fo have taken away whofe Eftates they plealed, 
 and given them to their Followers that came over with them. 
 
 yVI. I (hall not difpute this Matter with you any further-, therefore pray proceed 
 to the other Point you took upou yon to prove, that King William did not take away 
 fo great a Share of the Lands of England, as the Dr. and thofe of our Opinion 
 affirm. 
 
 F. I fhall obferve your Commands^ and therefore in the firft Place I defire yoa 
 to take notice, that according to the DoQor's own fliewing, your Conqueror never 
 took away the Lands of all the Bifliops and Abbots of England, much lefs thofe 
 that belonged to Deans and Chapters, or to private Churches ; and if his Nobles 
 or Followers had unjuftly ditfeized any Bifhop or Abbot of their Eftates, the King 
 caufed thein to be reftored again ^ as appears by many Prefidents of this Kind, 
 which are to be tbund in Ingulphiis and Eadmerus. This being premifed, let us 
 fee in the next Place, what Proportion the Lands belonging to the Church, did in 
 rhole Days bear to the reft of the Lands in England. Now we find in Sprot^ 
 Chronicle, as alfo from the old Leiger-book, cited by Mr. Selden in his Titles of 
 Honour, and particularly from that Sccretjtm Abbatis (formerly belonging to the 
 Abbey of Glajfenbury, and now in the Library of the Univerfity of Oxon) that 
 there were not long after your Conqueft, 60215 Knight's Fees in England, of 
 which the Bifhops, Abbots, and other Churchmen then enjoyed 28015, .when 
 it is iuppofed this Account was taken. Then it will follow, that in the Reign of 
 your Conqueror there were above 28000 Knight's Fees, whicli belonged to the 
 Church. And in thefe we do not any where find that K. William difpolfefTed their 
 Tenants of their Eftates, moft of which were held in Fee under them, and thofe 
 Tenants were great and powerful Men in their Countries •, and hence we read in 
 the ancient Records and Leiger-Books, of the Barons and Knights, that held of 
 diversBidiops and great Abbots ; leveral Examples of which you willfind in Six 
 F. !<4. Henry Spclmans Title Baro. Now it is certain that K. William could not turn 
 
 all thefe Men out of their Eftates, and give them to his Followers, without com- 
 mitting
 
 'Dialogue the Tenth* 527 
 
 mitring Sacrilege, and invading the Rights of the Church, which that King 
 durlt not commonly do. * So that the utmoft you can fuppofe he could do, 
 was to take the Forfeitures of all fuch Tenants of the Church, who had taken 
 Fart with Ring liirold, or had any ways committed Treafon againft himfslf^ 
 which were far from the whole Number of them : So that here goes off 
 at once almoft a Half of all the Lands held by Knights Service, which the King 
 did never difpoQeft the ancient Owners of To ;helo may alfo be added all Tenants 
 in ancient Demcfnc, all Tenants in Soccage^ as alfo all Tenants in Gavelkind, 
 which in thole Days made at leaft Two Thirds of the Lands of Kent, which 
 by the way was never conquer'd, but furrender'd upon Terms, to fave their 
 aucien: Cuftoms and Tenures, as Mr. Cambden himfelf acknowledges in his De- 
 fcription of this County ^ befides what was held in other Counties by the fame 
 Tenure ; as you will find in Mr. Taylors Hiftory of Gavelkind : All which not 
 being Tenures in chief by Knight's Service, are not regifter'd in Doomefday- 
 Book j nor does it appear that the Owners' were ever difpoflelfed of them. To 
 which may alio be added the Lands of divers of thofe fmaller Tlianes, or Of 
 fleets of King Edward, whole Names are found in Domefday-Book, who held 
 their Lands ratione officii 
 
 To all thefe we may alio add, all fuch Norman Noblemen and Gentlemen, 
 who were many, that having come into England in Edward the Confeflbr's Time, irn i.,„, 
 and having Honours and Lands given them by him, had continued here ever Gididmi' ^ 
 lince : And thefe were fo numerous, that it was thought worth while by King 
 William to make a particular Law concerning them, that they (hould partake 
 of all the Cuftoms, the Rights and Privileges of native Englijhmen, and pay Scot 
 and Lot as they did •, of thefe were the Earl of Morton, befides many others 
 whofe Names appear in Dome/day Book. And not only thefe Men but alfo divers 
 Cities and Towns held Lands of King William by the fame Rents and Services, 
 as they had formerly paid in the Time of King Edward the Confeffor, as 
 Oxford for Example. But to give an Anfwer to fome of your Inftances, as y., _ ^. 
 when you fay that King WiUiam gave away whole Counties, as all Chejhire to So^k inOxUrd' 
 Hugh Lupus, and the greateft Part of Shropfhire to Roger de Montgomery, 8cc. fi,\re. 
 
 It is a great Error to fuppofe that thefe Earls had all the Lands mentioned in 
 thele Counties to difpofe of at i^heir Pleafure, and that they turned out all the old 
 Proprietors, which it is certain they did not \ as I could prove to you by leveral 
 Inftances of ancient Englijh Families who have held their Lands and enjoyed 
 the fame Seats they had in the Conqueror's Time. So that you lee there is a 
 great deal of Difference between a Grant of all the Land of a County, and that of 
 a whole County : What is meant by the former is plain, but as for the latter it 
 generally implies no more than the Earldom or Government of that County. Thus 
 whereas your Dr. would have it, that the greateft Part of Shropjhire was given to ^' '^' ^' P* ^^' 
 Roger de Montgomery, Domcfdny only lays, that he had the City of Shretosbitry, ^^' 
 & lotam Comitatum, and the whole County : But that is Ibon explained by what 
 follows, 6?" totum 'Dominium quod Rex ipje tenebat ; where it is plain that by 
 Dominium is meant no more than that Power to govern it, and receive a Third 
 Fart of the Fines and othei Profits to his own Uie, which King Edward had ; for 
 otherwife the Grant of totutu Comitatum, had been fufficient. 
 
 M. I confefs this is more than ever I heard, or conlidered before, concerning this 
 Matter 5 but you do not give me any pofitive Proof that at the Time when Dome/day 
 Book was made, there were any Englijhmen who held Earldoms, or Baronies, or other 
 great Eftates of the King, or any of his great Men 5 fo that what you have faid hi- 
 therto, tho' it carries a great Shew of Probability, yet is no pofitive Proof againft 
 the Dr.'s Aflertion. 
 
 F: I (liall not go about to deny what William di JSlalmsbury, and Ucnry of Hun- 
 tington ^0 pofitively affirm, that for fbme time before the End of King fy///w;w's 
 Reign, there was no '.EngliJJjman a Bifhop, Abbot, or Earl, in England -^yQt does 
 it not therefore follow, that it was thus through his whole Reign, or if it were 
 lb, will it therefore follow, that there were few Englijlimen who, when Dome/day' 
 Book was made, poffetled any Lands in England. But that in Part of King Willi- 
 am\ Reign there were many Englijh Earls and Barons, appears by above a dozen 
 Charters cited by Sir William Dugdale, in the Saxon and Latin Tongues, in his 
 Monafl. Anglic, ^vhichare eitlicr direikd by Y^XnpVilliam to all his Earls or Thanes^ 
 or ellein Latin, Omnibus Buronib:is,Vrancigenis ^Anglis ; ot elfe Omnibus Baronibus 
 
 3 iSl Fidil'ibui
 
 5^8 BlBLlOTHECA PoLlTICA. 
 
 6?" Fulel'tbusfuis franc is ^ Anglls fnlutem. The like C!.iarters alfo appear of Ht/i.l. 
 and .the Emprefs Maui his Daughter. So that if francigcna and Traticus fignify 
 a Frenchman, and Anglus an En^lilliman, and \f fide/is does (as your Dr. would, 
 have it) fignify a Teiunt in Capite, then I think nothing is plainer than that 
 there were, for great P.irt of King William's Reign, both Earls , Barons and Te- 
 nants in Capite of Eng.ijh Extraftion. 
 
 But to come to paviicular Perfons •, it will appear by many Saxon or Englijh 
 Names in Doomfday-Bcck, as alfo by leveral Recitals therein , that there were 
 divers Engfijh Noblemen or Gentlemen, who held Lands in divers Counties 
 of England^ at the Time when that Survey was made. And for Proof of 
 this, (ince fo fhort a Converfation as ours will not permit me to run into a long 
 Bed-Roil of Names, I refer you to what the learned and ingenious yir.Atwood 
 in his Jus Angler um ah antiquo, has obferved out of Doonifday- Book upon thisSub- 
 jeft j where tho' he has gone over but Fifteen Counties of Thirty, that are fur- 
 veyed in that Book, yet it will thereby fufficiently appear that your Dr. is much 
 miitaken when he lb pofuively affirms, that there were lew (or no EngHjhmcn that 
 held Lands in England. But to give you a Tafte of this, I ihall run through as 
 many Counties a, yix. Atwood has given us the Names of: To begin which 
 Survey, (where behdes the Earl of Morton above-menrioned, who tho' he was a 
 Jiorman born, yet he was here before the Entrance of the 'Korman Duke, and 
 held EJrehjw in Tenrige Hundred in the Time of King Ediijard) .there was alfo 
 Hugo ae Port, an Eng/ijhman, who was a very great Proprietor, as may be found 
 under this Title in Doom/day- Book, Terra Hugonis de Fort. Many Manors he 
 had, as thereby appears ^ in Hampfhire he had at leaft Two Mannors, Cerdeford. 
 and F/chetune, from his Anceftors before King Williains Entrance -, and befides 
 this Gentleman, (and the Earl above-mentioned,) there are no lefs than Ten or 
 Eleven, who as it appears either by their Englijh Names, or elfe by this Note 
 which fo frequently occurs, Idem tenuitT.R. E. i.e. tempore Edwardi Regis, i.e. 
 held the fame Lands they and thdr Anceftors did in the Time ofKingi'i- 
 Kard. The like I may lay for the other Counties there mentioned, as Hamp- 
 fhire in the next Place, where befides Ralph de Alortimer who had leveral 
 Lands, T.R.E. there are no lefs than above Thirty Freeholders rrjore, who 
 by their Saxon Names and want of Sir-Names, feem to be meer Englijh, divers 
 of whom held the lame Thane-Lands, which themfelves or their Fathers did in 
 the Time of King Edward. And tho' in Buckingham/hire and Berkjhire indeed 
 there are but Five or Six, who held the (lime Lands which thev or their Ance- 
 ftors pofJefTed in the Time of the Conqueror -, yet in WiUfhire and Dorfet- 
 Jhire, there appears between Twenty and Thirty Englijly Proprietors,- miny of 
 whom held whole Townfhips when this Survey was made. In Somcrfetjhire, Devon- 
 Jhire, Staff or Ijhire, Turkjhire and GlouceJ]erfl)ire, tlieir does appear in moft of them 
 a Dozen or more Englijh Saxon Names, who held whole Minors. 'Tis true that in 
 l\ottinghamJhire, Lincolnshire miHerefordJlnre, there appear feweft£>7f///Z» Names, 
 and yet the lealt of thele have Three a-piece. 
 
 So much may fuffi:e for Doom/day Book : And I doubt not if any one will take 
 the Pains to look over the Titles ot the reft of the Counties, he may find 
 enough Inltances of the like Nature, fufficient to prove that the Englijh were 
 not wholly difpoffelled of their Eftates, at the latter End of King William^ 
 Reign, when this Survey was made. Not to mention Korthumberland, IVeJl- 
 modand, and the Bifhoprick of D/^;-.Ww j all which are omitted. 
 
 But that the Number of Englijh, which held the Lands in the Time of King 
 William I. and IL was very confiderable, may appear by William of Malmsburys 
 relating how the Gorman Lords then in England, would have dethroned Willtam 
 Ri,ft^ and have fet up his Brother Robert in his Place, who there alfo Ihews 
 the Manner how that King prevented it. RcxVidens Kormannos pene in unaRabie 
 confpiratos, Anglos probos, i^ fortes vires, qui adhuc refidui eram invitatoriis fcrip- 
 tis arcejft ; quibus fuper injuries fuh ^ierimoniam facicns, honafque Leges £3* 
 Tributorum levamen Libera/que venationes pollicens, fidciitatt J'u£ ohligavit ; where 
 Refidui mult certainly be meant of the Reiidue or Remainder of thofe Englijh Gen- 
 try, whofe Eftates were ftill left-, and herein 0/t/m<rw Vitalk is more exprefs, that 
 King William as foon as he faw the Contrivance againlt him •, Lanfrancum Aj-chie- 
 pifcopum cum Suffraganek prxfulibus, ^ Comitcs Anglo f que Nat ur ales convoca- 
 vity if Conatus AdverTariorum, C velle fuum expugnandi eos indicavit, 
 
 M. As
 
 Dialogue the Tenth. 529 
 
 M. As for Mr. y^rrP(7o,-/'s Catalogue of £«f/;]7} Names from Doom fday Book, 
 I have not yet examined them i and tho I grant there are, and may be divers 
 who held the fame Lands that they, or their Fathers did, yet they are but a 
 few in refped of the red : nor are we certain that all thefe were native Eiig- 
 li^i, and not Normans^ who held thofe Lands as well then as before the Co-o- 
 queft, fince the Norman and the EngU^i Names were often the fame. And 
 as for the want of Sirnames, that is no Argument they muft needs be Eng- 
 HP), fincein thofe days very few, even of the Normans, but Perfons of Qua- 
 lity and Eftates, had any •, as Mr, Camhden Ihews us in his Remains. But as 
 for thofe ExprefFnns in the Charters of King William and his Sons, wherein 
 the Englifh, as well as the French Earls and Barons, are mcntiontd \ thofe 
 Charters might be made during the three or four firft years of King W^.7/<<««»'s 
 Reign, when I grant the fw^////; were not wholly difpolfefled of their Eftates, 
 but that there wtre fome of them that ftill held Earldoms and Baronies in 
 their own Kightj but when the fame ExprefTions occur after that time, the 
 vioxd Angli, OT u4>tgligen<e^ muft be underftocd in another fenfe, tho it feemsB. A^. 
 to be put in oppolition to Franci : for as by thefe laft are to be underftocd fuch 
 French or Norman Bivons, who had Eftates in £»f/^nd as well as in France; Co 
 by the former could be only meant fuch Frenchmen or Normans who had Eftates 
 in £«^/.W only, or elfe tho F/-fnc/; by Original, were £M^/(J?;/wf« by Birth, and 
 are here called y?«^// and AngUgena, to diftinguifh them from fuch French Ba- 
 rons as are above-mentioned, or from fuch as were born in France. And for the 
 truth of this, I defire you would confult Dr. B\ learned Gloftary, at the end 
 of the Folio Edition of his Anfvverto Mr. P. and his two StconA%,Tit. AngU 
 and Angligenx ; where he tells us, that thefe AngU und Barones AnglU, men- 
 tioned in thefe Authors and antient Charters, were not EngU^i but Normans^ 
 and thofe Men of no mean or ordinary Rank, but Earls or Barons^ for they 
 could never have met in fuch numbers, as were requifite for them to do, to 
 proteft and defend King William Rufm, had not they been headed by fuch, if 
 they had either Power or Eftates left, that depended not upon iht Normans. 
 And if you, or any Man, can ftiew me an Englijh Saxon, that was then either 
 Earl or Baron, or had any fhare in the Government, or any that had confide- 
 rable Eftates that did not hold them of the Normans, or had at that time any 
 great Woods, Forefts, or Privileges of hunting in them, then I will confefs 
 my felf miftaken. As for W. Malmesbury'% faying, thefe were AngU probi qui 
 rejfidui erant, thefe were only the antiqui C^ legitimi Barones, who, as Ordericut 
 tells us, came in with his Father, and fettled themfelves here after the Con- 
 queft. 
 
 And as for your Quotations out of William of Malmeshury, and Orderictu B.-<, P. p.50. 
 Vitalis, concerning the Evgli^t aflifting King William Rujtu againft his Brother 
 Robert, byuling the common bait of Liberty, viz.. promiling that he would 
 alleviate the rigid Laws of his Father, and give free liberty of hunting in his 
 Forefts -, 'tis true, he thereupon raifed an indifferent Army, confifting chief- 
 ly of Englip, who, as Matthew Paris tells us, were no better than mercenary 
 or ftipendiary Soldiers, and who had either no Eftates, or elfe had been turned 
 out of them before . fo that this does not prove that they were EngUjhmen of 
 any Fortunes who thus aftifted William Rufus. 
 
 F. As for what you have now faid againft the Citations of the Names out 
 of Doomfday-Book, it is not material ; fince if Englijh Names were then 
 common to the N^ormans and them, then the iVl»rfM<»« Names might be as well 
 common to the EngliJI] ; and then many of thofe in England, whom by their 
 Names we fuppofe to have been Normans, might be native EngUjhmen. And 
 as for what you urge againft the exprefs words of the Charters 1 have now 
 cited, I think it is a downright wrefting of the words Francis and Anglis, 
 linceno Author that I know of but your Doftor is of that Opinion: For that 
 the word Franci or Francigens docs lignify fuch Frenchmen who held Baronies 
 in England, is granted on all hands j but how A ngl i muit alfo fignify French' 
 men, fcems a Paradox to me: for how could thek Frenchmen or Normans be 
 termed Englishmen, only becaufe they held Eftate« here and not in Normandy .? 
 For if the having fuch and fuch Eftates in England would have turned French- 
 men into Englijlimcn, there needed no fuch diftindion to have been made be- 
 tween French and Englifi Barons in thefe Charters •, fince, according to your 
 
 Y y y Doftor's
 
 530 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 Dodor's Notion, the French Barons could be no otherwife mentioned here, but 
 as they had Eftates here, and therefore could be only writ to in that Capa- 
 city, fince as mere Frenchmen they had nothing to do here : fo that if this 
 Epithet was in refpeft of the Tenure of their Lands, they would have been 
 ftiled Englifii Barons as well as the other. Nor is your other Evafion more to 
 the purpofe, that by the AngH might be meant in the Charters of King Hen- 
 ry \. i\ic)^ Norman ox French ]iixons., who becaufe they were born \\\ EngUnd, 
 might therefore be called EngUpi: for who can believe that in fo fmall a 
 time, as from the beginning of the Reign of King William I. to that of King 
 Henry I. which was but a little above thirty years, fo many of the Norman No- 
 bility were dead, as fliould make it neceflary to ufe a new Diflinftion of French 
 anAEngliji) Barons i fince by their Tenures they werebcth aVike EngHflj ? And 
 indeed thus to make j4»gti lignify Normans^ is to confound and make all words, 
 tho ever fo plain, uncertain and equivocal. And as for what Orderktu fays of 
 the old Norman Barons, it would have fignified fomething, if you could have 
 proved he had called them Engli^imen^ as he does not : but if you carry it fur- 
 ther to the time of the Emprefs Maud and King Stephen, when all the old Race 
 of iVo?-»«<t«/ were certainly dead, then there was much lefs need of this Dif- 
 tinftion, when all that were born in England were EngUjh alike ., and therefore 
 the word French could only extend to thofe few Barons, who being born in 
 Normandy, had Eftates here. 
 
 But fince you are forced to confefs, that for the firft four or five years of 
 King William I's Reign, there were both Englip Earls and Barons, till the 
 King had by degrees rooted them out, there cannot be a better Argument a- 
 gainft your pretended Right of Conqueft j fince it is plain, King H''i7//^iw could 
 never pretend to take away their Honours and Eftates as a Conqueror, fince 
 by his Coronation-Oath hewasfwornto reft rain all Rapines and unjuft Judg- 
 ments, and that he would behave himfelf mercifully toward his Subjefts, and 
 treat both the Englij!) and French with equal Right : fo that if he afterwards 
 took away the Eftates of EngliJI) Nobility or Gentry, it was either becaufe they 
 deferved it by rebelling againft him, and then it was juftly done, or elfe it 
 was done without qny caufe at all, but only to opprefs and root out the EngUJh 
 Proprietors-, and if fo, fuch Aftions being contrary to his own Claim from 
 Edward ihe Conki^ov, as alfo to his Coronation-Oath, could no more give him 
 any fuch Right to rob or fpoil Men of their Eftates without any juft caufe, 
 than it could give him a Right to rob the Churches and Monafteries of all the 
 Plate, Mony, and Jewels which he found in them, even to the very Chalices 
 and Shrines, as Matthew Paris and other Authors tell us he did in the fourth 
 year of his Reign ; when likewife (according as you your felf fet forth) he be- 
 gan to (hew himfelf a Conqueror, or rather a Tyrant, in thus committing Sa- 
 crilege, and taking away the Eftates of the EngUjlj without any juft caufe. 
 But however, the Authors of that time do not make fo great a Tyrant of 
 A 208. your Conqueror as the Doftor j for William of Poiilou expreHy tells us, who 
 
 was Chaplain to this King, concerning his taking away the Eftates of the Eng- 
 lijf}, and giving them to the Normans, that nulli tamen Gallo datum efi quod An- 
 glo cuiquam injufte fuerit ahlatum. And Ordericta Fitalis, fpeaking of his deal- 
 lit IV 'y '"§ ^''•^ ^^^ Engliflj at the beginning of his Reign, fays exprefly, Neminem^ nifi 
 ',05, 5o'5. "* ^«'"w """ damnare iniquumforet, damnavit. 
 
 I ftiall now conclude with a Reply to what you have faid, to evade the Au- 
 thorities of thofe antient Authors 1 have brought to prove, that in the begin- 
 ning of the Reign of King PF////<jw the Second, there were taany EngUp) Gen- 
 tlemen left of confiderable Eftates, whom you and your Doctor would fain 
 make to be no better than mere Mercenaries , which is exprefly contrary to 
 the Authority of Matthew Parisy whom you your felf have cited in this Point, 
 as alfo all other Authors who have wrote of this matter : for Matthew has 
 immediately before thefe words, Fidens igitur Rex WilUelmt*s, omnes fene Regnt 
 proceres una rahie confpiratos, Anglos fortitudine (^ probitate infgnes, faciles leges 
 & tributorum levamen, illis venationes libera/que promittendo flbi prime devinxit ; 
 and almoft makes ufe of the very words that Malmesbury had done before. 
 Now 1 defire you or your Dodtor would fatisfy me, how Men, who were re- 
 markable for their Valour and Honefty, and who were fo confiderable, as to 
 be fent for by Letters writ on purpofe, and when they came, ftiould be pro- 
 mi fed
 
 Dialogue tie Tenth. 
 
 531 
 
 mifed cafier Laws, free Hunting, and a Relaxation of Taxes, all which arc 
 Privileges belonging to Men of Eftates, could be mere Soldiers of Fortune? 
 And to make it plain that they were not the King's, but their own Woods they 
 •were to hunt in, Roger Hoveden fpeaking of this very matter, tells us, Et con- 
 cttfit omnibus fylvas fuas^ & venationem : Sed (juic^uid promifit parvo tempore 
 cvftodivit., jingU turn fideliter eumjuvabant. But that he did not keep his Promife 
 as to hunting, as well as other things, appears by a PalTage in E^iiwjfr*/^, where 
 he gives us as an Example of King ^w/kt's harfh Nature, " That about fifty 
 " Men of the antient EngUpi Gentry, who in thofe days enjoyed fome Re- 
 " mains of Riches, were taken and accufed, that they had killed the King's 
 " Deer-," and having for this undergone the Trial of Fire and Water, he 
 was in a great Rage about it : which is fufficient to (hew you, that there were 
 at this time many £ff^//y/; Gentlemen left of fufficient Eftates to ufe Hunting, 
 either in their own or the King's Woods. As for what you urge further a- 
 gainft Mr. ^'s Inftances out of Doomfday Book, it is not confidcrable ; fince 
 it is only an Exception againft the Names of Perfons there mentioned, that 
 they were not native £»f/»/7;, but Normans^ who cither were born, or had 
 Lands in England, or elfe had the fame Names with the EngUfli \ both which 
 nxt gratis diila: for Doomfday-Book plainly fays, either that they or their 
 Anceftors were here before your Conqueft, or elie their Names being wholly 
 EngliJIi- Saxon, it lies upon your fide to prove, that they were Frenchmen or 
 Normans by Original, which 1 believe is more than you or your Doitor is able 
 to do. 
 
 F. 1 cannot blame you if you do what you can to evade this Teftimony from 
 Sharnborns Book, which gives fo exaft an account of the Original of thofe 
 Tenants who held of the King, as Sir H. Spelm.tn tells us, per fervitium Dreri' clojfary. Tide 
 garii •, and fuch Tenants were called Drenches or Drenges, as this Book of Sharn- Drenches, 
 born tells us. But tho it is true, as this Book it felf fets forth, Edwin of 
 Sharnbornwas never reftored to all the Lands he held before the Conqueft; 
 yet it is plain, that he had the King's Mandate for his Reftitution : and if he 
 could not obtain it, by reafon of the great power of the prefent PoITenbrs, 
 yet that is no Argument againft his Right, or King William's Intention to re- 
 ftore him ; fince Ingulph tells us, that Ivo Talbois feized the Cell of Spalding, and Hift. p. -ji, 
 divers Lands belonging to the Monaftery of CroyUnd, and kept them by force, 72, 95* £''''• 
 notwithftanding a folemn Hearing before the King and Council. And if a *^'"'"* 4> 
 great Man could do this with the Lands of the Church, it is no wonder that 
 ib powerful a Perfon as Earl Warren could, by his Power, or perhaps by the 
 Connivance of King WilUam himfelf, keep another Man's Eftate, and make 
 him contented with fuch a fhare as he would allow him, when he found he 
 could have no other remedy againft thofe that thus unjuftly detained it. 
 
 But tho in the beginning of your Difcourfe you feem to allow a part of the 
 Story, as it is related in 5W»W«'s Manufcript, and produce the Teftimony of 
 Bran:on and Fleta, to prove that divers antient Englijh Proprietors, who be- 
 ing thrown out of their Eftates by powerful Men prefently after the Conqueft, 
 •were fain to take them again upon performing of Villain Services, tho they 
 themfelves remained free Men ; yet your Doftor, from whom you borrow 
 this, is very much out in his Appli#ition of thofe Paflages he cites : for nei- 
 ther of thofe Authors do affirm this of all Owners of Lands whutfoever, but 
 only there to give us the Original of Socage-Tenants on the King's De- 
 mefnes, as appears by j?r^ff<;«'s Title to that Chapter, from whence the Doc- 
 tor cites this Pafl'age, which is, De diverfs conditionibus perfonarumtenentium in 
 Dominicis Domini Regis. And the firft words of this Chapter make it yeC 
 plainer, beginning thus, In Domimco Domini Regis plura funt genera homtnum^ 
 funt enim ihi fervi jive nativi, ante Conqucftum, in Conqueftu, cr pofi Conquejium i 
 and under thefe laft ranges the Perfons you mentioned. But Fleta is more 
 exaft in his Chapter ^fSoi^wifj;;//, where he tells us, that thefe Men were Te- 
 nants of the King's antient Manners in Demefae •, Et quia hujufmodi cultores 
 Regis dignofcuntur, provifa fuit quies, ne feSlas facerent ad Comitaturn, vel Hun' 
 dredum tamen pro terra, quorum congregationem tunc focam appellarunt, hinc efi 
 quod Sokrm.wni hodie dicuntur ejfe. So that tho King William might permit his 
 antient Tenants to be thus outed out of the Eftates they held in his own 
 Dcmefnes, yet does it not therefore follow, that he took away the Eftates of 
 
 Y y y 2 th«
 
 5^2 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTlCA. 
 
 the antient Owners all over England, of whatfoever Tenure they were, or of 
 whomfoever held. But as for your Quotation out of Matthew Paris, it proves 
 no more than what I readily grant, that King William, after his return out of 
 Normnndyy liberally rewarded his Followers with the Ettates of the Engliflj, 
 which might be only of fuchas fought againft him at the Battle of H.ifiir,gs •, 
 and as for that little which was left them, which he fays was put under the 
 Yoke of a perpetual Servitude, he means no more by this Exprelfion, than 
 that new Tenure of Knight's Service which Kvn^WilH am Im^oM upon them; 
 as this Author in the very next Leaf obferves, where he fpeaks of the Lands 
 of the Bifhoprjcks and Abbies, which were held before free from all fecalar 
 Servitude, fnb fcr-vitute flatuit milieari. 
 
 M. I will not undertake to prove that he quite a'ltered the antient Laws of 
 "EnglmA^ and brought in quite new ones j yet that he did To in great part, andi 
 that by his fole Authority, I think lean prove by fufficient Tellimonies: atxl 
 therefore I fhall begin with that of Eadmtr, a Monk of Cantahmy, a Compa- 
 
 Hift. Nov. nion of Archbifhop Lmnfrane's, who tells u9 in his Hiftory, '* That IViHmr,* 
 
 fol.6. n. 10, ct defigning toeftabli(hin£«^/<3»^ thofe Ufages and Laws, 'vhich his Ancef. 
 
 T'J°'p "2 " ^°^^ ^"^ ^^ obferved in Normandy, made fuch PerfOiis Bifhops, Abbots, and 
 ■ ■ *P'^ ■*< other principal Men, thro the whole Nation, who could not l)e thought fo 
 *' unworthy as to be guilty of any Reladtancy and Difobedience to them, 
 " knowing by whom, and to what they were raifed •, all divine and human 
 " things he ordered at his pleafare." And after the Hiftorian hath recounted 
 in what things he difallowed the Authority of the Pope and Archbilhop, he 
 concludes thus : " But what he did in Secular Matters, I forbear to write, be- 
 *<• caufe it is not my purpofe, and becaufe alfo any one may, from what hath 
 " been delivered, guefswhathe did in Seculars." From which I think no- 
 thing is plainer, than that King William did not only defign to alter many- 
 things in the Laws and Cufloms of England, but did alfo a<n:ually do it j for to 
 what end elfe did he make the Bifhops, Abbots, and other principal Men, 
 who were to be Judges in all Courts? Now that King fF;7//V?w governed the 
 Nation as Conqueror, and did fo live and repute himfelf fo to be, and as ftch 
 brought in and impofed new Laws upon the People of this Nation, is clear, 
 as Ifhall prove from thefe Particulars. 
 
 Firfi, Tlie Jufticiaries, or chief Juftices, the Chancellors, the Lawyers, the 
 
 4^ Minilterial Officers and Under-Judges, Earls, Sheriffs, Bailiffs, Hundredaries, 
 
 were ^W Normans, from his firft coming until above a hundred years after ; as 
 1 can make it out by particular Inffances and undeniable Reafons, were not 
 the Catalogues too long to be here inferted. If therefore the Jufticiaries, 
 Chancellors, Earls, Sheriff^s, Lords of Mannors, fuch as heard Caufes, and gave 
 Judgment, were Normans ; if the Lawyers and Pleaders were alfo Normans^ 
 the Pleadings and Judgments in their feveral Courts muft of neceflity have 
 been in that Language, and the Law alfo, 1 mean the Norman Law : otherwife 
 they had faid and done they knew not what, and judged they knew not how ; 
 efpecially when the Controverfies were to be determined by military Men, as 
 Earls, Sheriffs, Lords of Mannors, c$-c. that underftood not the Ef/gUjh 
 Tongue or Law ; or when the Chief Jufticiary himfelf was a military Man, as 
 it often happened, and underftood only th#iVo)w;!« Language : and 'tis hardly 
 to be believed thefe Men would give themfelves the trouble of learning and un- 
 derftanding the Englifi Law and Language. 
 
 Secondly., Tho we have many Laws and Cuftoms from the Northern People, 
 and North Parts of Germany, from whence both Saxons and Normans came i 
 yet, after the Conqueft, the Bulk and Main of our Laws were brought hither 
 from iVprw^w^^ by the Conqueror, from whence we received the Tenures and 
 Manner of holding oar Eftates in every refpedt, from whence alfo \ve have re- 
 ceived the Cuftoms incident to thofeEftates ; andlikewife the Quality of them, 
 being moft of them feudal, and enjoyed under feveral military Conditions and 
 Services : fo that of necelTary confequence from thence we muft receive the 
 Laws alfo, by which thefe Tenures, and the Cuftoms incident to them, were 
 regulated, and by which every Man's Right in fuch Eftates was fecured, ac- 
 cording to the nature of them. From Normandy (and brought in by the Con- 
 queror) we received moft, if not all our antient Tenures, and manner of hold- 
 ing and enjoying OUT Lands and Eftates, as willappear by comparing our an- 
 ttcnt Tenures with theirs. F. I
 
 Dialogue the Tenth, 533 
 
 F. I (hall not deny but a great part of the matter of Faft is true, as you 
 have now put it : yet tho 1 grant, that the Bifhops, Abbots, Chancellors, 
 chief Juftices, and other great Officers of the Crown, were all, or the grcateft 
 part of them Normans^ during the Reigns of the two firfl: Kings of the Nor- 
 man Race j it does .inot therefore follow, that thefe Men muft have made a 
 Change in the very fubftance of our Laws, tho in matters of Pleading, or 
 judicial Proceedings, they might have introduc'd a great many Alterations : 
 yet as to the Civil or Municipal Laws of this Kingdom, concerning the De- 
 fcent and Conveyance of Eftates, they continued the fame after the coming clanvHU, 
 in of the Normans : and tho Lands held by Knights Service, defcended to the L'b. ?• "P- 2* 
 cldeftSon-, yet Lands in free Socage, and Gavel-kind, to all the Sons alike, 
 as they had likewife done before your Conqueft, There were alfo Eftates 
 Tail and Feelimple, as now ■■, and there were alfo the like Cuftoms of the Cour- 
 tefy of England^ Borough EngUjJ), ike. as there are alfo at this day, as I can 
 prove to you by feveral palFagcs out of our Englijl) Saxon Laws. So likewife 
 for Conveyance of Eftates, thofe of the better"fort of People calfd Bockland^ 
 were conveyed by Deeds, with Livery and Seifm, either with or without 
 Warranty, as they are now ; but that which was call'd FolcLtnd., held by the 
 meaner fort, were only by Livery and Seifin without any Writing. And tho 
 I grant that the Cuftom of fealing of Deeds is deriv'd from the Normans^ yet 
 that is an alteration only in matter of Form ■■, and as for Goods and Mony 
 they were bequeathable by a Man's laft Will, as well after, as before your Con- 
 queft. And if you can have the opportunity to perufea Manufcript Treatiie 
 of Siw Roger Owenh upon this Subjeft, you will find it there fufficiently proved j 
 That Livery of Seifin, Licences, or Fines for Alienation, Daughters to inhe- 
 rit, Trials by Juries, Abjurations, Utlaries, Coroners, difpofing of Lands 
 by Will, Efcheats, Goals, Writs, Wrecks, Warranties, Felons Goods, and 
 many other parts of our Law, were here in being, long before the time of King 
 William. This being fo as to the Common-Law, let us fee what alterations 
 there were made in the Criminal, or Crown- part of the Law. Firft, as to 
 Treafon and wilful Murder, they were puniflied with Death in the Saxon Times, 
 as well as after ^ as were alfo Robbery and Burglary in the Night-time: but 
 as for lefler Offences, fuch as Batteries, Maims, Robberies, and other Breaches 
 of the Peace, they were punifh'd by Fine, as well before the Conqueft as 
 after : And as for the Law oi Evgle^ierie., which was, that if a Man were found 
 murdered, it {hould be prefunied he was an Alien or Frenchman^ and the 
 Town thereupon where the Body was found was to be fined, \x\AQk Engleflnrie 
 ■was proved, i.e. that the Perfon was an £»^///?;w^« ^ this Cuftom, tho it lafted 
 to the Reign of Edward HI. when it was taken away by a Statute made on 
 purpofe, tho it may feem a Badge of the Norman Conqueft ■■, yet was it in- 
 deed a Law firft introduc'd by King Kuute in behalf of his D.inesy who being 
 often found kill'd, and none could tell by whom, he obtain'd this Law to be 
 made to prevent iti as you will fee at large in Braxton, and the Mirror 
 of Juftices. But as for Trial of all Offences, it was either by Juries, Fire, 
 or Water Ordeal i or elfe by Witncllcs, or Compurgators upon Oath, as 
 well before as after King WilHumh entrance. So that 1 can find nothing ma- 
 terial as to the alterations of the-Laws, cither in matters Criminal or Civil, 
 from what they were in the Saxons time j and this being ioy it is ealily an- 
 fwer'd, how the Judges and Officers might be Normans^ and yet the Laws 
 continue £»^Aj?; ftill : for firft it is certain, that for four or five Years, in the 
 beginning oV King William's Reign, he made no great alteration in the Judges, 
 and other great Officers of the Kingdom i and by that time thofe whom he 
 was afterwards pleas'd to employ in the rooms of fuch as either died or were 
 turned out, might very well come to undcrftand the Lawsof £wj/.««J, as far as 
 .they difier'd from thofe of Normandy., which was not in many Pa' ticulars j 
 fince, as your fclf very well obferv'd, the Saxons and Normans being both Nor- 
 thern People, had many of the fame Laws and Cuftoms common to both, 
 and the fame Perfons might in three or four Years time have very well Icarn'd 
 Englijh enough to underftanJ the Evidence that the Witnelfcs gave before 
 them, without any Interpreter. 
 
 But, fay you, all the Pleadings and Judgments were in French, and there- 
 fore the Lawyers and Pleaders muft be Frcnchmtn--, this is likewife a falfc 
 
 Gonfequence :
 
 534 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITlCA. 
 
 Confcquence : for pray tell me, why might not the EngUfli Lawyers have learnt 
 French enough to plead in three or four Years time, which mult necellarily be 
 required before fo great an Alteration could be made, or Lawyers enough be 
 brought out of Normandy^ and fufTiciently inftrufted in our Laws and Cuftoms, 
 could be fitted for their Employments ? Again^ fuppofing all Pleadings and 
 other Proceedings to have been in French^ it does not follow that this Pr?''\ice 
 could have obtained in all the Courts of England : for tho I grant it fo i'. the 
 Vid. Cffi« Pro- Kings Courts at ^^f/?tw»«/?fr, where the Judges (as you fay) were for th-. moft 
 **"• part Frenchmen^ or Normans j yet this could only affeft either tb.it great 
 
 Court, the Curia Regis-, where the King often fat in Perfon, together with 
 his Chief Jufticiary, and other Juftices; or elfe the Court of '.".ommon- 
 Pleas, which followed the King's Court, till it was ordain'd otherwife by 
 Magna Charta :, or elfe the Court of Exchequer, where in thofe days only mat- 
 ters concerning the King's Debts, Lands, and Revenues were chiefly heard and 
 difpatched. But as for the Court of Chancery, it was not then ufed as a Court 
 of Equity, nor long after, till the Reigns of Henry IV, V, and VI. when it 
 arofe by degrees, as you will find at large in Sir William DugdaU's Origines 
 Juridiciales. 
 
 So that granting all the Pfoceedings in thefe Supreme Courts to have been in 
 French, becaufe the King himfelf, who fat there with the Chief Juftice, and 
 the relt of the Judges, were either Normans or Frenchmen-, yet was this of 
 no great Importance, in comparifon of the more numerous Suits and Caufes 
 which were firft begun, and try'd in the inferior Courts in the Country, before 
 ever they could be brought up to London, by Writ of Error, or Appeal j 
 which could only be in Caufes of great moment, or between the King's Te- 
 n^nts in Capites So now to let you fee that what I fay is true, we will furvey 
 all the inferior Courts of that time, beginning with the lowed, and going up 
 to the higheft of them. The firft Court we find of this kind, was that of the 
 Vid. spelmaiih f^^^ Borough Of Tything, wherein by the Laws of King Edward the Confedbr, 
 cioj: Tit. the Tythingman or Headborough was the Judges who, as that Law tells us, 
 Pribargus. determin'd all Suits and Differences arifiag among Neighbours of the fame 
 Tything, concerning petty Trefpafles and Injuries, which if they could not be 
 there determin'd, might then be brought before the Court-Baron, which was 
 incident to every Mannor, and wherein the Suitors, and not the Lord nor his 
 Vid. 4. /»/?. Steward, were the Judges: And this, as S\t Edward Coke tells us, was firft 
 cap. 55,56,57. inltituted for the eafe ot the Tenants, and for the ending of Debts and Dama- 
 ges under forty Shillings at home, as it were at their own doors : And let me 
 Vid. spelmans tell you by the way, that forty Shillings was then near as much as forty Pound 
 Glof.Tit. is now. And if the Bufinefs could not be ended here, or was of too high a 
 Hundiedus fy nature, it was then brought into the Hundred-Court, where the Hundreder 
 Comitatus. together with the Suitors were Judges ^ and if they had not Juftice there, 
 they might then remove it into the Court of Tything or Lathe, which was 
 not the fmaller Court of the Tything mention'd, nor yet the Court-Leet, 
 but a particular Court confining of three or four Hundreds ; which, tho now 
 quite loft, was in being at the time of the Statute of Merton, as I Ihall fhevy 
 you by and by : And if the Bufinefs could not be decided in the Tything, it was 
 then removed to the Shire, or County-Court, as Mr. Lambert fhews us from the 
 Laws of King Edward; which was then held (as now) from Month to Month, 
 and in which, as well as in the Hundred-Court, the Suitors alone were Judges. 
 And tho it can now only hold Pleas (unlefs it be by Writ of Juftices) of any 
 Debt or Damage to the value of forty Shillings, or above ^ yet we find from 
 antient Authors, that this Court was fo confiderable, that we have divers 
 Examples of Caufes between the greateft Perfons of England., and that for 
 Lands of confiderable Value, begun and determin'd in this Court. ThviS E ad- 
 Vid.Hift.£4^. menu relates the great Trial at Pinnenden-heath, between Odo Bifhop of Bayeux^ 
 Lib. pag.8,9. half Brother to your Conqueror, and by him created Earl of Kent, and Lan^ 
 frank Archbifhopof Canterbi^yy, concerning divers xMannorsin Kent, and other 
 Counties, whereof Earl Ot/o had difleized the See of Canterbury, in the time of 
 Archbilhop Sr/f4«^ his PredeceiTor : whereupon the Archbifhop petitioned the 
 King, that Juftice might be done him, fecundum L(gemTerr<ie, and the King 
 thereupon fends forth a Writ to fummon a County-Court : The Debate lafted 
 three Days, before the Freemen of the County of Kent, in the prefence of 
 
 many
 
 Dialogue the Tenth, cot 
 
 many chief Men, Bifhops and Lords, and others skilful in the Laws i and 
 Judgment paflTed for the Archbifhop Lanfr.wc by the Votes of the Freemen j 
 or prii/iorum, or probomm hommum, as the Hiftorian calls them. 
 
 So that to conclude this Head, if no Suit could be begun in thofe Days, 
 but what was firft commenc'd in the Hundred-Court; no £)/y??/'w^ could ilTue 
 forth till three Demands were made in the Hundred, and from thence to be re- 
 mov'd to the County-Court, where regularly all Civil Caufes were try'd by the 
 Suitors as the only Judges, as well as in the Hundred-Court, and Court-Baron: 
 then it will neceflarily follow, that, unlefs you can prove, (which I think is 
 impolTibk) that all the Englifi) were at that time Slaves and Villains, and 
 had no Freehold of any fort left them j 1 fay, it will follow that all Pleadings and 
 Proceedings in any of thofe Courts, being before mere EngUjlmen, muft have 
 been in Engl ijh, and no other Language. So that after all this great Cry, not 
 a twentieth part of the Suits in England, were brought to London: And as 
 for Criminal Caufes, unlefs in Cafes of Treafon, all Murders, and other Felo- 
 nies were try'd and judg'd in the Country ; either within the particular Ju- 
 rifdiftions of Bifhops, Abbots or great Lords, or elfe of fuch Cities and Towns 
 who had the Privileges of Infangthief and Outfangthief, together with Foffa and 
 Furca'i that is, a Pit to drown, and a Gallows to hang Malefaftors: and if the 
 Offence was done in the Body ofthe County, they were then try'd and conderan'd 
 io the County- Court ■, Juftices Itinerant not being in ufe till Henry H's Reign. 
 
 Af. I mull confefs you have given me a great deal of Light in thefe matters, 
 more than 1 had before: but as I fliall not difpute whether in the lowelt 
 Courts, fuch as the Tythings and Court-Barons, the fmaller EngUjh Freehol- 
 ders might not judge of petty Caufes amongft themfelvesj yet in thofe grea- 
 ter Caufes, brought in the Hundred, and County-Courts, only the greater 
 Freemen of the Hundred, or County, were Judges. Who thefe Freemen were, s, A. p. pag. 
 _Dr. B. hath fuiiicicntly taught us in his Comments upon the Conqueror's Laws, 38, 39' g/o/ 
 as alfo in his Gluffary, viz.. That they were Tenants in Military Service, 
 who in thofe times were the only great Freemen of the Kingdom, and quite 
 different from our ordinary Freeholders at this day. Thefe were the Men, the 
 only Legal Men, that named and chofe Juries '-, and ferv'd on Juries themfelves, 
 both in the County and Hundred-Courts, and difpatch'd all Country Bufinefs 
 under the great Oflkers. 1 do not deny but that there might be other leJTer g/o/: pag. 29, 
 Freemen in thofe Times; but what their Quality was, farther than that their 3°* 
 Perfons and Blood were free; (that is, they were not Nat ivi, or Bondmen) it 
 will give a knowing Man trouble to difcover it to us. We find in every Leaf 
 of Doomfday, Socmen &■ liberi homines^ PofTefTors of fmall Parcels of Land ; 
 but what their Quality was, and of what Intereft in the Nation, Dicat Apolloy 
 no Man yet hath made it out, nor can it be done by the account we have of 
 ordinary Freemen, for a Century or two laft paft. 
 
 And for further Proof of this. That none but Tenants in Capite^ or Mili- 
 tary Tenants at Icaft, could be Judges ia the County-Court, it appears by the 
 Laws of King Henry 1. wherein it is exprefly faid : Regis Jvdices Barones Comi- Cap. i. 
 tutHt ^ui libertu in eis terras habent, per qtios debent caufdt fingulorum alttrna profe- 
 cutione traElari^ cfrc. So that thefe Baronsof the County being certainly feudal 
 Tenants, this Service of being Suitors to the County and Hundred-Courts, 
 was a Service incident to their Tenures*, and then it will alfo follow, that b.?.^. p. 35, 
 thofe Primores, and Probif^iri, who as you have now related, try'd this Caufe 
 between Earl O^c, and Archbifhop L<iH/r4»c; and who (let me tell you) were 
 not only of the County of Kent, but of other Counties in England, where the 
 Mannors and Lands lay, as Eadmerus fhews us ; and who were the Jurors .. 
 in this great Caufe, confided of the great Military Tenants, that were not 
 Barons, and thelefs which were the Probi Viri : for it can be no ways probable, 
 that the ordinary Freemen who made the greatcfl Number, and were all 
 bound to their good Behaviour, could be the Probi & legales homines^ who 
 ferv'd upon Juries. To conclude, if I have already prov'd, that King Wil- 
 liam took away the greateft part of the Lands of England, and gave them 
 to Normans and Frenchmen, who were the only true Freemen or Freeholders of 
 the Kingdom \ and as fuch owed Suit and Service to the Hundred and County- 
 Court, in which (as you your felf fet forth) all the confidcrable Aftionsas well 
 Real as Perfonal were then commenc'd and try'd; it will alfo follow, that the 
 
 Suitors,
 
 53^ 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 Suitors, who were the judges in thofe Courts, being for the greateft part at leaft 
 Frenchmen^ all the 1 rials and Proceedings therein mufl have been in French, and 
 not in Fnglijh^ which is contrary to what you have undertaken to prove. 
 
 F. If this be all you have to object againft what I have now faid, that all 
 Pleadings in the inferior Courts in the Country, mull in the time of your 
 Conqueror have been in French, and not in En^lifl) ., I hope I fhall give you 
 very good Satisfadion to the contrary, and (hall prove to you, that the very 
 firae Perfons who were the Suitors or Judges in the Hundred-Court, werealfo 
 Suitors in that of the County, tho they were of ever fo fmall Eftatcs of Free- 
 bold : and that thofe who were thus Judges in the Hundred-Court, were alfo 
 the fame Perfons of which the loweft Court, viz.. that of the Headborough 
 or Tythingman, did confift, appears by the very Definition of a Hundred ; as 
 Tit. Hundi-e- Y^^ niay fee it in Sir H- Spehnans Glojfary, Efi autem Hundreds portio Comitattu, 
 dus. (^ua olim de^ebant centum pacts regim Fidejujfores, vti Decurta cjua decern., complextis 
 
 eft igitur Hundredtti decern Difurioi., vt cemenarim Humerus decies dcnaritim. 
 Kow that the County-Court confided of the fame fort of Perfons with that of 
 the Hundred, is alfo certain, fince all £M^/a»^ was then (as now) divided into 
 Counties, Hundreds, and Tythings; fo that as the Hundred-Court confifted 
 of a hundred Perfons, who had all given Pledges to the King, fo did the 
 County-Court confift of all the Freeholders or Freemen of the feveral Hundreds 
 of the County, who all owed Suit and Service to the County-Court j and as 
 fuch were returnable upon Juries in all Trials in that Court, tho they had ever 
 fo fmall Eftatesof Freehold \ for then there were no Laws that limited the 
 Eftates of Freeholders returnable to Juries, upon AfFizes or Trials, to the yearly 
 value of forty Shillings. Bat that thefe Suitors to the Hundred-Court, mult 
 Cap. 38. )^3lVc been for the moft part Enghjh in all your Conqueror's Reign, your Dodlor 
 
 has given us a fufficient Teftimony in his Anfwer to Mr. jfs Janus Anglorum.^ 
 p. 35, where he tells us, the Jurors were aatiently call'd Tefles, and often in 
 Doom/day- Book it is thus found ; " Teftatur Hundredth, Ttfie Hundreda, the- 
 " Hundred witnefleth, that fuch Land is fuch a Man's ; or by the witnefs of 
 " the Hundred fuch Land is fuch a Man's." See the Claims in Torkflnre, Lin- 
 colfiJJiire., and Suffolk., at the end of that Book. Now theufe that I fliall make 
 of thefe words of the Doftors, is this : That in many of thefe Claims the 
 J. v^. ^. pag. IITueis, that fuch a one held the Land, die quo Rex Edwardui fuit vivus &mor- 
 9S 201. tuus. Kow 1 defire you to tell me, if the Freeholders of the Hundred were 
 all Strangers and AVw»^»; at this time, as your Dodor fuppofes they all were 
 thatferv'don Juries in the Hundred and County-Court j how thefe Men could 
 tefiify who held the Land at the time of King £<:/ip<»)-^'s Death, and by what 
 Services ? And 1 defire you to be pleafed to read and conlider the Trial men- 
 tion'd in Doomfday-Book, between Will, de Chorner, and Picot the Sheriffi 
 where the Proof v/as by the bell and moft antient Men of the whole County 
 and Hundred, that this Land in queftion belong'd to Chornet per h/treditatem 
 fui Antecejforis. So that then the beft and antientefl Freeholders of the County 
 of Berks., were the fame who were fo in the time of YJingEdward., or elfe how 
 could they witnefs this Land to have been held by Chornet'i Anceftor ? 
 
 But becaufe you have two or three fmall Objeftions againft this Truth, 
 I fhall endeavour to remove them. The firft is, that thofe who try'd one ano- 
 ther's Caufes in the County-Court, are in the Law of King Henry I. (which 
 you now cited) call'd Barones Comitantf qui Uberas Terras haberjt. Therefore you 
 imagine that thefe Barones Comitatus muft needs have been all Tenants in Capite., 
 or by Knights Service at leaft, who by virtue of that Tenure ow'd Suit and 
 Service to the County-Court : which is a great miftake ^ fince every Freeholder 
 of whatfoever Tenure, who was refident within the County, owed Suit and 
 Service to that Court, and it was the twentieth of Henry \\. which limited 
 that Service only to Freeholders of forty Shillings prr <»»««/», or above. Now 
 that every Freeholder, tho of ever fo fmall Eftate, was antiently a Baron of 
 the County ; is alfo as certain in the antient and larger Acceptation of the 
 word Baron, which did not originally fignify only a Tenant in Capite., or by 
 Knight Service, but any other Freeholder, who could be return'd upon a Jury 
 concerning Freehold in the County-Court. Now that every Lord of a Mau- 
 nor, and Freeholder, was antiently call'd a Thane before the Conqueft, ap- 
 Cap. 52. pears by this Law of King A'w«.**'s, EthahetomnisdommusfamiUamfuaminplegio
 
 Dialogue the Tenth, 537 
 
 fuo\ & ft accvfeivr in aliquo, r jpondeat in Hundredo, ubi comfelUbitur ftcut reEla 
 Lfxfn. Quod ft accufetur^ & jugiat^ reddat Dominus ejus RegiWeram^ i.e. preti- 
 vm nutivitatii 'mmiiiii illiiti \ & fi Dominiu accufetur, tjiiodejus confilio fugerit, ad- 
 legiet je cum ^uincjue Thanis, (id eft Nobilibus) & idem fit fextus^ fipurgatiofrangat 
 ety redd At ei (fctl. Rfgi) Weram fuam, & quifugerit, extra legem habeatur. I (hall 
 not truuWe my fclf to tranllate this Law, fince the /.<»(/« is plain enough ^ only 
 take notice that by this word adtegiet, is meant he (hall wage Law, or make Oath 
 together with five Thanes, that is Noblemen or Gentlemen, & idem ft fextus., 
 whereof he himfclf Ihould be the fixth: where you may fee that every Free- 
 holder, being Maftcr of a Family, is here called a Thane, who was to give 
 Pledge or Security, that all his Family fliould anfwer the Law in the Hundred- 
 Court for any Offence they fhould commit ^ and thefe Thanes were fuch as 
 Mr. X^wterf exprcilcs hy ^fcitis Jibi ingenuis (^uin^ue : for what he calls <»je«ftH;, 3- ■^' '^' V- 
 Brampton calls Itber homo, that is, every Freeholder. So that you fee Thane, mge- 'j^esEthdredi. 
 tiuusy and liber homo, iignify all the fame thing ; that is, the lower fort of Thane, cap. i. 
 or Freeholders who owed Suit and Service to the Hundred and County-Courts. 
 And that thefe very Men were fuch as after your Conquelt werecall'd Barones 
 Comitatus, appears in this, that thofe who before the Conqueft were call'd 
 Thanes, areafterwardscalld Barons of Counties, in all our antient Laws and 
 Charters : and for this I Ihall give you the Authority of Sir H. Spelman in 
 his Clojfary, who tho he does chiefly underftand by this word all fort of feudal 
 Barons dwelling in each County, Proceres nempe & Maneriorum domirii \ yet Tit. Barones 
 not only thefe, but necmn liberi quique Tenentes, hoc eft fundorum preprietariiy Comitatus. 
 jinglice Freeholders, ut fuperius didumeft. So that take it in which Senfe you 
 will, this word cannot Iignify only Tenants in Capite, or fo much as Military 
 Tenants, as you fuppofe-, fince a Man might hold a Manner by other Tenures 
 than Knights Service, as by grand or petty Serjeanty, or in Socage by acer- ^ 
 
 tain Rent; and fo likewife might he hold any other lefler Eftate of Freehold by 
 the like Tenures : which if it were fo, your Doftor's fancy of Tenants in Mi- 
 litary Service being then the only Freemen of the Kingdom, and who were 
 capable of ferving upon Juries in the Hundred and County-Court, is a mere 
 Chimera, without any ground, as I have already proved at our third Meetings 
 when I ihew'd you by the words liberi homines, fo often mention'd in King 
 W^/7/<Ws Laws, are to be underftood not only Tenants by Knights-Service, but 
 any other Freemen or Freeholders, who held Lands or other Poflenions : 
 which may be alfo proved farther by the Statute of yWfi'row, cap.\o. as appears 
 by this Claufe ; Provifum eft infuper, quod quilibet liber homo qui fe^am debet ad 
 Comitatum, Tithingum, Hundredum, & Wapemagium, vel ad Curiam Domini fuij 
 libere pojfit facere Attornatum fuum, ad feElas illas pro eo faciendas. Whereby 
 you may fee, that every Freeman, who was a Mafter of a Family, and not 
 under the power of another, was then oblig'd to pay Suit and Service to the 
 County, 1 ythingand Hundred-Courts. 
 
 But fay you, thefe Perfons who were Jurors in this great Caufe between Earl 
 Odoaad Archbilhop Lanfranc, are there call'd Primores, and Probi Firi, not only 
 of the County of Kent^ but other Counties where the Lands lay •■, and it is not 
 probable that the ordinary Freemen, who made the greateft number, and 
 were all bound to their good Behaviour, could be the Probi & Legdes Homines y 
 who fcrv'd upon this Jury: Well, t grant it, that thefe Gentlemen you fpeak 
 of, might be Lords of Manners, and confiderable for duality and Ellate, and 
 who alone were impannellcd upon Juries in this, and other fuch great Trials ot 
 Novel Difleifin i and yet for all that, thofe leOer Freemen, or Freeholders you 
 mention, were Legates Homines, and as fuch were capable of trying all Caules, 
 of what nature foever •, fince Sir H. Spelman tells us in his Glojfary., Title 
 Lcgaln., That in Jure noftro de co dicitur qui flat re^us in Curia, tion e.xlex feu 
 vtlegatus^ non excommunicatus, vel infamis, &c. fed qui & in lege poftulat & 
 poftuletur. Hoc fen fu vulgar e illud in formulis juridicis, probi & legates homines. 
 So that he does not make (as you do) that a Man's Legality muft depend upon 
 his Tenure, but upon his being re£lM in Curia. So that 'lis no more an Argu- 
 ment, that becaufc in fome great Trials in thofe Times, none but the chief and 
 moft confiderable Men in the County were impannel'd upon Juries in the County- 
 Court, therefore none but they could ever fcrve there upon Juries at all ; than 
 it would be now for a Man to affirm, that becaufc in great Trials at the Al- 
 
 Z z 2 lii". 
 
 1
 
 538 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTlCA., 
 
 
 files, or at the Bar at Weftminfier-, only Kniglits and Gentlemen are impannel'J, 
 therefore none but they, and not any Yeomen, or Countrymen can ever fervc 
 upon Juries at all. 
 
 But let thefe Gentlemen you mention have been all Tenants in Capite, or by 
 Knights-Service, if you pleafe, yet will it not make good your AfTerrion, thac 
 they were only Normans or Frenchmen ■-, who as the only Proprietors of Eftaies, 
 ferv'd upon this and other Juriesat that time : for they mufl have certainly been 
 fuch, who of their own knowledge knew the Lands in queftion, and to whom 
 B.^. jf. p. 34. they did belong before King William's, entrance into England. And your Doftor 
 himfelf in his anfwer to Mr. yitmocfs Janus^ fully agrees to this Truth, as ap- 
 pears by this Paflage, which I defire you would read. " In Trials of Novel 
 " Dideifin, and for the Poflefllon of Lands, Cuftoms, Services, &c. the Juries 
 *' at the time of the Conqueft, and in feveral of the Kings Reigns next fuc- 
 ceeding, were impinnel'd out of the fame Town and Neighbourhood, of 
 fuch as did know the Land and things in queltion, and who had been polFelTed 
 of it, and for what time. And to this purpofe in an Affize, if none of the 
 " Jurors knew the right it felf, or truth of the matter, and did teftify fo much 
 " to the Court upon Oath, recourfe was then had toothers, until fuch were 
 " found who did khow the Truth •■, but if fome did know the Truth, and others 
 " not, thofe that knew is not were put by, and others call'd into the Court, 
 " until twelve at the leaft fhould be found to agree therein : and for this pur- 
 " pofeit was that all Suitors to Hundred and County-Courts were bound to ap- 
 " pear there under great Penalties, that there might be a Jury of fuch as knew 
 " whofe the Land was :" And fo far your Dodor is very much in the right. 
 But then, that all the Gentlemen that ferv'd upon this Jury mull be Enghjlimeti, 
 is as plain from the Reafon he hath now given us : and if he had not told us 
 Pag. 197. fo, we have an undeniable Authority for it ; to wit, the antient MS. call'd 
 Codex Roff'enjis, quoted by Mr. Seldcn in his Notes upon Eadmerus j where fpeak- 
 ing of this Trial, Pracefit Rex Comitatum totum (viz.. of Kent) abfcjue mora 
 conflderCf & homines Comitatus omnes Francigenas^ (^ pradpue Anglos in antiquis 
 legibiis d^ confuetudinibm peritos-, in vnum convenire. But it alfo adds, (^ alii ali* 
 orum Comitatum homines^ and fo confirms what Eadmcrm fays. So that nothing 
 is more evident by your Doctor's own fhewing, as alfo by the Teftimony of 
 this antient Author-, than that this great Caufe was try'd either by Tenants »« 
 Capite, and other great Freeholders who were -aW EngUflimen^ or fuch Frenchmen 
 as were here before your Conqueft. So that from this famous Trial we may 
 draw two or three Conclufions direftly contrary to your Alfertions. Firft, 
 That there were many great Proprietors not only in Kent, but in other Coun- 
 ties, as appears by Eadmerta, who were a fufiicicnt number to try Caufes in 
 the County-Courts, a good while after your Conqueror's coming over. Se- 
 condly, That the Pleadings and Verdid in this Caufe being before EngUjIimen^ 
 and given by them, muft have been all in EngUjli ■■, and if it were fo in this 
 Caufe, it will follow for the fame reafon in all other Counties all over England. 
 Laftly, That thefe Gentlemen were well skill'd in the antient Laws and Cuftoms 
 of England, which had been in vain if they had been alter'd as you fuppofe. 
 
 M- I will not deny but that in the beginning of the Conqueror's Reign, 
 many £»^/;jI»««z might have Eftates left them, which might not be taken away 
 till fome Years after ^ and Mr. Selden in his Titles of Honour, places this Trial 
 between Earl O^o and Archbifhop Lanfranc, about the firft Year of King WiU 
 Ham, and I fuppofe that it happen'd before the fifth Year of his Reign ; when 
 Matthew Paris tells US, '' That the Earls £4^ip»», Morcar and Siward, toge- 
 " ther with £ff/m/«BiIhop of Durham, as alfo many thoufands of Clerks and 
 *' Laicks, not being able to bear the Severity of King William, fled into woody 
 *' and defart places, and from thence got into the Ifle of Ely, where they 
 *' fortify'dthemfelves; and whither K\a%William follow'd them, and taking 
 , " the Ifland made them fubmit to Mercy." And then this Author tells us, 
 that the King put the Bifhop of Durham in Prifon ; and as for the reft, fome 
 of them he kill'd, fome he put to ranfom, and others he committed to perpe- 
 tual Imprifonment : fo that I reckon from this time, the King took away 
 moft of the Englijhmens Eftates, asnottrufting them any more, 
 
 F. If this had all happen'd as you have put it, yet would it not prove 
 what you have raaintain'd : for if thofe EngliJIimen who had not been engag'd 
 
 with
 
 Dialogue the Tenth. '1 539 
 
 with Harold^ or elfe had been pardon'd for it, flill held their Eflrate?, and 
 as you fay forfeited them afterwards for Rebellion •, then it is certain 
 King iVilliam did not proceed againft ihe Efglif.! as a Conqueror : fince if he 
 had, he would have taken avt ay their Eltates Jurebdli-^ which fince, as you' 
 yourfelf confcfs, he did not, whatever Eltatcshe took away afterwards, it was 
 either for Treafon committed by the £w^/;jfc, or elfe wrongfully: if the for- 
 mer, he did it as a lawful King^ if wrongfully, then as a Tyrant, and as 
 fuch could obtain no juft right againft the En^Ujli Nation by his unjuft Pro- 
 ceedings. 
 
 But indeed after all, you are quite out in your account concerning this mat- 
 ter : for as to the great Trial you now mention'd, it could not be in the firft 
 or fecond Year of King Williarn% Reign, nor could happen fooner than the fixth 
 or feventh of his Reign :, for Archbilhop Stifand was not dcpos'd till the Year 
 1)070. which was the fourth Year of King Wtllidtn^ and in the next Year, 
 being 1071. the Annals oi Madras, as alio the Chronicle of TnomasWicksy 
 place Archbifhop L^»/r^«c's Confecration, and fetching of his Pall from i^awf.- 
 fo that it could not be until the Year after this Rebellion at the foonefl:, 
 when Lanfranc was fettled in his Bithoprick, that this Suit was commenced by 
 him againft Earl Odo ^ and therefore a great many of the Englijl) Nobility and 
 Gentry had ftill Eftates left them after this Rebellion. 
 
 And that they continu'd to have fo fome Years after this time, appears by 
 thofe Writs of King U'i////»»/, which Mr. Atwood hath given us in his Jriw/w ^' I?- •^- P- '^^^ 
 jinglorum^ &c. concerning the Reftitution of the Lands belonging to the Church 
 of Ely, which are alio tranfcrib'd andallow'd by your Doftor in his Anfwer 
 to it i and I defire you particularly to confider that Writ of Kxn^WiUiatns 
 dircfted to Archbifhop L.itijranc, Roger Earl of Morton., and^'w/r^Bifliopof Co»- J^ 
 
 fiance, commanding them to cauie to beaifembled all thofe Shires who were pre- 
 fent at the Plea had concerning the Lands of the Church of Ely, before the Queen 
 went laft into Normandy :, the reft being moft material to the Caufe in hand, 
 1 (hall give you in Latin .• Cum ejuibus etiam fmt de Baronibsa meis qui competenter 
 adejfe foterunt & pricdiclo ptacito interfuerunt, & qui terras ejufdem Ecclefu tenenty 
 quibiu in vnum congregatis eligantur plares de illis Anglis qui fciunt cjuo modo terr.c 
 JACebant prafata Ecclefnt^ die qua Rex Edwardus obiit, & quod inde dixerint ibidem 
 jurando teftentur. From whence we may alfo gather, that this Trial concerning 
 the Lands which is here order'd, was to be in like manner, and by a Jury of 
 the fame fort of EngU^imer:, who try'd the Caufe between Earl Odo, and Arch- 
 bifliop Lanfranc ; that is, they were EngUjl) Gentlemen of fufficient Eftates, or 
 Tenants /« C«/)if(f. If you pleafe, let us now look into the time when this 
 happen'd, fiuce the Writ doth not tell us when it was, only that it refers to 
 a Plea held concerning the Church of Ely, before the Queen's laft going into 
 Normandy ; fo that this Trial here mention'd could not happen till after the 
 fourteenth Year of King fF*7/<<jw's Reign, which I prove thus: This Queen did 
 not come over into England, till the Year 1068. when the King return'd with 
 his Qireen out of Norm.wdy after his Coronation, at which fhe was not prc- 
 fcntv after which KinglVi/liam vicnt not into Normandy till the feventh Year 
 of his Reign, when he went over and took Alans ; and then whether he carried 
 the Qiicen along with him is uncertain. But the Annals of W^^wr/y tell us, he 
 wcntovcr again the next Year, and then he might carry the Q;ieen with him, 
 which might be the firft time [lie return'd into Normandy: but it appears by 
 the fame Annals, that the King went over the Year after ^ and ftaying but a 
 little while, return'd into Norru an dy to T\ght againft his rebellious Son Prince 
 Robert; where ftaying not long, he return'd as foon as he had driven his Son 
 out of Normandy. Nor do we find he went over again till the fourteenth Year 
 of his Reign, being the Year 1080. and then I fuppofe fince he ftay'd there 
 for fome time, he carried the Qiieen with him ; and to this laft going over I 
 fuppofe this Writ we have cited refers: for tho the Queen went over again 
 after this, yet fhe return'd no more, becaufe fhe died in Normandy in the Year 
 1083. as Ingulph, who was then alive, relates. The ufe I make of thefe Par- 
 ticulars is this. That long after the time you fuppofe the Englifi to have loft all 
 their Eftates, we here find a great Jury of EngUpmen, fummon'd out of 
 feveral Shires in England, to try this great Caufe, concerning the Lands which 
 the Church of Ely had been unjuftly diftcifcd of. So that here you fee, after 
 
 Zzz 2 the
 
 5^0 BiBLlOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 the fourteenth Year of this King, the En£lijl} (till continu'd to keep their 
 Eftates, and toferve upon Juries j and confequently the Pleadings before them, 
 as well as their Verdict, mult have been in Englijlt. 
 
 M. 1 (hall not inlift upon this point any farther, yet this much you can- 
 not deny, but that all the Pleadings and Proceedings at Weflmitifter^ as alio 
 the old LavV'Books vicxtaWin Frencij, as appears by the Mirror of J u It ice, and 
 Britton-, not tp mention thofe of latter Days, as Littleton^i Tenures, and o- 
 thers i and fo were alfo the antient Year- Books or Reports of Cafes, all writ- 
 ten in Norman French., even in our own Age : fo that fince this proceeded from 
 that great Alteration which the Conqueror made in our Laws, it is alfo a 
 Badge of that Yoke which he impofed upon the Nation by his Conquelt. And 
 to make this yet more plain, that very Copy of Kingf^ip^rt^ the ConfelTor's 
 Laws is in old Norman French., which (together with King Williams Additions 
 to them) Ingulph tells us, he brought down with him to his Monaftery, and 
 which he has infcrted into his Hiltory, as you may find them in the laft Edition 
 ' printed at Oxford^ and were before publifli'd by Mr. Selden in his Notes upon 
 
 Eadmerus. 
 
 F. I cannot deny but that fome part of the matter of Faft is as you have 
 here laid down j yet it will not follow that this common ufe of the French 
 Tongue in our Reports and Laws, did proceed from the Norinan Conqueft, 
 or is any Badge of Conqueft : For P.rft, the moft antient Laws of King WUliamy 
 which we find in Spelman and Lambert''s CoWe&ioas, are in Latin., as they were 
 before the pretended Conqueft. I grant indeed thofe you mention in Ingulph 
 are in French^ but they being moft of them Criminal or Penai Laws, or elfe 
 concerning Tenures, it is no wonder they were publilh'd in the Language of 
 his Count! y, that the Normans and other Frenchmen he brought over with him 
 might underftand them \ and tho they were written in French., yet they were 
 proclaimed in the Englifi Tongue, that the EngHJIj as well as Normans might 
 take notice of them. But after thefe Laws, you. will not find any antient 
 Charter or Statute in irf«cj[(, till the Statute of WejimA. which was above 200 
 Years after your pretended Conqueft ^ for all the Charters of this King William 
 are in Latin or Saxon., as that particularly granted by him to the City of Lon~ 
 don i fo likewife were all the antient Charters and Laws of the other facceed- 
 ing Kings, as thofe of King William Rufus., Henry I. Henry \{. Kiag Stephen.^ 
 and Richard I. in Latin or Saxon^ and none of them in French, as appears by 
 feveral of them ftill to be feen in the Archbifhop's Library at Lambeth., and 
 in Sir Robert Cotton's, and alfo Magna Charta, and all other Statutes and Char- 
 ters of King John, and Henry III. till the Statute of Weftm. I. above mention'd : 
 and therefore it is not likely that this Cuftom ftiould have taken its original from 
 Normandy ; for if it had, it would have been begun immediately after your 
 Conqueft. And as for our Law-Books, tho I grant thofe you mention'd to be 
 written in French, yet is it not the Norman French^ fince it differs very much 
 from the Language in which King Edwardh Laws are written, which are in 
 Ingulph, the French of which is fo obfolcte and obfcure, that he that underftands 
 pur Law-French very well, can fcarcely make any fenfe of them ; but our firft 
 Writers concerning the Laws of £«f/^w</, writ in Latin, and not in French., as 
 you may fee by Glanvil., BraBon and Fleta, who writ before Horr!% Mirror of 
 Juftice, or Britton?, Treatife of the Laws of England. 
 
 As for your Books and Reports, I grant they are in French , but that this 
 Cuftom was not deriv'd from iVorw<«W;', is alfo certain, fince the firft Reports 
 we have begin with the firft Year of Edward II. except fome few Memorandums 
 pf Cafes adjudg'd in the Exchequer in the Reign of his Father, above 200 Years 
 after King William's coming in (as I but now noted ;) nor could they be writ in 
 the Norman Dialed, fince we had then nothing to do in that Dutchy, which 
 had been conquered by the French in the beginning of King Jolins Reign, above 
 eighty Years before any Report or Law-Book was writ in French at all : and 
 therefore we luuft afcribe the original of thb Cuftom to fome other Caufe than 
 the mere WiU and Pleafure of your Conqueror, and for this we muft go as high 
 as the Reigo of King Edward the Confelfor ; who, as Ingulph tells us, " ha- 
 *' ving lived longin Normandy, and bringing over divers Normans with him, 
 " the whole Nation began under this King to forfake the Enghjh Cuftoms, and 
 *' to iniitatethe irf»c^ Manners ia many things, fo that all great Men looKed 
 
 " upon
 
 Dialogue the Tenth. 541 
 
 " upon it as a piece of good Breeding, to ^^tak French in their Houfes, and 
 " to make their Deeds and Charters after the Freiich manner : fo that it was very 
 " eafy for King (f'»7//./>w after his coming in, who (as hi^nlph dlfo tells us^ ab- lb. p. 71. 
 " hor'd the Eng\i^7 Tongue, to make the Laws of the Land to be pleaded ia 
 " the French Tongue, and to make the Boys to learn at School the firlt Rudi- 
 " ments of their Grammar in French •, and alfo the Saxon or Engiipi Hand to be 
 *' alter'd, and the French Hand to come in ufe in all Books and Writiags." 
 And tho I confefs moft of the Chief Jufticesand Judges were Frenchmen or Nor- 
 n.vis, during the three or four firft Kings of that Race^ yet that alone could 
 not have caufed this Tongue to be fo generally ufed, not only in the King's- 
 Court, but alfo in all the Courts at Wefiminfter^ after EngUjiimen began again to 
 fit there, had it not been for the tacit Confent not only of the King, and Peo- 
 ple of Quality, but alfo of the Lawyers themfelves : for the Law-Terms being 
 for the moft part French-, they did not only thereby make the Law the greater 
 myftery to the Vulgar, but they alfo fuppofed that thefe Terms being French^ 
 could not be rendred into any other Language. Yet for all that, it had been 
 impoffible for this Tongue, which was {poke by fo fmall a number of Per- 
 fons in refpect of the whole Kation, to have prevailed fo long among the bet- 
 ter fort of People i had notour Kings for many Ages enjoy'd large Territories 
 in France., which cccafioning their frequent going over thither about Affairs of 
 War or Peace, as alfo the frfwcfc Gentry and Kobility's frequent coming over 
 hither, it is no wonder if that Tongue being the Language of the Court, was 
 generally underftood and fpoken by all Koblemen, Gentlemen and Lawyers, 
 bo that I have heard it from a very good Hand, a Perfon who is well 
 verfed in Antiquity, that a Gentleman being returned on a Jury in the Reign 
 of Edward \\. was excepted'againft, becaufe he did not underftand French ^ and 
 hence it is, that not only the Terms of our Law, but alfo thofe of Heraldry, 
 Hawking and Hunting, are almoft all /rfwcfc to this day: and tho by the Sta- 
 tute of Edward HI. which you but now mention'd, all Pleas fhould be in EngU^], 
 and not 'ir\ French t yet I delire you to take notice, that this did no way extend 
 to any matters of Proccfs upon which Suits are founded ^ but that the Writs, 
 Declarations, and all other matters of Record were always entered and enrolled 
 in Latin^ from before the Conqueft to this very Day, fo that there was never 
 any Alteration as to that point. Thefe things being confider'd, it is no won- 
 der if the Judges and Clerks of Parliament, who were in thofe Days entrufted 
 with the drawing up of 'all Afts of Parliament, being greater Matters of the 
 Fr-fwcfc than Latin Tongues, chofe rather to draw them up in the former : and 
 thus it contiau'd until the Reign of Henry VII. when our Statutes began firft 
 to be drawn up, and enrolled in EngllJJ). 
 
 M. I confefs you have given me a greater light in this matter than I had 
 before j yet 1 fuppofe you cannot deny that the Tenure of Knights-Service, 
 with thofe clogs that belong to it of Wardfhip, Marriage, and Relief, were all 
 derived from the Normans., as appears by the grand Cuftomer of Normandy., 
 which I have already mention'd : fo that tho it be true that all thefe are now 
 taken away by a late Statute of King Charles II. yet lince this Tenure, and 
 thofe Services are not found among the 5^?.vo« Laws, there cannot be a greater 
 Proof of the antient Power of the Conqueror, or of the Servitude impofcd 
 upon the Nation by him j and therefore I look upon it as a very imprudent 
 part of the late King CW/r^, to part with fo great a tye, which his Father 
 and all his PredecelTors had over the Perfons and Eftates of all the Nobility and 
 Gentry of the Kingdom. 
 
 F. I Ihall not take upon me to decide whether it were politickly done or not 
 of KingCW/zfill. to part with the Wardfhip, and Services of his Tenants by 
 Knights-Service i but this much is certain, that confidering the Abufcs and 
 Corruptions that had crept into that Tenure by degrees, fince the firft Inftitu- 
 tion, both by the unfit Marriages of the Heirs, as alfo by the wafte that was 
 oftcn-times committed on the Ward's Eftate during his Minority, it was cer- 
 tainly a very great grievance and burden to the Subjcdt •, and confidering how 
 many of thofe Wardfhips were begged by hungry Courtiers, they were of no 
 confiderable profit to the Crown : and tho I grant they were a very great tye 
 (or rather clog) upon the Eftates of the Nobility and Gentry of this Kingdom, 
 yet it did not thereby produce any fuch Love or Obedience, as would retain 
 
 the
 
 54'^ BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 the Tenants better in their Duty before than fince they were granted away. 
 For the Forfeitures for Treafon and Felony, and alfo Fines for Alienations, 
 are referved to the Crown now as they were before \ and as for any love or re- 
 fpcft Which was anticntly paid by the Heir, how could there be any fuch thing ? 
 liiice the King granted away the Cuftody of the Heir, and his Lands, to Per- 
 fons who for the moft pare made a mere Prey of them i fo that they were ofcea 
 married againfl: their Confents, and their Eftates were delivered to them wafted 
 and fpoiled: befides alfo what was exadted from them for Reliefs, and OuJIer 
 lefmuine!, we need not wonder if it were rather a Cauie of fecret difcontent and 
 hatred of the King's Prerogative than otherwife. And therefore I cannot think 
 it was fo unpolitickly done by the King, to render himfelf gracious and ac- 
 ceptable to his People upon his return to grant their Requeft, and pafs that Ad 
 for taking away Wards and Liveries, and to accept of a Revenue by Excife of 
 treble the Value inftead of ir. 
 
 But to come to the Original of Knights-Service it felf, I do not think it was 
 deriv'd from the Normans, fince we are certain there were Thane-Lands in Eng- 
 land which were held of the King, and that by Knights Service, before King Wil- 
 /«<Tw'scoming over, and there were alfo middle Thanes who held of thofe Lords 
 above them by the like Service j infomuch, that in the Laws of King Knute 
 
 Cap. 69. there is one concerning the Heriots, which an Earl, the King's Thane, as well 
 as inferior Thanes, were to pay not only to the King, but to other inferior 
 Lords \ which are almoft the fame as were afterwards referv'd by the Laws of 
 King Edward the Confedbr, confirra'd by King William, as you would find 
 them in Ingulfh\ only there is no Gold referved, but only Horfes and Arms: 
 whereas by the Law of A'KKf^, each Earl was to pay two hundred Manenfes of 
 Gold, each King's Thane fifty, and each inferior Thane two Pounds. Only note, 
 that he who iscall'd Earl in King KnuteH Laws, is call'd a Count in thefe ^ the 
 Thane a Baron, and the inferior Thane a Vavafor j and that which is there 
 call'd a Heriot, is here termed a Relief. 
 
 And that this Tenure by Knights Service, which is now call'd Efcuage or Ser- 
 
 Cmi. 2<. p. vitium Sciitiy was of antient time nam'd expeditio haminum cum fcutii, and was 
 
 J92. in ufc before the coming in of the Danes, is alfo as certain : for Sir E. Coke 
 
 in his fourth /«y?. tells us of the Charter of King Kenulphy who ^>ino Domini- 
 821. granted to the Abbot of yibingdon many Manners and Lands ; and referved, 
 quod expeditionem duodecim virorum cum tantii [cutis exer.ceant, anticjuos pontes Q^ 
 arces rcnovent. And alio he mentions a like Charter of King Etbelred to a Knight 
 c^Wdi j4thelweg. Anno Domini '^9%. So that you fee not only fpiritual Perfons, 
 and great Thanes or Barons-, but alfo Knights held Lands by the Service of 
 fo many Men before your Conqueror, and your Doftor alfo himfelf allows it; 
 for in his Anfwer to Mr. P. in all antient Charters in the Suxon times he tran- 
 flates the word f/'^f/f/ by Tenants »'« C^/)/f«, or Military Service. 
 
 M. I will not deny that Military Fees were in ufe before the Conqueft, and 
 alfo that the feudal Law did obtain here in many things , and therefore I am fo 
 
 Pj.r. ■., far of the Dodlor's Opinion, who in his Gloffary, Tit. Feudal Laws, tells us ; 
 
 " The feudal Law obtain'd in moft Nations of Europe, and in Normandy was 
 " in its full Vigour at the time of the coming over of the Conqueror, but af- 
 " terwardsgrew more mild and qualify'd, as alfo the Tenure it felf; a perfed 
 " Defcriprion of which, with all its incidents of Homage, Relief, Ward, Mar- 
 " riage, Efcuage, Ayds, &c. are to be found in the Grand-Cuftomcr, Cap. 19, 
 *■<■ 33^ 34,35- Andaltho there were Military Fiefs, or Fees, herein the Saxon 
 " times, yet not in fuch manner as after the Conqueft eftablifti'd hereby Wil- 
 *' liam the Conqueror, and according to the ufage in Normandy ; whenas it 
 *' appears by Doomfday-Book, in every County he divided moft, if not all 
 " the Land of England, amongft his Normans and Follqwers." Now that this 
 Cuftom of Wardftiips is wholly derived from the Norman Conqueft:, you fhall 
 
 Pag, 193. find in Sir. £^ip. Coif's fourth Z^;/. in the fame Chapter you laft cited, as you 
 may here read: " You have heard before de regali fervitio, before the Con- 
 " queft; but that regale fervitium (which was Knights Service) drew unto it 
 " Relief, but neither Wardftiipof the Body or of the Land, as hath been faid. 
 " It is true, that the Conqueror, in refpeft of that Royal Service, as a badge of 
 « the Conqueft, took the Wardftiip of the Land, and the Marriage of the 
 " Heirs within Age of fuch Tenants ; but this extended not to the Tenures of 
 
 " the
 
 Dialogue the Tenth. 5^^ 
 
 »♦ the Sabjeds by Knights Service, as it appeareth by Bra^on, Didtur Regale 
 
 *' fervitium^ quia fpefiat ad dominum Regem & non alium, Cr fecundum ejuod in 
 " Conqueftu fuit adinventum^ Crc." Whereupon Sir £. C notes (in the Margent^ 
 this Tenure (as before it appeareth) was not then invented, but the Fruits of 
 this Tenure of the King, viz.. Wardfhip and Marriage, (which was Bra^on's 
 meaning^ thefe the Conqueror referved for himfelfj but other Lords at the 
 firft by fpecial Refervation, fince the Conqueft, referved gifts of Lands for 
 themfelves ; Regis ad exemplum totus componitur orhis: wherein that which we 
 had from the Conqueror we freely confeis. 
 
 F. 1 fhall not difpute this matter, fince it is doubtful whether this Cuftom 
 of Wardlhip was Norman, or whether it was deriv'd from the Saxons, who 
 pofTibly might have feme refpedt to Orphans in fuch Cafes, to train them up for 
 the publick Service in point of War •, efpecially being pofTefTors of a known right 
 of Relief. Thus Alfred the Saxon King did undertake this Work for the 
 training of fome particular Perfons in Learning, for the Service of the Pub- 
 lick in time of Peace, and Civil Government : and tho Sir H. Spelman is of opi- 
 nion in his Title deWardis, that Wardihip of the Heir came in with the Con- 
 queror ; yctSir Jofc» his Son, (who was alfo a Learned Antiquary) in his Epi- 
 logue to his fecond Book of King ^//rfii's Life, printed at Oxford, fpeaking of 
 Military Fees granted to the King's Thanes, has this Paffage. H<i:c etiam Feoda Pag. n?- 
 h^redibm fub Hereoti, five relevaminis cujufpiam fjuod hares in terrx redemptionem 
 Regi folvere tenebatur, conditione plerumque trartfibat ; & ft hares minor natu a Patre 
 moriente reimquebatur, Regi educatio ejus (utpote Regis Hominis) committebatur, 
 in uttlitatem etiam & commodum ipfifis Regis. But whether the Wardfhipof the 
 Body of the Heir, was in ufe in King William's time or before, is uncertain j 
 for the Land is in the Charter of Henry the firft in M.it. Paris, granted either 
 to the Widow or next Heir. 
 
 Rut let thefe Cuftoms be deriv'd from whence you pleafe, it is a plain Cafe it 
 could be no badge of Conqueft upon the People of this Nation, and that by the 
 Doctor's ov/n (hewing; for were it a Norman Cuftom ever fo much, it' your 
 Conqueror firft of all impofed it upon thofe he brought over along with him, 
 it could never be a Badge of Slavery upon the EngliJIj Nation, but rather upon 
 the Normans, upon whom it was chiefly impofed : and if they afterwards 
 granted Lands to the £«g-/j]Jj upon the fame Terms they held them themiclves, 
 they were no more Slaves to whom they were granted, than they were under 
 whom they held them. But indeed this was fo far from being look'd upon as any 
 badge of Servitude, that if the Doftor himfelf is to be believ'd, " Thefe were cloffary. Tit. 
 *' the only Freemen, and their Services (^BraElon fays) were fo notorioufly Hbeii homines. 
 " free, that in Writs of Right it was never raention'd, becaufe fo well 
 ** known ; Notandum in fervitio MUitari non dicitur per liberum fervitium, (fr 
 *' idea quod conjlat, quia tale Servitium liberum efi" And however rigorous the 
 feudal Law might be at the beginning, it was when your Conqueror came in fo 
 far mitigated as to the rigour of it, that the Tenants by Knight Service were 
 not only free by King tF^V/Mw'sLaw, from all arbitrary Taxes and Tallies, but 
 alfo obtained a fettled Inheritance to them and their Heirs, as appears by that 
 Claufe in King Willtam\ Charter already mention'd ; and therefore in the Reign 
 of Henry III. when William of Warren Eavl oi Surrey was queftion'd after the Sta- 
 tute of Quo Warranto by the King's Juftices, by what Warrant he held his 
 Lands, pulling out an old Sword, he anfwer'd to this EfTtd : " Behold, my vid. ^»^»^ 
 *' Lords, here is my Warranty, my Anceftors came into this Land with William '>"" ms. in 
 " the Baftard, and obtained thofe Lands by the Sword, and 1 am refolv'd with '''" Bodleian 
 " this Sword to defend them againftany whofocvcr Iliall go about, to difpottefs f ^■^^[i^"' 
 " me ; for the King did not himfelf alone conquer the Land, but our Progeni- T)JL\i:in'his 
 J' tors were Sharers with him and Aftiftants therein." Baronai^e of 
 
 As for what you fay, That the Laws in theCuftomary of Normandy, are the Ensliindjp.;?. 
 fame with the Laws of England ; it is no more than what divers French Wri- 
 ters have taken notice of* but do not attribute their Agreement to their being ViJ. Mr. 
 borrow'd from the Normans, but quite contrary, for in the firft place moft Wiiilotk'^ 
 of the Learned Men fay. That the firft cftablilhing of the Cuftomavy of iV,;r- ZmtZ^To. 
 mandy, was in Henry I's. time, and afterwards again about the beginning oi pointed in his 
 Edward ll's time, when Normandy was not under the King of England. And Memorials, 
 Sequnius a French Author relates, that King Henry I. cftablilh'd the Englijh p^'j,. ^6i. 
 
 Laws
 
 544 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITlCA^ 
 
 Laws ill Normandy^ and with him do alfo agree GulUlmm Briro, Rutelariitf 
 
 and other frfHc/; Writers, who mention alfo that the Laws in the Cuftomary 
 
 of Normandy are the fame with the Laws colkfted by our EngUjb King Ed- 
 
 Vid. Coke'/ voard the Confcflbr : an additional Teftimony hereof is out of William de Ru- 
 
 Preface to his 'ville de Alenfon^ who in Yth Latin Comment upon the Cuftomary, proves and 
 
 Keforts. demoiiftrates that the Laws and Cuftoms of Normandy came from the Englifh 
 
 Laws and Mation, either not long before or after Edward the Coofellbr's 
 
 time. 
 
 In the Norman Cuiiom'iry, there is a Chapter of Mampes or Diflreiresj and 
 it is there decreed, that one fiiould not bring his Aftion upon any iieifure, but 
 from the time of the Coronation of King Richard^ and this mult be our King 
 Kichardl. becaufe no King of France was ever of that Name j and the words 
 Nampes and Withernams were Saxon words, taken out of the EngUflj Laws, fig- 
 nifying a Pawn or Diftrefs, and in the fame fenfe are ufed in the Cuftomary. 
 But if you have nothing more to objed againft what I have now faid, pray 
 proceed to your laft Head, and let me fee how you will prove, that the Eng- 
 liJJ) loft all their antient Liberties and Privileges which they enjoy'd under the 
 Englijli S.ixon Kings. 
 
 M. I never heard fo much before concerning the original Ufe of the French 
 Tongue in our Reports and Law-Books, but yet this much 1 think you will 
 not deny : Firft, that ih^ Norman French was never ufed in our Courts of Ju- 
 ftice, till after the Conqueror's Entrance. Secondly, That he did his endea*' 
 Hid. ingulph. vour totally to root out the Englijh Tongue, by ordering all Children to learn 
 the firft Rudiments of their Grammar in French; and as for what you have 
 faid concerning the Cuftomary of Normandy being efpecially as to Tenures de- 
 rived from the Englijh Laws and Cuftoms, I do not deny, but that it may be 
 the opinion of fonie French Writers that it was fo : bnt I Ihall believe it, 
 when they can prove that the Wardlhips and Marriage of the Heir of the Te- 
 nants by Knights Service, as alfo thofe Aids they were to pay the King, or 
 any other Lord they held of, towards making his eldeft Son a Knight, and 
 marrying his eldeft Daughter, were in ufe in England before the Conqueror 
 came over. 
 
 But to dbferve your Cornmands, 1 Ihall now proceed to (hew that by the 
 Conqueft, the Englijh for a long time loft all their antient Rights and Privi- 
 leges, till they again obtained them either by their mixing with the Normans, 
 fo that all diftinfition between them and the EngHjli were taken away, or elfe 
 they were reftor'd by the Charters of King Henry I. King John, and King 
 Henry 111- I Ihall therefore divide the Privileges of Englijlimen into thefe three 
 Heads: Firft, Either fuch as concerned their Offices or Dignities: Or, Se- 
 condly, Such as concerned their Eftatcs : Or laftly, Such as concern'd the Trial 
 for their Lives : in every one of which, if I can prove the Englijh Natives, as 
 well of the Clergy as Nobility, fufiered confiderable Lofles and Abridgments 
 of their antient Rights and Liberties which they formerly enjoy'd, I think i 
 ftiall fufficiently prove the point in hand. As to the firft Head, Jngulph tells us, 
 
 Pag. 70, 7i, " That the Englifl) were fo hated by the Normans in his time, that how well 
 
 litlit. Oxon. " foever they deferv'd, they were driven from their Dignities ^ and Stran- 
 " gers, tho much lefs fit, of any Nation under Heaven were taken in their 
 
 P.ig. 93. " places." And Malmeshury who liv'd and writ in the time oi Henry], fays, 
 " That England was then become the Habitation of Foreigners, and the Rule 
 " andCovernment of Strangers j and that there was at that day no EngHJJj- 
 *' man an Earl, Biftiop, or Abbot ■, but that Strangers devoured the Riches, 
 " and gnawed the Bowels of England, neither is there any hope of ending this 
 *' Mifery." So that it is plain they were now totally depriv'd of all Offices and 
 Dignities in the Common-Weal, and confequently could have then no place ia 
 the Great-Council, theParliamentof the Nation, both for the railing of Taxes, 
 and the making of Laws. And tho 1 grant Mr. Petyt and your felf fuppofe you 
 
 -'J.^. p.p. 36. found a Claufe in the Conqueror's Magna Charta, whereby you would prove, 
 that all the Freemen of this Kingdom fliould hold their Lands and Pofleffions 
 well and in peace, free from all unjuft Exaftions and Taillage, fo as nothing be 
 exafted or taken unlefs free Services, which of right they ought and are bound 
 to perform to hs\ and as it was appointed to them, and given and granted 
 to them by us as a perpetual Right of Inheritance-, by the Copimon-Council of 
 
 the
 
 Dialogue the Tenth tAt 
 
 the whole Kingdom; yet this Common- Council will not help youj for with- 
 out doubt here were no Enalijijmen in it ; for certainly they, would not grant 
 away their own Lands to strangers. Thefe were the Saxon Lands which ^^7/- 
 liarn had given in Fee to his Soldiers, to hold them under fuch Services as he had 
 appointed them, and that by right of SuccefTion or Inheritance. 
 
 We will now come to the fccond point, viz.. the Privileges the Engliflfmen 
 loft as to their Eftates: for whereas before the Conqueft you affirm, the King 
 could not make Laws, nor raifc Taxes without the Common-Council of the 
 Kingdom ; it is certain King William., and his immediate Succeflbrs, did by 
 their fole Authority exercil'e both thefe Prerogatives. As for his Legiflative 
 Power, it appears from the words of his Coronation-Oath, (as you your felf 
 have repeated it out of Florence of Worcefler^ and Roger Hovedtn) the Conclu- 
 fion of which Oath is; /<? velle re^am legem ftatuere & tenere^ Rapinas injufiaque 
 Judicia fe>ittus imerdicere. Now the Legillative Power was then lodg'd in him, 
 why elfe did hefwear to appoint right Laws? For if the Conftitution had been 
 fettled as it is at prefent, the Parliament could have hinder'd him from making 
 any other i and that he could do fo, appears by that Yoke of Servitude, which 
 Matthew Parti (as well as other Authors) tells us, " King WilUamhy liis own Pag. 7, 
 " Authority impofed upon the Bifiiopricks and Abbies in England which held 
 " Baronies, which they had hitherto enjoyed free from all fecular Servitude : 
 *' he now, fays he, put them under Military Service, fefling all thofe Bifiiopricks 
 *'■ and Abbies, according to his Pleafure, how many Knights or Soldiers each of 
 *' them fiiould find to the King and his Succeflbrs: And putting the Rolls of 
 *' this EccleUaftical Service in his Treafury, he caufed to fly out of the King- 
 *' dom many Ec>.lefiafticks who oppofed this wicked Conftitution." Now if he 
 could do this upon fo powerful a Body, as the Bifiiops and Abbots were at 
 this time, he might certainly as well raife what Taxes he pleafed upon all the 
 People of England \ and therefore Henry of Huntington tells us, that King Wil- 
 liam upon his return out of Normandy into England^ Anglis impertabile tributum 
 jmpofuit. Lib. 3. p- 27S. And that his Son William Rufus impofed what Taxes he 
 would upon the People, without confent of the Parliament, appears by that 
 PafTage of William o( M.dmesbury, which he relates in the Reign of this King, 
 as alfo in his third Book de Gtflts Pontificum., concerning Ranulf^ whom from a 
 very mean Clerk he made Bifiiop of Durham^ and Lord Treafurer : the reft I 
 will give you in Latin j Ifie., jl t^uando ediSlum regium proccjfijfet ut nominatum tri- 
 butum Anglia penderety duplum adjiciebaty fubinde ridente Rege ac dicente folum ejji 
 hominemy cjuifciretftcagitare ingenium\ nee aliorum curaret ttdinmy dummodo com- 
 phcerct dominum. So that you may here fee that the King's Edid or Proclania- 
 tion did not only impofe the Tax at his pleafure, but his Treafurer could 
 double it when he had a mind to it, without Confent of the great council or 
 Parliament, as we now call it: and this Prerogative was exercifed by divers of 
 his SucceflTors, till the Statute de Tallagio non concedendo was made. 
 
 But to come to the laft Head concerning the alteration of Trials for MenS 
 Lives and Eftates by the Conqueror, from what they were before •, it is certain 
 that whereas before the Conqueft there were no other Trials for Mens Lives 
 but by Juries, or elfe by Fire or Water Ordeal, which was brought in by the 
 Banes \ the Conqueror tho he did not take away thefe, yet alfo added the 
 Law then in ufe in Norman dy^ of trying not only Criminalbut Civil Caufes by 
 Duel or Combat: all the difference was, that in Criminal Cafes where there 
 was no other Proof, the Accufcr and Accufcd fought with their Swords, and the 
 Party vanquiflicd was to lofe his Eyes and Stones ; but in Civil Caufes they on- 
 ly fought with Baftoons headed with Horn and Bucklers, and he or his Cham- 
 pion who was overcome loft the Land that was contended for. From whence 
 you may take notice alfo of a great alteration in the Law, not only concern- 
 ing Trials, but capital Punilhments: fo that before the Conqueft, all Crimes, 
 even Manflaughter it felf, were fineable according to the Quality of the 
 Perfon, and the Rates fet upon each Man's Weregyld, or price of his Head, 
 as you will find them fet by the Laws of King Athelfi.m ; after that time inftead 
 of Fines, capital or corporal Punifiiments became chiefly in ufe. 
 
 I fliall not infift much upon divers lefler Things, which King William as a 
 Conqueror impofed on the People of England ^ as difarming them of alloffen- 
 Cyc Weapons, forbidding them to hunt or kill any Deer in his Chafes or Fo-
 
 54<5 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PofciTlCA. 
 
 rells, under the Penalty of lofs of Eyes and Members, as alfo keeping up and 
 reinforcing the antient Laws of Decenaries or Tythings, whereby every ten 
 Families were bound with their tenth Man or Tythingman, Body for Body, 
 of each others good abearance ^ as alfo that Law forbidding all fitting up late 
 at Night, or AfTemblies after eight of the Clock, but that every one ihould go 
 to Bed, and put out both Fire and Candle at the ringing of the Coverfeu Bell j 
 thefe things I think are very fufficient to prove that King William as a Conque- 
 ror did very much abridge, and in fome things wholly take away the antient 
 Privileges and Liberties of the Englijh Nobility, CJergy and Commons, and 
 did alfo make many and great Alterations, not only in the Forms of Pleadings, 
 but alfo in the very Subftance of our Laws, both Criminal and Civil : and if 
 he did not make more Alterations of this kind, it was wholly owing to his 
 free Will and Pleafure •, fince, as Eadmermtdh us, he ordered all Divine and 
 Secular things according to his Pleafure. 
 
 ' F. That 1 may the better anfwer what you have faid, I fhall partly grant, 
 and partly deny the matters of Faftyou have alledged ; and alfo further prove 
 that if they had been alias you have laid them, yet would not they prove your 
 Conclufion, That King William by his own Arbitrary and Tyrannical Aftions 
 could create any Right by Conqueft, either to himfelf or to his SuccelTors. 
 And therefore to begin with your firft Head, viz.. the Privileges of the En^upi 
 Nobility as to Offices and Dignities, tho I grant it was true, as the Au- 
 thors you have cited relate, that fcarce any £w^/;y/;wrt» was, vvhen they writ, 
 either a Bifhop, Earl or Abbot, yet this is to be underftood only of the latter 
 end, and not the beginning of his Reign: for as to the Bifhops and Abbots, 
 I do not read of any more than Stigand Archbilhop of Canterbury., and Egelnc 
 Bifhop of Durham., who being depriv'd of their Bifhopricks, had Succelfors 
 put into their rooms in their Life-times i and yet in the place of this 
 lad, not any Norman^ but one Walcher an Etiglifl:man was named by the 
 King to fucceed. And as for the Earls, of all thofe who had been againft him 
 and oppofed his coming in, there was not one but he received into fa- 
 vour, and continued in his Dignity and Eftate, as in particular the Earls Ead- 
 rcm and Morchar Brothers, together with Wahheof and Sirvard, and Edgar Arhel" 
 ifjg, whom they had named King of England, who all kept tlieir Earldoms and 
 Eftates till terrified by the King's fevere and tyrannical Proceedings ; the thre'6 
 firft of thefe fled away as you have already fhewn : tho I contcfs Prince Edgar 
 had for two or three Years before this, fled into Scotland ; but yet was after- 
 wards reftor'd to the King's Favour and his Eftate. Nor do I find any confi- 
 derable Alteration in the King's manner of difpofing of his Honours or Pre- 
 ferments, either Ecclefiaftical or Civil, till Earl Wdtheof was convifted of be- 
 ing in the Plot, with Ralfh de Waher Earl of Norfolk., and Other Lords, as well 
 EngU^i as Ncrmans, to expel King William:, and from that time (being th6 
 eighth Year of his Reign) I grant he changed his whole courfe of Governmenr, 
 and put no more EngUflmen into any Places of Honour or Profit : tho W. 
 Malmesbury endeavours to excufe the King's Severity in thefe words, Jndefro- 
 tofitum regis fortajfis merito excufatur, fi aliquando durior in yinglos fuerit, efuot 
 pene nullum eorumfidelem invenerit : tho with this Author's good leave, the King 
 had been the caufe of this Confpiracy, by his own Tyranny and Breach of Oaths, 
 as I fliall (hew you by and by. 
 
 So that either this King wasmov'd by juft Provocations thus to debar all Eng- 
 lijlimen from being prefer'd to Dignities or Offices, or he was not ; if the for- 
 mer, and that he had juft caufe fo to do, it was no more than what any other 
 foreign Prince who had no Hereditary Right to the Crown, would have done in 
 the like Cafe : Bat if the latter, it was not only contrary to Juftice, but alfo to 
 his own Coronation-Oath, one Claufe of which, as Malmesbury fhews us in KiS 
 Lib. 3. pan. deGtfiis Fontifcum., was, quod fe modefte ergafubditos ageret, & aquo jure jingloi 
 221. " ^ Francos tra&aret. So that this King's arbitrary and violent Proceedings, aff- 
 ter he had for fome time govcrn'd as a lawful King, tho they might prove hitn 
 a Tyrant, yet they could by no means make him a Conqueror. And as for 
 the latter part of your Argument, whereby you would prove that in his Reign 
 there were no £»f/(y/jOTf« in the great Councils of the Kingdom, that can only 
 be underftood (in the ftrifteft fenfe) of the times after the great Confpiracy 
 1 have now mention'd -, for before, it is very evident that there were many 
 
 Bifliops,
 
 Dialogue the Tenth. 5^7 
 
 Bilbops, Earls and Buons lUiVlcii, who mull have been Members of the Great 
 Couui-il. l^J('r can you prove thjt the Law I have mention'd againft the Ki .g's 
 ta'Kiny, 'he Taillagc or Taxes without their ConfeKt, was made after that time; 
 but let it l)c nvKic when ic will, you (hall never perfuade me it was eiiadted with- 
 out aiiy EngL^]imen being prcfent, till you can prove to me that there were 
 no E>^gi.p> fcndiU's in C.ipitc towards the end of his Reign, and that there were 
 then nn Kiii2,his, Citizens or Burgcfles that reprefented the Commons in the 
 Great Council \ and can give a better anfwer to thofe Arguments 1 have given 
 you to prove they were there ; efpecially that remarkable Claufe in the Con- 
 clufioa or this Kiug's Chirter, to the Abbey of Wejlminfter^ which mentions 
 divers principal Ferfons, both of theClergy and Laity, to have been fummon'd 
 Co that famous Synod or Great Council, when this Charter was granted. 
 
 I come now to your next Head, whereby you would prove this King's A- 
 bridgmeat of Englifl) Privileges, as to their Eftates and Properties, to begia 
 with that of the Le£,illative Power ; which, as you fav, was then wholly in the 
 Kii'g. Admit it were fo, it will not prove that for which you urge it, v1:l. that 
 it is a lign of the King's Abfolute Conqueft over thsEngliflt: for if the Great 
 Councir of the Kingdom had then loft its antient Right, it was his Nor- 
 mans dad Frenchmen, as well as the Engl iflj, that he bereaved of their antient 
 Privilege, of givirig their Confent to Laws*, fince it is very certain that nei- , 
 ther the King of France, nor the Duke of Normandy could at that time make 
 aay Liws without the Confent of their Eftates. 
 
 ■ But the Truth is, that your Conqueror could not do if, for if the Normans 
 he brought over with him, had, as you fuppofe, the greateft (hare of all the 
 Lands in EngUnd, they would have been too powerful a Body of Meii to be 
 thus made Slaves at his pleafure. Indeed his own Laws (hew the contrary, 
 for in that very Law it appears otherwife : " Whereby all the Freemen of l.l. Guil. 55. 
 *' the Kingdom were to hold their Lands and PodefTions free from all unjuft 
 *' Ex id ions and Tailla^e, and that nothing (hould be exafted of them, bat 
 " their free Service, which they were bound to do according as it is appointed 
 *' them by the King, and it is granted them by an Hereditary Right forever, 
 " by the Common Council of the whole Kingdom." Whereby you may fee 
 that they had their Lands and Liberties granted them, for an Hereditary Right, 
 not only by the King, but by the Common-Council of the Kingdom, and that 
 the king could not alter King Edward's Laws without their Confenr. The 
 Charter of King /f;«ry I. fays exprefly ; Legem Regis Edwardi vobis reddo, cum 
 iltis emendationtbw e^uihui Pater earn cmendavit Concilio B^ronum fuorum. There- 
 fore as for that Authority you have brought out of H. /Huntington, that upon 
 this King's r^.tnrn from Normavdy, he impos'd a heavy Tax upon the EngUJJ); 
 this is either to be underftood of fuch a Tax as they gave him voluntarily, 
 tho perhaps they durft not do otherwife, as the States of Provence and Lan- 
 guedoc arc fain to do to the King ot France at this day, when he requires it i and 
 yet he does not claim thofe Countries by right of Conqueft : Or if King William 
 impos'd this Tribute without their Confents, it was not only contrary to the 
 t-ay^r jaft now mention'd, but alfo to his own Coronation-Oath, whereby he 
 f^ore to prohibit all unjuft Rapines, and that he (hould behave himfelf equita- 
 bly towards his Subjcfts ; with whidh, certainly his taking away their Mony 
 without their Confents, would by no means conlift. But to anfwer that part 
 of the Corojiatioii-Oath which you think makes moft for you, that whereby he 
 (wore only, to make right Laws, which muft have fuppos'd the Power to have 
 V^en in himfelf, bccaufe , the Parliament might have hindered him from doing 
 otherwife i this is but a Cavil, for it is already prov'd that he was to make 
 LawSj.and raifc Taxes by the Common-Council of the Kingdom : and therefore 
 thefe words, may very well bear another Senfe, and do only give the King a 
 Negative Voite of palGng fuch Laws as the Great Council (hould ofltr to him, 
 or clfe fuch as he might propofc to them for their Cynfenf. And 1 fuppofe 
 you will n»t deny but that it is very polfible, that either the King or the Parlia- 
 ment may ptopofe fuch Laws as may not feem equitable, or juft ■■, and then cer- 
 tainly both the one and the other have a negative Vote, andoueht not to give 
 their Confents to them. •' ~ 
 
 But to anfwer your laft Inftance, whereby you would prove that tlfis King as 
 a Conqueror impos'd what Taxes and Services he plcafedj not only upon the 
 
 Aaaa 2 Laity,
 
 548 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITtCA. 
 
 Laity, but the Clergy too ^ by making the Biflvopricks, and greater Abbies 
 liable to Knights Service, which you fuppofe to have been done by his 
 folc Authority, without any Confent of the Common-Council of the Kingdom : 
 this is only gratis dicium^ and is indeed altogether improbable. For if the 
 King had done this by his fole Power, he would have imposM this Service upoa 
 a!l the Abbies in England, whofe Lands might have been as well reduc'd to 
 Knights Fees, as thole that were put under that Service •, and fo might have 
 been forc'd to find as many Soldiers as they had Fees, as well as the Bifhopricks 
 and greater Abbies. But indeed the Clergy were too powerful a Body to be 
 thus arbitrarily impofed upon, and they would foon have complained to the 
 Pope againft the King for this new Servitude he had impofed upon them ; and 
 therefore I think we may with much more fafety conclude with Mr. Selden in 
 his Titles of Honour, that this Impofition of Knights Service upon the Bi- 
 fhopricks and Abbies, was done by the Common-Council of the Kingdom, 
 \x. being too great a matter to be done without it. For it appears by Eadmt' 
 rm, that the King held a Council this very Year, tho the Laws and Proceedings 
 of it are all lolt^ and , this is the more likely to be fo, becaufe this impofition 
 was not laid upon all the Abbies in England, but only upon the Bifhopricks, and 
 fuch Abbies as were of Royal Foundation, and held immediately of the King 
 before your Conqueft, and were only fuch as enjoyed whole Baronies j a$Mat. 
 Paru there tells us. 
 
 I fhall now come to your lalb Head, whereby you would prove that your 
 Conqueror, by his fole Power, alter'd the Courfe of Trials, and introduc'd 
 the Cuftom of Duel or (Ingle Combat, in Civil as well as Criminal Caufes. 
 The chief Argument you have for this, is, that there is no mention made of 
 this Trial by Duel in our Englift) Saxon Laws before the Conqueft: which is 
 but 3 negative Argument at the belt j and you can Ihew me no antient Author 
 that fays expiefly that King tF«7/»4w introduc'd it: and tho I grant it is firfl: 
 mention'd in his Laws, yet does it not therefore prove that it was not here 
 before, fince it was certainly in ufe among the Francs and Longobards, who were 
 German Nations as well as the Saxons. But admit it were firft introduc'd by 
 the Conqueror, this was no Badge of Conqueft, for the Normans as well as 
 the Englijh were fubjeft to this Trial, which was in ufe in France and Normandy 
 long before this King's coming in: fo that admit he firft eftablifh'd it here, ic 
 might not have been done by his fole Power, but by fome Law made in the 
 Great Council of the Kingdom, tho it be now loft ; as we have very few of 
 the Laws that were made by this King now left us, befidcs thofe which are 
 called the Laws of King Edward, with this King's alteration of them ; all 
 which was certainly done in the Common-Council. The like 1 may fay con- 
 cerning the alteration of Puni&iment for Deer-ftealing and other Crimes^ 
 which were either punifliablc by pecuniary Mulfts, or elfe by Death, before the 
 coming in of the Normans -^ fince thofe Alterations might be alfb made by the 
 Confent of the Great Council: but that the fame Foreft-Laws were in nfe 
 before the Conqueft as after, you may fee in the Foreft-Laws of King Knttte^ 
 ^s you will find, in Sir H. Sfelmanh Cloffary, T'ltXQForefta; only the Punilh- 
 ments are there Pecuniary, or elfe Lofs of Liberty, which after your Conquest 
 was changed into the Lofs of Eyes and Members. 
 
 But as for other kfler matters, as his difarming the Englift), and forbidding 
 Night- Meetings, if thefe things were done (as I do not find any exprefs Law 
 for them, for there is no fuch thing mention'd in the Law de noilurnis CuftodOs) 
 they were praftis'd by this King for his own Security, after the EngUp had by 
 their frequent Infurredions made him ufe all the means he could to prevent it 
 for the future ; fo that at the moft they were but temporary Conftitutious, 
 and did not laft long : nor could this Law of the Coverfeu-Bell be any Badge 
 of Slavery on the English fince we find the fame Cuftom to have been us'd in 
 Scotland, which you will not fay is a conquer'd Nation ; nor do 1 find the 
 ' Normans ihcx they came over, were any more exempted from thi^Law than 
 
 the Englifi) Natives. But 1 much wonder you ihould reckon the Laws of Dece- 
 naries or Tythings, among the Badges of iVerw^w Slavery ; fince if you have 
 jread any thing in o\it Saxon Laws, you will find, as Ingulfhtt\i% us, that King 
 Vid. Ingulph. \j4lfred firft appointed, vt omnis indigtna legalis, in aliqva Centuria & Dtsima, 
 Hift. ^extfitritf & fi<fuis fuffthtu 4t aliijue latrocimt ftr fuamCinturiam vol Dtcuriam 
 
 con'
 
 Dialogue the Tenth, i^0 
 
 certJemnatus, pan.im dement am incurrertt. So that whatever other LaWS yOU 
 find, either of our Saxon or Dumjh Kings, or elfe among thofe of KinglVit' 
 Ham, concerning Tiiburghs and Tythings, it was only to confirm or reinforce 
 this antient Conftitution. But that not only the meaneft fort of Freemen, 
 but thegreatcft and beft Nobility and Gentry were fubjeft to this Law of 
 Tythings, iriav appear by that Law I have already quoted of King Knute, 
 whereby every Freeholder was " to have his Family in hisPledg, that is, was 
 " bound to anfwer f"r them to the King-, and if he were accufed to have let 
 " them run away by his Confent, he was to purge himfelf by his own Oath, 
 ** and alfo the Oaths of five other Thanes, that he was innocent." So like- 
 wife the Laws of King Edward^ confirmed by King W^;7/»4w, are very parti- 
 cular on thisSuhje.fi, " That all Archbifliops, Bifhops, Earls, and Barons, VId. »n/»i»». 
 " Ihould keep their Knights and Servants there mentioned in their Frithborg, 
 " that is, in their Franc Pledg, whereof the Lords themfelves were to be the 
 " Sureties, as appears by what follows, viz.- that if any of them ofiended, 
 " their Lords fhould be obliged to do Right in their Courts." And to the 
 fame purpofe is the 49th Law in Jnj^ulphh Copy of thefe Laws •■, the words are 
 thefe: Echafcun Seniour ait fun feriant u fun plege, t^ue Jtnelerett que ait adreit 
 il Hundred ; that is, that every Lord keep his Servant in his Pledg, that if he 
 offend, Right may be done in the Hundred. 
 
 So that upon the whole matter, I can fee nothing confiderable impoled by 
 your Conqueror upon the free-born En^lijh Subjefts, which they were not 
 tied to before the Conqueft, or which did not reach all the Normans he brought 
 over with him, as well as they. 
 
 M. 1 do confefs I did not believe there was fo much to be faid to prove that 
 William the Conqueror never altered the Law of England, in any of its ma- 
 terijl Parts : but (ince you have gone thus far, pray proceed to Ihew me, that 
 he any ways confirmed all the Laws of the Saxon Kia^s his Predeceflbrs ^ fincc, 
 I conceive, as a Conqueror, he might juftly have vacated what of them he 
 would, and I do not fee any thing in his Coronation-Oath that could have hin- 
 dred him from it. 
 
 F. I doubt not but to give you Very good fatlsfaftion in this Point : for not 
 only your Conqueror's Will was never declared, that the former Laws fhould 
 be abrogated, and till fuch Declaration all Laws ought to remain in force, even 
 in the Conqueft of Chriftians againft Chriftians, according to Sir Edw.Coke*i2a^i7. 
 Opinion in Calvin^s Cafe ; but indeed the antient and former Laws of the 
 Kingdom were fo far from being abrogated, that they were all confirmed by 
 him. For in his fourth year, by the Advice of his Baronage, he fummoned to 
 London, as the words are in the Book of Litchfield, Omnes Nohiles, Sapientei, &■ 
 Lege fua eruditos, ut eorum Leges if Confuetudines audiret : Or as Hoveden re- 
 lates it out of a Colleftion or Laws written by GUnvil, Fecit fummoniri per 
 vniverfos cotifulatus Angliic, Anglos Nohiles, €^ Sapientes, &c. And twelve werc 
 returned out of every County, who (hewed what the Cuftoms of the Kingdom 
 were, which (as Mr. Sf/^(r« tells us in his Hiftory of Tythes) being written by 
 the hands of Aldrld Archbifhop of Tort, and Hugo Bilhop of London, werc, 
 with the requeft of the fame Barons, confirmed in that AflTembly, which was 
 a Parliament of that time. And then in Hoveden follow the Laws of Edward 
 the ConfelTor, fo confirmed by King William, among which is that Law con- 
 cerning the Office of a King, which I have now given you : And beforethis, at 
 the very beginning of his Reign, he alfo confirmed the Privileges of the City 
 of London, as appears by his Charter in Saxon, which is to be feen at this day ; 
 which is alfo confirmed by Ordoricus fetalis : GuUelmus Rex multa Lundonix pofi- jj. lib. IV. 
 quam coronatiu efi, prudenter, jujte, clement erque difpofuit qusdam ad ip/itu Ctvi- fol. 505,5o#, 
 tatis commoda, vel dignitatem, aha qua gemi proficerent univerfe ; nonnuUa quihut 
 confuleretur EcclefiisTerrx, Jura qu<tcumque diilavit,optimisrationibus fanxit^ Ju- 
 dicium reUum nulla perfona nequicquam ah eo pofiulavit. So that nothing IS 
 plainer, than that at the beginning of his Reign he ftrove to oblige all forts 
 of People, as well the Clergy as Laity, to a good liking of his Govern- 
 ment. . . 
 M. But yet for all this you your felf have granted, that after the time oi 
 his Confirmation of thefe Laws of King Edward, you cannot deny, whether 
 provoked by the frequent Infurreftions of tliK£nglifliy or elfe refolving to make 
 
 uie
 
 550 B I B L I.O^T H EiitiA P ,^.^J T I C A. 
 
 ^ufe'cf his Right by Conqivefl;, he fell very feverely .upon the Ei7aliJJj Nobility 
 and Geiitryj andouted moft of thtmof their Eflates, aud forced tliein to flee 
 into foreign Countries •■, \fo.that it feems he did not lay down his Sword, as 
 foon as ever he came to theCiowii, but ufed it as, he pleated againft vvbatfoe- 
 ^'tx F.rtgljh he thought might be dapge.rous to his Government : fo that not- 
 withllanding his ConfirmacioQ of King £^ip.(r(i's Laws, he did not fee m to re- 
 nounce his Title by Conqticll. A nd as for your Authority concerning the Con- 
 c|acroi's confirming thcfc Laws, the -roain ftrefs of the Queftion will lie, whe- 
 ther he admitted any of the £w^/.//Z; 4nto his great Council, to confult of the 
 weighty Affairs of the Kingdom, when he had once thorowly fettled hiraftlf 
 en the EngUflj Throne, efpecially if it be confidered that King William, kepc 
 not all the Promifes wjnch he made at all times. Now as you your felf allow, 
 fhis Grant uaS made in the fourth year of his Reign, but he had not then fetlKd 
 himfelf fo well as he would, nor had he then made an entire Conquelt cif, the 
 Nation \ that was not done until after the great appearance of the natural 
 Englijl} in Arms, and the great meeting which Frederick Abbot of St. AlhMs, 
 ■with others, Yitid^tdt. at Bcrkhkrujieaii which yvas not until above four or five 
 years after this Confirmation : fothai; yoar Teftimony from the Litchfield C\\\0'. 
 nidt 3.\\^ Rpger Hove den., being before he fettled him ftlf as he intended to do, 
 lignifies nothing; and that it was from fome time after this Tranfadtioo,, that 
 Mat.Paris reckons the thorow ConquBft and fubduing the Nation,appears by this 
 Note in the beginning of the Life of Abbot Paul-, SuccelTor to ti^is Frederick, 
 Hic primus .Abbas huju^' Eccle/i<cfuit.,,fofiquam uingha Normannisfemtus fuit 
 fuhjugata. ■ , , , 
 
 ■■■: F. I will not deny the matter of.Fadt in great part to be-,as you fay s but 
 whether the Englifi were to blame to make tliefe Infurreaions, .or whether 
 they were provoked to it by the King's unreafonable Severities, I have not now 
 time to difpute, nor are yve cpmpptgnt Judges 9f.it at fo long a difLance of 
 time: if it. w«re their fault, he: had, flo doubt very good caufe to dp as he 
 -did, andtopu.nirti fuch cas were guilty j but it was altogether unjult and ty- 
 rannical to punilh the Innocent with the Guilty. Nor could he have any 
 •Right ta. do it. as a Conqueror, lince by taking his Coronation-Oath: t9 deal 
 ^mercifully with hisSgbjedsj andjto;treat both £?7^/;/l» and French yvi^li equal 
 'Right, he had renounced thatTLtla. , And that he looked upon hiiiifelf, ^s a 
 • : .'' Tyrant, if he had governed withopt,being crowned, or taking the fame Oath 
 'fls'his PredecefTors, I fliall prove .to, you from Abbot ^rowron's Chroni(.lq, the 
 Author of which lived jn the time:of KingKichard 1- who has. (co/. 962.) thefe 
 <\vords : Cumque Willelmus Dux Normannorum, CoK<juifior j4ngli<£, Tyrauni noffifn 
 ixhorrefceret., & nomen legit imi Princips induert vellety a Sfgando Cant' Archie- 
 pifcofoin Regem petiit ceufecrari., &c,,..;_\_ .,, ,. ', ,v •, ^^ 
 
 • But your Reply, that he di^ npt.fliew himfelf a perfea Conqueror till fie 
 was thorowly fettled, is very -pleafant : as if being- folcmnly cf^ovyn'ed^ 
 -and taking'an Oath to'govern juftly'and according to Law, aftef four .years 
 .<!}:uiet Poflinion, and a voluntary ppnfirraation o^ the Laws of his , Pjedecef- 
 vfors, were not fufRcie.nt Signs of his , peaceably Settlement upon the'JMone^ 
 unlefsyou vyill haVe a King to be never fettleji, until he has, by the 'force of 
 '3 Standing Army, gotfufficient power to do all he deligns, that is, to take a- 
 ■ way his 'Sobjieias Liberties and Eftates at his pleafure, contrary to his ow^ 
 Oath, and the La,ws he has agreed to. If thofe be Signs' of a thorow Settle- 
 fnent, pray coniideryvhether the King that is gone away, was ever thorowly 
 fettled at this rate,. thO;l xonfefs he was in a very fair way to give us fuch a 
 thorow Settlement. Bat fince you, date this thorow Settlement from that, great 
 .1 Tranfaiftioh of Abbot f^f^ifm^, 1 anj not afraid to appeal 10 Matiherv Paris, 
 
 Vid. Mat. Pa- from whom you have borrowed this JR^elation, wHefe he tells us thus : " That 
 rif. in vita u gfjer Lanfranc was njade Archbiihop, the King being now ftrengthened with 
 FredciiciAb- ^t both Swoids, began, more feverely and manifeftly to opptefs t\\e Englijh; 
 '-^1 who feeing it nearly concerned .their very LiVes, calling a great many toge- 
 -».';fheri theyniade£<i^4rJtW;V-^ their Leader, in whom the higlifl, placed all 
 " their hopes-, but among all t\\e khgUpJ, Frederick Abbot of St. Albans was 
 1" the chief Promoter- thereof, being-a- generous ^an, and to be feared for his 
 1**; Riches, and Power : therefore the King began to be vehemently afraid left he 
 'rt.fhouldlofe the whole Kingdom,' which he had gained by the EfFufion of fo 
 V v1t' " much
 
 Dialogue the Tenth tti 
 
 «* much Blood, and alfo hazard of his Life ; and therefore being luckily taught 
 " by the Archbifhop's Prudence, he began to a£t more mildly with the chief 
 " Men of the Kingdom, humbly propofing Terms of Peace, and with a plca- 
 «' fant Countenance inviting them to a Treaty (tho deceitful, as the end at 
 ** laft declared) therefore the faid Englijli met him at Berkhamftead^ thinking 
 «' no harm, onder the leading of Abbot frf^/fnc^ ; where, after many Dif- 
 «* putes, Archbifhop Lanfranc being prefent, the King fwore upon all the Re- 
 " licks of the Church of St. Albans^ as alfo upon the holy Evangelifts, invio- 
 •' lably to obferve the good antient approved Laws of the Kingdom, which 
 *' the pious Kings of England his PredeceiTors, and chiefly King Edward had 
 *' eftablifhed : and fo being pacified, they all returned home very well fatif- 
 " fied." So that you fee this was the third time whereby he renounced all 
 Right of Conquefl: (if ever he bad any) by fwcaring exprefly to obferve all . 
 the antient Laws of the Kingdom, fince they found his Coronation-Oath would 
 not bind him, befides his fo folemn Confirmation of King Edrvard's Laws, ia 
 the great Council of the Kingdom not long before. 
 
 M. But pray read a little farther, and fee how he refented this Force now 
 put upon him, and whether at all he intended to keep what he had fworn, or ■ ■ 
 
 to diveft himielf of his Right of Conquefl: i and therefore give me now leave 
 to read the reft out of this Author: " But the King cunningly hiding his De- 
 *' figns, within a few days after ftudied how to overcome and fupplant thofe 
 " difperfed and afunder, whom he could not, when joined and confederate 
 " together ; which he performed by killing, diiinheriting, and baaiihing many 
 « of them, and violating the above-mentioned Laws. And the E>7glljl} being 
 " thus fpoiled at pleafure, and impoverifhed, without any legal Judgment, he 
 " therewith enriched his Normans, to the great Provocation of his natural 
 *' EngliJI) Subjcds, who had of their own accord thus exalted him." So that 
 you fee he never intended to keep his Oath that was thus forced upon him, for 
 Conquerors do not love to be made Slaves to their words whether they will 
 or no^ and therefore I may give you an Anfwer both as to his Coronation- b. ^. ^. p. 
 Oath, as alfo to this now mentioned, from an old EngUfl) Proverb, That there 289. 
 mas never any Oath but was either broken or kept. More Conquerors than one 
 have ufed fair Pretences, and made fmooth Promifes, and dealt cunningly with 
 the People to carry on their Defigns, and have at firft taken plaufible Oaths, 
 and broken them afterwards i nay took them when they intended not to keep 
 them, and knew they could not : And for Oath-breaking, Harold^ in his An- 
 fwer to DaktlVflliam, when he demanded the Kingdom of him, had given 
 him a fair Example, that ftultum Sacramentum eft frangendum. Many fpecious 
 Oaths, Vows, and Covenants were contrived, and taken by crafty and de- 
 figning Men in the late times, and impofed upon the People, contrary to the 
 Oath of Allegiance they had before taken, for no other ends than to cheat 
 them into Rebellion, and to make them Authors of their own Slavery % which 
 Was difcovered too late, when they were under the power of an Army, and 
 could not help themfelves, as I could prove at large would the time permit. 
 
 f. Before 1 give you a pofitive Anfwer to what you have faid, tbo 1 do be- 
 lieve 'z great deal of the matter of Faft to be true, as Matthew Paris hath re- 
 lated it either from Tradition, or elfe from the Legier^Book of his own Ab- 
 bey ; yet 1 very much doubt, whether out of Hatred to this King's fevere Pro- 
 ceedings, they did not rcprcfent King \VillUm\ Cruelty and Severity much 
 greater than it was: for tho I grant, after this time, he turned a great many 
 more of the fw^/Z/J; Nobility and Gentry out of their Eftates, and put divers 
 of them to death; yetwhethcl- he did this without any colour of Law or le- 
 gal Procefs, is very much to bedoubted, fince we find many Forfeitures men- 
 tioned in Doomfday-Book, which had been needlefs, if the King had fcized all !?• ^- ^- P^S- 
 the £»^/iy/; Eftates without any legal Trial : As for example, in £jf<r.v in Barn' '°°> '"'• 
 y?rf^/f- Hundred, In Burn de ifiis Hidis eft una de homintbus foris faiUs erga Re* 
 gtm't and this was the way of Exprefiion in the Adive Voice.** We find in 
 Norfolk, Earl Ralf held fuch Lands, Ouando fe foris fecit; but more particu- 
 larly in C4wtr»df^f/7;/>f in W^<ir^»fff, fJardwin holds of Richard's Anceftors, but 
 Ralf H'^aders held it Die quo deliquit contra Regent : all which would never have 
 bceii inferred, could this King have taken away Mens Lives and Eftates with- 
 out any colour of Law or Juftice. And therefore you may find in all the Hif- 
 
 torians
 
 55^ B I B L I O T H E C A P O L I T I C a!! 
 
 torians of his time, that after the great Plot wherein fo many Norman ds 
 well as Engli^j Lords were concern'd, and for vihid^ Roger Earl oi Hereford, 
 and Rd^h Earl of Norfolk and Sufolk, both Norm^ns^ had confpired with Earl 
 Walthtof^ and other LngU^i Lords, to call in the Dunes^ and difpoITefs the 
 King ; yet they were convifted by a legal Trial of their Peers, and fufiered 
 death for it. So that in this he diftributed equal Juftice to the Normans as well 
 as the £«^i»/fc, who thereupon forfeited all their Eftatesj and yet notwithftand- 
 ing this, there were fotne native EngUjfmen ftill left, who tho they had been 
 in Arms againft the King, at the beginning of his Reign,_ yet were neverthelefs 
 
 Pag. 656. reconciled to him, and reftored to their Eftates: As for example, " Edric, 
 
 " firnamed the Forefler, who, as Florence of Worcefter tells us, was reconciled 
 
 " to King William^ and accompanied him into ScotU?7d foon after : " as alfo 
 
 , Hereward^ the Son of Leofric^ Lord of Brunne, who having loft his Eftate, 
 
 Pag. 67, 6S. and being outlawed (as hgulph tells us) " took Arms againft King William, 
 " and joined himfelf with thofe in the iQeof Ely^ and yet, after divers great 
 " Battels, as well again!!: the King as his Commanders, at length having 
 " obtained his Inheritance by the King's Allowance, he finifhed his days ia 
 
 7.^.^.105." peace." And now here were two confiderable Englifl) Barons who ftill en- 
 joyed their Eftates, notwithftanding all King H^»//ww's Severity ^ and yet I do 
 believe it will puzzle your Doftor to fliew me their Names in Doomfday- 
 Book : fo that that Book alone is not, it feems, a certain Rule to difcover 
 what EngUPimen were then Barons or Tenants in Cafite, 
 
 But admit all this to be true, as you your felf have reprefented it 5 can this 
 King's Perjury to his Subjefts, and Breach of all Laws, after fo many lolemn 
 Oaths, give him a Right as a Conqueror over the Lives and Eftates of his Eng- 
 //^j Subjeds •, and that after he had folemnly renounced his Right of C-rnqueit, 
 by fo many folemn Tranfaftions with his Subjefts, with whom you fuppofe he 
 ftill made War, after he had for fo many Years laid down his Arms ? At this 
 rate I cannot tell whenSubjefts may be fafe. For fuppofe fome Kings that come 
 to a Crown by a mixt Title, partly by Force, and partly by Right, take 
 ever fo many Oaths to maintain the antient Conftitution of the Government, 
 together with the Rights and Privileges of the People j 'tis but their faying 
 afterwards when they have fufficient Power, that they were forc'd upon them, 
 and that they never defign'd to keep them, and the Bufinefs is done, and they 
 may then take away the Subjefts Lives and Eftates by this pretended Right of 
 Conqueft whenever they pleafe. Kor does this only extend to the King himfelf 
 alone, but to all his Heirs and SucceflTors, who claim under that Title, let them 
 take ever fo many Coronation-Oaths, or make ever fo many Declarations to 
 the contrary i fince they all claim under the fame divine Title of the Sword; 
 that is, as you will have it, receive thetr Crowns immediately ft om Godf and then 
 can never forfeit them, let them tyrannize to the utmoft degree imaginable ; 
 for you have provided them with two eafy and pleafant Excufes, that all Pro- 
 mifes are either broken or kept, and fiultum Sacrament um tfi frangendum- And 
 I cannot but fmile to fee what an excellent excufe you have found out, for all 
 the Breach of Oaths and Covenants of thofe engag'd in the late Civil Wars, 
 fince they might very well plead they bad fo many Royal Precedents for fo do- 
 ing, as fufficiently authoriz'd it •, unlefs you will have that to be Perjury ia 
 Subjefts, which muft be a Divine Prerogative in Kings. 
 
 And therefore let me tell you, I am very glad for your own fake, that there 
 is no body here but you and I, fince all the Company would have cried out, 
 and faid, that this way of arguing were to make open War, not only upon all 
 the Laws and Privileges of this Nation, but alfo to put the King and People 
 in a ftate of War againft each other : for if he once declares by fuch Overt- 
 Afts as thefe of King M^«7/t<if»'s, that he will not be tied, either by his Coro- 
 nation-Oath, or by any Laws he has made, I doubt their Oaths of Allegiance 
 will not long bind them neither \ and they will be very ready to reply, that 
 whatever Power began, and is continued by Force and Violence, may alfo 
 be caft off by the like means : and when a King and his People are brought 
 once into this State, it is eafy to foretel what will be the Event; either he 
 muft turn out, or they muft be all Slaves ; and I wi(h it was not owing to fuch 
 Jefuitical flattering Counfels as this, that the King hrft loft the AfTedtions of his 
 People, and then his Crown-, fince Father Pwm himfelf, with tiie reft of the 
 
 Jefuits,
 
 ^Dialogue the Tenth tto 
 
 fefuits, and Arbitrary Minifters of the Cabal, could never have inftill'd worfe 
 Principles than thefe ; therefore I pray for the future either get better Rea- 
 fons, or keep thofe to your felf. 
 
 But God be thanked, both King James I. and King Charles I. had much better 
 Thoughts of the Laws and Liberties of the Nation, fince the former hath 
 folemnly declared in a Preamble to the fecond Aft of Parliament, in the firft 
 Year of his Reign, " That not only the Royal Prerogative, but the Peoples i Jacob!. 
 ** Security of their Lands, Livings and Privileges, were fecur'd and maintained Cap. 2. roU 
 *' by theantient fundamental Laws, Privileges and Cuftoms of this Realm •, J'57« 
 *' and that by the abolilhing or altering of them, it was impofTjble but that 
 " prefent Confufion will fall upon the whole ftate and frame of this Kingdom." 
 And his Son was of the fame Opinion in bis firft Declaration at the beginning 
 of the late Wars: " The Law (fays he) is the Inheritance of every Subjeft, Pag. 28. 
 *' and the only Security he can have for his Life and Eftate ; and the which being 
 " neglefted, or difefteemed (under what fpecious Ihew foever) a great mea- 
 " fure of Infelicity, if not irreparable Confufion, mufb without doubt fall 
 • upon them." 
 
 M. If 1 had no Love at all for the Government and Liberties of my Country 
 (as 1 thank God I have a great Affeftion for both) yet fhould I not have ih^ 
 Impudence to contradift the Senfe of two Kings and a Parliament i neither 
 have 1 fo little Value for thofe things which are the Foundations of our Hap- 
 pinefs, as to defire they (hould be facrific'd to an arbitrary Power \ nor on 
 the other fide have 1 fo great a Value for them, as to endeavour their Pi'C- 
 fervation by Rebellion, and depofing the King, which fince I look upon ^s 
 altogether unlawful, we are then to follow the Apoftle's Rule, and not do 
 Evil that Good may come of it. But as for what I have urged in excufe of 
 the Conqueror's Perjury, and Breach of Laws, I confefs 1 have faid more thaa 
 the matter will well bear ^ but 1 hope you will excufe it, fince I confefs the 
 Argument is none of mine, but the Doftor's from whom 1 borrowed it, and 
 1 did not confider the bad Confequences of it : yet this much 1 muft ftill freely 
 affirm, that neither King William the Conqueror, nor his prefent Majefty, 
 Dvho is his Heir by an Hereditary Right of SuccefTion, either could then, or 
 can now at this day be lawfully refitted, much lefs can be depofed, or can 
 forfeit their Royal Dignity for any Male-Adminiftration or Tyranny what- 
 foever. 
 
 f. Pray give me your Reafon for that, fince I think you may be very well 
 fatisfy'd, that this King's Title by Conqueft from Kxn^William, his Anceftor, 
 can fignify nothing, tho I fhould grairt the utmoft you can demand : and 
 therefore tho 1 am as much againft Rebellion and depofing of Princes as you 
 can be, and doing of Evil that Good may come of it ; yet the queftion remains 
 ftill to be decided between us, whether that Reliftance I maintain be Re- 
 bellion or not, and whether it be Treafon to deny Obedience to a Prince, 
 who hath done his utmoft to lofe the very name of King, by not obferving 
 thofe Conditions, on the performance of which he can only maintain his Royal 
 Dignity. Now fince 1 think I have fully proved the two Points I undertook, ■v/z.. 
 both that of the King's forfeiting the Crown in the Cafes I have put, as alfo the 
 falfity of the matter of Faft, whereby you would maintain, that the King 
 has an indefeafihle Right to the Crown of this Realm, as au abfolute Monarch 
 by Contjuefi: fince you decline arguing this Point any farther, becaufe you 
 find it is not to be maintained, pray let mc know what other Reafons you 
 have why you cannot come over to my Opinion. 
 
 M. Tho I am not fatisfied, but that a great deal more may be farther 
 tirg'd by thofe who are better vcrs'd in this Controverfy, to prove that his 
 Majefty hath an unforfeitablc Right to our Allegiance by the Conqueft of King 
 William and his Predeccllbrsi yet 1 fliall not now infift any longer upon that 
 Title, which tho our Kings have by fo many gracious Condefcenfions to the 
 People of this Nation, feemed to wave, yet have they never renounced it as ( 
 know of : but fince his Majefty was fettled in the Throne as an abfolute and law- 
 ful King, without any Competitor, by a long Series of an Hereditary SuccelTion 
 of above fix Hundred Years ftanding, and confirmed by the Oaths of Allegiance 
 of the People of this Nation both to him and his Anceftors, he is not only our 
 King by the L*ws of Man, but God alfo j to whom, and not to the People, 
 
 Bbbb he
 
 554- 
 
 BiBLidTHEc^A Politic A. 
 
 he owes his Crown ^ and can therefore neither forfeit it, nor be acconntable 
 to them for it : and when you can prove the contrary, you may then convince 
 me to be of your Opinion. 
 
 F. We have already partly argued this Point at our third and fourth Dif- 
 courfes, concerning the Lawfulnefs of Refiftance ; but fince perhaps you may 
 have ftill foraewhat farther to urge upon fo important a Queftion, 1 defire to 
 hear the utmoft you can fay, to prove that Kings owe their Power to none 
 but God, and therefore ought never to be refitted, neither can forfeit their 
 Crown upon any pretence whatfoever : and therefore pray appoint me fome 
 other time when I may wait on you again, and fully difcufs this Point, fince 
 it is now very late. 
 
 M. I am forry I cannot appoint you any certain time*, for fince I fee fo great 
 a Confufion reigns every where, and that there is like to be no Term, and con- 
 fequently no Bufinefs for Men of my Profefllon, I am refolv'd to retire for two 
 or three Months into the Country, till I fee things a little better fettled thaa 
 they are at prefent : and I heartily wifli that the Convention (which I hear is 
 like to meet in fome time) may endeavour the Peace and Settlement of the Na- 
 tion, by fending for the King and the Prince of Wales out of France ; fince I do 
 not defire any more Conquefts, nor the Government of a foreign Prince,, as 
 long as we have a lawful King of our own, who will govern us again if he 
 might: but as foon as I return to Town, you fliall be fure to know it ; in the 
 mean time I am your Servant. 
 
 F. 1 am yours, and with you a good Journy. 
 
 #ibUo
 
 555 
 
 
 
 #il)liot]fteta ^olitica. 
 
 DIALOGUE XI. 
 
 I. In what Senfe all Civil Power is deriv'd from God, and 
 in what Senfe it may be alfo from the People. 
 
 II. Whether his Prefent Majefty King William, when Prince 
 of Orange, had a jufl: Caufe of War againft King Jatms II. 
 
 III. Whether the Proceedings of his Prefent Majefty, before 
 he was King, as alfo of the late Convention, in refped; 
 of the faid King James, are juftifiable by the Law of Na- 
 tions, and the Conftitution of our Government. 
 
 [EAR Sir, you are welcome to Town, you have been abfent a 
 
 great while j and indeed I wonder how you could ftay away fo 
 
 long, when fuch great things as the King's Abdication, and 
 
 placing his Son and Daughter in the Throne, have been tranf- 
 
 S?l acted. 
 
 M. I thank you kindly, Sir, but yet I mull tell you, that 1 have been fo lit- 
 tle fatisfy'd with what your Convention has done in thefe matters, that the 
 very hearing of it hath been a great Affliftion to me \ and it would have certain- 
 ly been a much greater, had I been upon the place, and feen fuch horrid things 
 as the Depofitionof a King, the difinheriting of his right Heir, and the fet- 
 tingup the Prince and Princefs of Orange^ who certainly could have no right 
 to the Crown as long as the King lives, nor yet after his Death as long as the 
 Prince of Wales is in being. 
 
 F. 1 confefs thefe are very high Charges if they would hold •■, but if you pleafe 
 to confider theHypothefis 1 propofed at our laft Meeting, That the King had 
 by Breach of the Original Contradt made between his Anceftors and PredecefTors, 
 and the People of this Nation, toobferve the Fundamental Laws and Confti- 
 tutionsof the Kingdom, forfeited his Right to the Crown ^ all that hath been 
 done in tfiis great Affair, 1 fuppofc may be very well maintain'd and juftify'd, 
 from the neceffity of the thing, and of maintaining the Fundamental Conftitu- 
 tion of the Government. And therefore pray give me leave to put you in mind 
 how far 1 have proceeded in the Proof of this Aflertion. 
 
 Firft, I have made out that the King of this Realm is not the fo'efupreme 
 Power thereof, neither ever was fo, fioni the very Inftitution of Kingly Govern- 
 ment in this Illand. 
 
 Bbbb 2 
 
 Secondly,
 
 55<^ BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 Secondly, I have alfo provM that the King, not having the fole Power, mulb 
 hold that (hare thereof which he enjoys, upon this imply'd or tacit Condition, 
 That if he ufurp what docs not belong to him, and the People do alTert their 
 Right by oppofing his unjuft Violence and Ufurpations, and that he flill obfti- 
 hately perfifts in this Violation, he thereby lofes and forfeits not only that 
 part of the Power which he fo unjuftly ufurped, but alfo his own too: and 
 for this 1 gave you the Authority of the Learned Grotins at our lalt Meet- 
 ing- ^ . 
 
 Thirdly, I have alfo anfwer'd your main Argument of King William the 
 
 Conqueror's obtaining by the Sword, and Conqueft of K.\ns^ Harold^ an abfo- 
 lute Right, and unlimited Power for himfelf and his Succeffors defcended from 
 him, over the People of this Kingdom ^ for I think 1 have fufficiently made 
 out, that King William had no other Right to the Crown of England than b7 
 theTeftamentofKing£<^w^r^the ConfelTor, and the Eledion and Recognition 
 of the People: and this I have prov'd from the unexceptionable Authorities of 
 the bell Hiftorians of that time. So that if he afterwards acted otherwife, and 
 contrary to his Coronation-Oath, it was not as a lawful King, but as a Tyrant 
 and an Ufurper on the Rights and Liberties of the People, and he could not by 
 his own unjuft A(ft acquire any lawful Power fo to govern this Kingdom; and 
 therefoie whatever Title King William or his Succeflors can pretend to, it mult 
 be by virtue of theEleftion of the firft King of the Saxon Line, from whom 
 all the Kings of England fince Henry I. are defcended, and confequently are ob- 
 lig'd to hold the Crown under the fame Conditions on which it was firft 
 confer'd. And tho 1 grant, that ever fince the Reign of f^lm^)-^ I. the Crown 
 has been no longer claim'd by Eleftion, but by SuccefTion of him that really 
 was, or elfe was prefum'd to be the Right Heir ; yet this different way of ac- 
 quiring the Crown does not at all alter the condition or manner of holding it, 
 fince our Kings have always after that time, as before, been tied to the fame, 
 or rather ftrider Terms in their Coronation-Oaths, to obferve and keep the 
 Laws and Cuftoms of this Realm *, and alfo that the Power of the Great Coun- 
 cil of the Kingdom or Parliament making Laws, railing Taxes, and redrefling 
 of Grievances arifing from the unjuft Exercife, and illegal Encroachments of 
 the King's Prerogative, hath been exerted ever fince the Crown became fuc- 
 ceffive, as much as ever it was before. 
 
 Laftly, 1 think 1 have fufficiently made out that King James hath violated 
 the fundamental Conftitution of the Kingdom, in thofe feveral Inftances I have 
 already given, and am alfo ready farther to make it out if you require it j 
 lb that this being the Cafe, I can fee no reafon to the contrary, why the 
 Crown or Legal Authority Ihould not become forfeited to the People, who 
 at firft confer'd this Power on the firft King of the Wefl-Saxons. 
 
 M. 1 muft confefs you have done your endeavour to prove thofe Affertions 
 you have now laid down, but 1 am not yet fatisfied that you truly have done 
 it. But however, not to run into unneceflary Difputes and Repetitions of what 
 has been already argued, and which 1 fee you are too obftinate to recede 
 from, 1 fhall now only oppofe what you lafl aflerted concerning the Crown's 
 being forfeited to the People upon the King's pretended Breach of the Origi- 
 nal Contraft : for befides the abfurdity of making the Crown forfeitable to the 
 People, who are and ever were Subjefts, and not Princes or Governours; 
 whereas all Forfeitures flill fuppofe a Right in the Perfons whoaie to take it 
 as fuperior to the Party forfeiting ^ there is alfo a greater Error and Miflake 
 in your fuppofing all Civil and Legal Power to be deriv'd from the People, 
 and by them confer'd upon their Kings or Governours : whereas the Scriptures 
 plainly affirm, and all Divines fo interpret them, that all Civil Power and 
 Authority is wholly from God, and not from the People, whoeven in eledtive 
 Kingdoms, tho they may name and defign the Perfon whom they wfll have to 
 be their King, yet is the Power wholly from God, who alone hath right to 
 govern Mankind ; and therefore as the People do not confer the Power, fo 
 neither can it be forfeitable to them from whom it was never deriv'd : and 
 fo much I told you at the Conclufion of our latt Meeting, tho 1 had not then 
 time fully to urge this Argument, as now 1 have. And this will prefs the more 
 upon you, becaufe you your felf have already granted at feveral Meetings, 
 that all Civil and Regal Power is deriv'd from God, and not from the People ; 
 
 and
 
 Dialogue the Eleventh. 557 
 
 and therefore your Notion of a Prince or Monarch's forfeiting to them, is whol- 
 ly falfe and precarious. 
 
 F. If this be all that you have to objcd againfl: our AfTertion of the King's 
 forfeiting his Royal Authority to the People, 1 think 1 can eafily anfwer thofe 
 Objeftions: for as to the firft Abfurdity which you lay to our charge, how aa 
 Authority can be forfeited by a King or Superior to his Subjefts or ValTals, the 
 Abfurdity lies on your fide ■^ for I do not fuppofc this Forfeiture to be made to 
 the People as Subjeds, but to them confider'd as a Sommunity of Mailers of 
 Families, and Freemen j who as the Defcendants and Rcprefentatives of thofe 
 v/ho made the firft King upon a certain Contrad or Condition, upon the Non- 
 performance of this Original Contrad, do thereupon ceafe to be Subjects, as a 
 Servant ceafes to befo, and becomes again /M(;'«rM, upon his Mailer's Non-per- 
 formance of the Bargain made between them : and fo this Authority thus 
 forfeited, returns to the Community of Mailers of Families, and Freemen, who 
 once confer'd it upon the firft King. Nor needs this Forfeiture any more fup- 
 pofc a Superiority, in the Perfons who are to take it, over the Prince that com- 
 mits it, than when by the Law of England a Tenant for l/ife aliens in Fee, he in 
 reverfion may immediately enter upon the Eftate as forfeited to him, tho the vid.Cokew/- 
 Perfon that held it was perhaps his own Father. "» Littleton, 
 
 M. But is not this then to recede from your former Conceflion, whereby ^ 25'' 
 you grant that Civil Authority is derived from God, and not from the People 
 at all? whereas you now fuppofe them the only Original or Fountain of Ci- 
 vil Authority, and from them to be derived to all Princes and Monarchs. 
 
 f. This Difficulty wholly proceeds from your not rightly underftanding the 
 manner of God's conferring Civil Power or Authority upon thofe that exer- 
 cife it. For the better clearing of which Difficulty, let me ask you two or 
 three Queftions : Firft, pray tell me whether you are ftill of the opinion, 
 that Monarchy is fo much of Divine Inftitution, as that no Government buc 
 that may be lawfully inftituted by Men ? 
 
 M. 1 will not now affirm, that Monarchy is of Divine Right j but this 
 much I may fafely aver, by what we can find in Scripture, that God inftituted 
 no fort of Government but that ; and he did not make Snul or David to be 
 only like thofe equivocal Kings, who might be depofable at the Will of the 
 Eftates, but conferred part of his own Divine Power upon them, without: 
 any Conditions or Limitations whatfoever : but as for thofe Governments 
 caUed Commonwealths, tho without doubt they are not of Divine Inftitution, 
 yet certainly the power of Life and Death, which they exercife, is wholly from 
 God i fince, as I have already faid, a Man, not having power over his own 
 Life, cannot confer that upon another which he had not in himfelf. 
 
 F. Well, I am glad we are fo far agreed, that Commonwealths are endued 
 with real Authority or Majefty as well as Monarchs, and that from no lefs 
 Author than from God himfelf i fo that whatever you have faid concerning 
 God's Inftitution of no other Government than Monarchy, is either not true, 
 or not to the matter in hand : for in the firft place, I have already proved at 
 our third Meeting, that the firft Government God inftituted among the Jews^ 
 was an Ariftocracy under Mofes^ Jojlwn., and the Judges, referving the Kingly- 
 Power over them to himfelf. And tho it is likewifc true, that God diveftcd 
 himfelf of great part of this Kingly Power, when he anointed Saul King ; 
 yet God's Inftitution of Monarchy among the Jeipj does not render it unlawful 
 for other Nations to inftitute fuch other forts of Government, as may belt 
 fute with theGcniusof the People, and the publick Good and Safety of the 
 whole Community. But as for your Argument, whereby you would prove the 
 neceffity of all Civil Powers being derived from God, becaufe otherwife they 
 could not be endued with the power of Life and Death over their Subjeds, I 
 have fufficiently taken off" that difficulty at our fecond .Meeting, and ffiewn 
 you, that a Man, in the State of Nature, has not only power over another 
 Man's Life, but alfoover his own; not only to hazard it, but alfo to lay down 
 or lofc it for fome greater publick Benefit to Mankind : which is alfo acknow- 
 ledged by the ApoftleP.«i// himfelf. For a good. Mm fome would even dare to die. 
 
 But further, to Ihcw you the Abfurdity of this Principle, let me put you 
 this Cafe: Suppofc that a Kingdom or Commonwealth were fo inftituted at 
 the firft, that no Subject, or Freeman, ftiould fuffcr death for any Crime, how 
 
 great
 
 558 
 
 Vid, Grot. All' 
 not. in Mat. 
 
 p. 12^. 
 
 
 Vid. L. 
 
 Will. 1, 
 
 L. 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 great foever ■■, which that I do not fuppofe as a thing impoflible, it was for 
 - divers Ages exercifed in the ^ew^w Commonwealth, wherein no Civil Magi- 
 ftrate could lay any greater Punifhment upon a Roman Citizen, than Bjnifti- 
 ment or Deportation. And if thitCopy we have of the Laws of King IVil- 
 liam I. be authentick, it is by the 67th Law in his Charter ordained, That no 
 Englijh or Frfwcfe Subject (hould fufTer death for any Crime whatfoever, but on- 
 ly be punilhed either by pecuniary Fines, Imprifonment, or elfe by lofs of 
 Eyes, Hands, Feet, or j^embers ^ which Law, tho I do not fay was ever ob- 
 fervcd, yet it (hews it was then fuppofed to be both pofTible and lawful. 
 Kow if this could be fo, there would be no necefFity of fuppollng the Autho- 
 rity of the Commonwealth of Rome^ or of King William 1. to have been de- 
 rived from God, fince they had renounced and refufed the great Charader 
 thereof, viz.. the inflidting capital Punilhmentsi but if for all that, they ftill 
 continued to be lawful Civil Governments, then it is evident that this power 
 of Life and Death is not that which aloneconftitutesa Civil Power, and makes 
 it owe its Original to God. 
 
 But to return to what your Notion concerning this power of Life and 
 Death hath made me digrefs from, pray let me ask you another Qpeftion: 
 After the Expulfion of King Tarquin, and before the Commonwealth of Rome 
 was formed, where was the fupreme Authority lodged ? 
 
 M. Why, in the lame Body it was afterwards, the People of Rome^ com- 
 prehended under the Patricians and Plebeians^ that is, the Nobility and Com- 
 mons j who yet retained the power of Life and Death over thofe of their owa 
 Children and Slaves, tho ihey communicated a great part of their Power to 
 the Senate and Confuls. 
 
 F- Very well : Was this Authority they fo conferred on the Senate and 
 Confuls, the fame which they themfelves could have ex'ercifed ? Or was it 
 any new Authority immediately derived from God, and created for that pur- 
 
 pofe ? 
 
 M. I do not think it was any new created Authority, but only a part of 
 their former Power, which they fo made over to the Senate and Confuls, fince 
 they referved one great part of it, viz.- the Legiflative Power, wholly in 
 themfelves : but however this power which the Fathers of Families, and Free- 
 men among the Romans had over the Lives of their Children and Slaves, as al- 
 fo over others who were declared publick Enemies, was derived wholly from 
 God •, yet there arofe likewife a new Power which thefe Fathers of Families 
 were not invefted with before, viz.. that of making Laws, as alfo of War 
 and Peace: all which Powers were derived from God, for the common Good, 
 and Defence of the whole People or Community. 
 
 F. Herein 1 alfo agree with you, but then mark what follows: it then 
 plainly appears, that the natural Subjeft of Civil Authority was the Fathers of 
 Families, and Freemen of Rome j and that what fhare thereof was by. them 
 committed to the Senate and Confuls, it was wholly perfonal, and as their 
 Reprefentatives. This being fo, pray anfwer me another Queftion : When 
 the Senate and People of Rome did afterwards confer their whole Power upoa 
 the Roman Emperors by that Law (called in your hftitutions^ Lex Regia) was 
 there then created or produced any new Authority from God to the firft Em- 
 peror? Or was it the fame Authority or Majefty which the Senate and Peo- 
 ple were endued with before? For either it mull be the fame, or elfe God 
 mult create a new parcel of this Royal Majefty or Authority wherewith to en- 
 due this firft Emperor : which if you fuppofe, I can ftiew you a great many 
 Difficulties and Abfurdities that will follow from this Opinion •, for then I 
 might ask you, whether this Royal Majefty be like iht Stoioks Anima Afundiy 
 whofe Parts are diftributed among all the Kings in the World? or whether 
 each King has his particular Majefty to himfelf ? or whether the King dying, 
 liis Majefty alfo dies with him ? or whether it exift without him, as the Soul 
 does when feparated from the Body, and by a certain kind of Metempfychofis, 
 is transferred to the new Monarch ? 
 
 M. 1 (hall not ftick at prefent to affirm, that this Authority or Majefty of 
 the ^e«(.t« Emperors was originally derived from God, tho not immediately, 
 but by the Mediation of the People of Rome as his Inftruments, efpecially or- 
 daiu'd for the Derivation of this Imperial Power. 
 
 F. Well
 
 Dialogue the Eleventh. ^0 
 
 , F. Well then, I fee you and I are at laft agreed i for I fuppofe all Civil 
 Power to be fo derived from God to the People, and by them, as an inftru- 
 mental Caufe, conveyed to the Perfon whom they agree to make their King. 
 But if this were fo in the Roman Commonwealth, why are not all the reft of 
 the Nations of the World indued with the like Privilege j fo that no Man 
 may juftly make himfclf King over them without their Eleftion, or Recogni- 
 tion at leaft ? 
 
 M. Perhaps in thofe Nations where the People have, from the firft Inftitu- 
 tion of the Government, retained the whole Civil Power in themfelves, or elfe 
 by the Extindion of the Royal Family they became poflefled of it ■, this 
 Power may afterwards by them be transferred or made over to one fingle 
 Perfon or more : but this can by no mems hold in divers other Cafes, where 
 God immediately beftows a Civil Power or Authority without any Confent of 
 the People, as it is in the cafe of Kingdoms acquired by Conqueft in a juft 
 War, (for as to unjaft Wars or Conquefts, I freely own they confer no Right at 
 all.) But fince you will not, I fuppofe, deny that fuch a rightful Conqueft 
 confers an abfolute Power on the Conqueror, over the Lives and Eftates of 
 the Conquered, as alfo an Obligation in'them to fubmit to and obey the Con- 
 queror i hence muft arife a new Civil Power, without any Confent of the 
 People intervening : which Authority, fince no Man can confer it upon him- 
 felf, muft necelTarily be immediately conferred by God ■■, fince, as 1 faid be- 
 fore, the People are only paflive, and have no hand at all in the conveying of 
 it. And this is the more remarkable, becaufe I fuppofe you will not deny, 
 but that where one Kingdom or Empire has owed its beginning to the Eleftion 
 or Confent of the People, I could name ten that have begun from Conqueft : 
 So that it is evident, the People are never, or very rarely, the efficient Caufes 
 of Civil Power. 
 
 F. Tho this Queftion concerning Conqueft does not immediately concern 
 our Kings, who, as I have already proved, do not owe their Regal Authority 
 to Conqueft, but to the Election and Confent of the People j yet fince the 
 Title to a great part of our King's Dominions begun at firft from Conqueft, 
 I fhall now fay fomething of it. Firft then, you grant that only Conqueft in a 
 |uft War can confer a Right to the People's Obedience ; and therefore fince 
 thegreateft part of the Governments have commenced from unjuft Conquefts» 
 it will therefore follow that the Right of fuch Princes to thofe Kingdoms and 
 Territories fo unjuftly acquired, could not owe its Original to Conqueft, but 
 either to a long PoflelTion, or the Extindion, or at leaft the Derelidion df 
 the right Heirs, together with the Confent of the People to confirm their 
 Titles. So that it is not only my Opinion, but that of the moft learned Wri- 
 ters in your own Faculty, fuch as Grotim znAPajfendorf-^ that Conqueft alone, 
 tho in the jufteft War, can confer no Right over a Free People without their 
 Recognition or Confent: 1 have added of a Free People., becaufe 1 much doubt, 
 upon the Conqueft of a Kingdom or Territory (for example) where the 
 People do own themfelves mere Slaves to their Monarch \ whether their Con- 
 fents be at all necefiary or not, fince they fall to the Vidlor as the moveable 
 Goods of the Prince conquered : but then the Power he has over them, is 
 not properly a Civil Authority, but that of a Lord over his Slaves. And hence 
 it is that in all Kingdoms and Territories, obtained by Conqueft among us in 
 Europe, Princes do not think themfelves to have any Title to their Subjefts 
 Allegiance, before they have acknowledged them for their lawful Sovereigns, 
 by fome publick Aft either of the Eftates or Reprefentatives of the Kingdom, 
 or elfe by the particular Oaths of all the chief Subjefts or Inhabitants of thofe 
 Places. 
 
 M. I fhall not at prefent difpute this Point any farther with you, but yeC 
 there remains one great difficulty behind, concerning the manner of God's 
 conferring this fupreme Power upon Princes and States : For you your felf 
 have already granted, that the power of Fathers and Mafters of Families is 
 not of the kind, butfomewhat fpecifically different from Civil Power or Au- 
 thority; and if fo, fince they had not this Civil Power in themfelves, I cannot 
 fee how they could confer it upon another, fince nemo dat cjuod non habet : And 
 therefore there ftill feems a ncccfiity of God's conferring a new Power upon 
 that Prince, or upon thofe Perfons whom they (hall pitch upon to rule over 
 them. p. I
 
 5<5< 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA P O L I T I C A. 
 
 F. 1 hope I Ihall as eafily remove this Difficulty, if yoa wijl pkafe to coji- 
 fider the maaaer how God confers this Civil Authority upon Men, which is 
 certainly by natural Means, and is to be found out by natural Reafon, without 
 any Divine Revelation ^ fince Civil Government was inftituted, and Men were 
 obliged to obey it, long before the Old Teftament was written. But the true 
 Vid. Puffen- Original of it is thus to be traced: Firft, It is certain, that right Reafon 
 dorf de Jure fufficiently taught Mankind when it began to multiply, and that they were fen- 
 Gentium, 1. 3. ^^jj^^ f^^^ jjjg ^^^^^ Wickednefs and Corruptions of Mens Natures, that 
 ** ^' their common Peace and Safety could not be well maintained, unlefsCivil Go- 
 
 verivnents v/ere inftituted •, which could not fubfift without a fupreme Autho- 
 rity placed in fome one or more Perfons. This being a Didate of the Law of 
 Isature or right Reafon, and fo highly conducing to the Good of Mankind ; 
 it muft needs owe its Original to God, the Author of all Truth, and the Gi- 
 ver of every good and perfeft Gift. Frcim whence it follows, that not only 
 the Inftitution of Commonwealths themfelves, but alfo the fupremc Power 
 with which they are indued, does not proceed merely from Men, but from 
 God's Command, expreft by the Law of Nature or right Reafon : So ttat 
 the fame Legiflator, who firft prefcribed Civil Society, alfo prefer ibed the 
 Peace and Order of that Society. Now a fupreme Civil Authority, either ia 
 one or more Perfons, is the Life and Soul thereof, without which it cannot live 
 or fubfift. 
 
 But it is certain that thofe things are not only faid to proceed from God, 
 which he immediately inftitutes, without any human Ad intervening ; but 
 thofe alfo which Men by the Conduft of right Reafon, and according to their 
 prefent Occafions and NecetTities, have introduced to fulfil that Obligation that 
 / lay upon them, to promote the common Good and Safety of Mankind. And 
 
 fince in a promifcuousungoverned multitude, that great Law of Nature, which 
 prcfcribes the publick Peace and Concord of Mankind, cannot well be exercifed 
 ('the Unrulinefs of Mens Paftions confidered) nor be maintained without fome 
 fupreme Civil Authority to keep Men in order •, it is plain that God, who ea- 
 join'd Men this, does alfo command that Civil Societies (hould not be only in- 
 ftituted, but their Authority alfo obeyed, as derived from himfclf, and as the 
 necelTary means of obtaining this great end of all the Laws of Nature, the 
 common Good and Safety of Mankind. And hence it is that he hith not any 
 where prefcribed or inftituted any particular Form of Government, but leaves 
 the choice of it to the particular Genius and Temper of each Nation and 
 People. 
 
 This being fettled, your Objeftioa is eafily anfwered, How Civil Power caa 
 be conferred, without an immediate conferring of it from God, (i ce the Peo- 
 ple in the State of Nature had it not before : which proceeds fr'-ro your not 
 confidering, that this fupreme Authority is not like the Soul of Man, an im- 
 material Form, that gives Knowledg and Underftanding to the Body, and 
 may be feparated from it ; but is only a moral Quality, which may be produced 
 by the mutual Confent of thofe that inftitute it, as the productive Caufe 
 thereof, tho they had it not formally in themfelves before-, juft as from many 
 Voices finging in Confort, tho in different Tones, there arifcs a Hai mony, 
 which was not in any fingle Voice alone. Therefore fince Civil Authoiity pro- 
 ceeds from theNon-Refiftance of the Subjed?, and their ConcelTion that the 
 fupreme Powers ftiould freely difpofe of their Bodies and Goods for the publick 
 Safety, it plainly appears, that in each particular Mafter of a Family and Free- 
 man there lay (tho hidden and difperft) the Seeds or Rudiments of fupreme 
 Power, which by mutual Compafts did afterwards grow into a perfeft Civil 
 Authority. And thus not only many Maftersof Families, and Freemen, may 
 combine together for their mutual Safety to ereft a Commonwealth, by ap- 
 pointing one or many Men to rule over them for their mutual Safety i but it 
 is not impoffible, but that from the Government of a Mafter of a Family, 
 having many Villages and Slaves under his power, there may arife a perfed 
 Kingdom : for tho paternal Power does chiefly refpeft the Education of Chil- 
 dren, and that of a Mafter, the Government of Servants, for his own advan- 
 tage i yet is there not fo great a diftance between the Power of a Mafter of a 
 Family and Civil Authority, that there can be no pafTing from one to the o* 
 ther, without a new Authority, immediately created by God for that purpofe. 
 
 For 
 
 IV
 
 Dialogue the Eleventh, . 561 
 
 For fuppofe a Mafter of a Family, having a numerous Train of Childrea 
 and Servants, fhould permit both of them, by way of Emancipation or Ma- 
 numiflion, to enjoy fuch a Portion of Lands, or other Goods to their own ufc as 
 alfo to govern their own private Families and Affairs as they (hall think fit, pro- 
 vided they will ftill obey him as their Head and Governor, and contribute the 
 utmoft AfTiftance of their Lives and Fortunes for the publick Safety •■, I cannot 
 fee any thing that would be wanting to the making fuch a Mafter of a Family 
 a lawful and abfolute Prince, provided he was endued v/*ith fuch a Power as 
 to be able to protcft them : yet all this while, without fuppofing any new 
 Divine Authority to be infufed by God upon his Acceflion to this Dignity. 
 
 M. 1 confefs you have given me a more exaft account concerning your Senfe 
 of this matter than ever I had before j and therefore 1 Ihall not further dif- 
 pute this Point with you : only let me tell you, that upon this Hypothefis of 
 yours is founded that defperate Opinion concerning the real Authority or Ma- 
 jefty of the People, which the Commonwealths-men fuppofe ftill to refide 
 in the difFufive Body thereof, after the Government is inftituted, and by vir- 
 tue of which they fuppofe there ftill remains a power in them to call their 
 Kings or Governours to an account, and to punifti them for Tyranny, or any 
 other fuppofed Faults, againft the fundamental Conftitution of the Govern- 
 ment, or of the Original Contraft,as thofe of your Party are pleas'd to term it. 
 
 F. Well then, to let you fee I am none of thofe Commonwealths-men who 
 maintain any fuch defperate Doftrines, here I do freely own, that where the 
 People have parted with their whole Power, either to a Monarch, or elfe to 
 a fupreme Council or Senate, from thenceforth they have nothing at all to do 
 to call fuch Governours to an account, or to punifh them for the higheft Tyran- 
 ny or OpprefFion they can commit. The utmoft I have allowed as lawful to be 
 done in this Cafe, in all the Converfations we have had, is no more than this ; 
 That the People, in cafe they fee themfelves like to be deftroyed and ruined 
 both in their Perfons, Confciences, and Eftates, may, even under the raoft 
 abfolute Governments, ftand upon their own Defence, and prevent their be- 
 ing thus totally ruined and endaved j and may alfo caft off all Allegiance to 
 fuch Powers, in cafe they refufe to treat them with greater Jufticeand Mode- 
 ration for the future. But as for fuch limited or mixt Governments as ours are, 
 where the People have ftill retained a Ihare in the Legiflature, and alfo in the 
 raifing of publick Taxes; yet fince the King is by Law exempted from Punifh- 
 ment, or rendring any account of his Actions either to the People or their 
 Reprefentatives, the utmoft that I contend for, is. That fince the King re- 
 ceives only a limited Power of ruling according to fuch and fuch Laws, and 
 will ufurp that Ihare of the Government that does not belong to him •■, in fuch 
 Cafes, if he refufe to amend, then they may refift his Officers and Minifters, 
 nay himfelf in Perfon, in the execution of fuch violent and illegal Adions. 
 And if he ftill perfift, and refufe to amend, that then at laft they may pro- 
 ceed to declare, that he hath forfeited his Crown or Regal Right of ruling 
 over them \ and in fuch cafe I hold that it again devolves to the People, from 
 whom it firft proceeded. And that this is no new Doftrine, I have the Au- 
 thority of Fortefcue on my fide j who, in his Treatifc De Laudibm Legum yi«- Cap.i3.p.32. 
 glU^ after having (hewn that all political or limited Governments proceeded at 
 firft from the Confent of the People, proceeds thus, addrelfinghimfelf to Prince 
 Henry^ Son oi King Henry V . ffor whom he compofed this Work) H^bes ex 
 hoc jam. Princess, infiitutionis politici Regni formam, ex qua metiri poteris poteflm- 
 terny tjuam Rex ejus in Leges ipfus aut Suhditos valeat exercere. Ai Tutelam 
 namcjue Legis, ac Suhditorum, eorum Corporum & Bonorumy Rex hujufmodi erec- 
 tus efty & ad banc Potefiatema Populo elfluxam ipfe habet, quo ei non licet potefiate 
 alia fuo Populo dominari. From whence we may obferve, that he calls the Go- 
 vernment of this Kingdom, not Regnum fimply, but Regnum PoLiticum-, that is 
 a politick or limited Kingdom, in oppofition to Regnum Abfolutum. This he 
 calls a Power flowing or proceeding from the People ; and if it thus proceeds 
 from the People, it muft certainly return to them again upon the failure of 
 the Conditions to be performed on the King's part. Nor docs this fuppofe 
 any real Majcfty or Authority in them who take this Forfeiture, any more 
 than it docs fuppofe it in the People, according to your own Hypothefis, when 
 
 Cccc the
 
 562 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTlCA. 
 
 the Civil Authority does again devolve to them upon the death of a King 
 without lawful Heirs. 
 
 M. I do now very well underftand your Hypothefis, but I think Princes are 
 not thereby in a better Condition by being thus accountable to, and unpuni- 
 fliable by the People, but that they are rather in a much worfe j fince you fay 
 they may refift, nay kill them, when they are once entered into a State of War 
 againft them. For where Princes are accountable to their People or Senate, 
 they may then be admitted to be heard to make their Defence, in cafe of 
 any Oppreffion or Mifgovernment laid to their charge ; as the King of ToUnd 
 may at this day, to the great AlTembly of Eftates or Dyet of the Nation : 
 whereas in the cafe of the King, as you have put it, tho he is not accountable 
 to the Parliament, yet he is ftill liable to that which is more dangerous, viz.. 
 to be judged, cenfured, and declared forfeit by every inconfiderable Fellow of 
 the Rabble, on pretence of violating this Original Contraft, and having bro- 
 ken the fundamental Conftitution of the Government, and fo fhall be con- 
 demned unheard, and perhaps without any jult Caufe : fo that 1 think a Man 
 had as good be a Bearward, as a King upon fuch Terms. 
 
 F. The Men of your Principles I fee are not to be pleafed, unlefs Princes 
 may do whatever they have a mind to without controul, or any Man's judging 
 oroppofing the Illegality of their Actions : For if a Parliament takes upon 
 it felf to judge of the King's Adions, this is calling their Princes to an ac- 
 count, and a thing againft the Laws of the Land, as alfo that of Nations ; 
 if the whole Body of the People take upon them to judge when he has violated 
 the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom, and broken the Original Contraft, 
 and thereupon refift him, this is making the King liable to be judged and 
 cenfured by every mean Fellow of the Rabble, But to let you fee that both 
 judging and difobeying the King's Commands, if contrary to Law, is not a 
 thing of fuch dangerous Confequence as you would make it, appears by the 
 late Petition of the feven Bifhops, wherein they take upon them to judge, 
 that the King's late Declaration of Liberty of Confcience being againft feve- 
 ral Ads of Parliament, they cannot with a fafe Confcience publifh if, or agree 
 to the reading of it in the Churches. Now I defire to know whether this be 
 not a making the King's AQions liable to be judged and cenfured by every 
 one of the Rabble, fince thefe Bifhops afted thus, neither as Privy Counfel- 
 lors, nor as Peers in Parliament ? For by the fame Right by which they took 
 upon them to make this Declaration, by the fame Right, not only every Cu- 
 rate of a Parilh, but alfo every Layman in England-, was free to judg of the 
 King's Breach of this Law, and confequently of denying Obedience there- 
 unto ; which Difobedience, if it once prove general, will quickly make the 
 King's perfonal Commands wholly infTgnificant. So that it feems it is not the 
 Peoples judging of the Illegality of the King's Aftions and Commands, which 
 is the thing you find fault with, fince when thefe Bifhops afted thus, all thofe 
 of the Church of England highly commended it : So that it feems it is not 
 the bare Cenfuring and Difobedience that makes it a Crime, but it is the re- 
 fifting fuch violent and illegal Orders and Commands, and at laft declaring 
 that Power void and forfeited by which they were made, that fticks in your 
 Stomach : which is as much as to fay, that this Judging and Difobedience in 
 it felf is no Crime j but the pufhing it home, and doing it in fuch a way as 
 that it may be mended for the future \ tho this is never lawful to be done, but 
 when things come to that extremity, that all milder Remedies are become in- 
 cfTedual. 
 
 But to anfwer your Objedions a little more clofely, the Confequences of 
 my Opinion are not fo dangerous as you fuppofe them, if you will pleafe to 
 confider what I have already laid down at our laft Meeting. As firft. That 
 this Refiftance is never to be made, but when the violent Breach of the Laws 
 becomes evident and undeniable, not to the Rabble alone, but to the whole 
 Nation, that is, all forts and degrees of Men ; and as long as there is any 
 Queftion about it, I acknowledg it is by no means to be ufed. And laftly. 
 As to the declaring the Regal Power forfeited, this likewife is never to be 
 done, but when the King becomes fo obftinately refolved to pnrfue thofe e- 
 vil and illegal Courfes, as that he is utterly irreclaimable, and refofes all Propo- 
 fitions and Terms of amending or redrelTing them. Aud as to what you fay, 
 
 that
 
 Dialogue the Eleventh. 5^3 
 
 that the Ring is hereby deprived of all means of juftifying himfelf, or vindi- 
 cating his Aftions-, that is not fo, fince if a War be once begun, he may do 
 this either by Declarations, McfTages, or Treaties, asKingCW/o I. did in 
 his War with the Parliament ; by which means he gained a great many both of 
 the Nobility, Gentry, and Commonalty to his Party, who wcte before abfo- 
 lutely fct againft him. But if you will needs have a Parliament to judg and 
 examine the reality of this Forfeiture, I fo far join with you, that tho every 
 private Man may firft judge thereof, yet is it not become abfolute, and aa 
 Aft of the whole People, till the Eftates of the Kingdom, as their Reprefen" 
 tatives, have by fome folcmn Vote or Declaration made it {o. 
 
 M. Well, I fee you do all you can to make the beft of a bad Caufe ^ but 
 tho 1 think nothing of what you have faid can give Subjefts any Right to re- 
 fift, much lefs to caft ofT all Allegiance to their natural Prince, yet I fliall not 
 now difpute this Point any longer with you, but will proceed to the Merits of 
 the Caufe, and (hall let you {ee, that even upon your own Principles, the 
 King has not been dealt withal in this whole Tranfaftion, either like an Ally 
 by the States-General of the Vnited Provinces, or like a near Relation or a 
 Son-in-law by the Prince of Orange^ or like a King by his own Subjefts. To 
 begin with the States of Holland in the firfl: place, it is apparent that they 
 have afted treachcroufly with the King, and contrary to the laft Treaty of 
 Peace and Alliance, in furnifliing the Prince of Orangey as their Captain-Gene- 
 ral and Stadtholder, both with Ships, Men and Mony, to make this late Ex- 
 pedition againlT: England, without fo much as ever declaring the Caufe of 
 their Quarrel, or demanding any Satisfaftion, if any occalion of Difference 
 had been given. 
 
 But the Prince of Orange\ dealing with the King his Father-in-law, has been 
 much lefs juftifiable: for, inthefirft place, he is not only guilty of the fame 
 fault with his iMafters the D«fc^, in beginning a War without ever declaring 
 the Caufes of it, or demanding any Satisfaftion or Reparation if he had been 
 injured, till it was too late to go back, and that his Fleet was ready, and the 
 Army Ihipped for the Expedition •■, but what was more unkind from a Ne- 
 phew and a Son-in-law, who had reafon to expeft all the Satisfaftion which a 
 King, an Uncle, and a Father-in-law could give : tho indeed, to fpeak the 
 truth, the whole War was, in my Opinion, altogether unjuft on the Prince's 
 fide, fince his chief Pretences were to redrefs Grievances, and to re-eftabli(h 
 the Bifhops and Church of England with the Colleges in their juft Rights, and 
 alfo rcltore the whole Nation to the juft execution of the Laws, by a Free 
 Parliament and Privileges. Now 1 defire to know what the Prince of Orange 
 had to do, either as a Neighbour or a Son-in-law, to concern himfelf with 
 the Mifgovernment of Affairs in England, much lefs to countenance and 
 take the part of thofe many Malecontents and Traitors, who, after the Duke 
 of Afowwoar^'s Rebellion, went ovqt into Holland? So that upon the whole 
 matter, 1 can find but one thing which he had fo much as a pretence of mak- 
 ing war about, if it had been real, viz.- the pretended fuppofititious Birth of 
 the Prince of l^^/« •, and yet even for this he ought not to have made War, 
 till fuch time as ail reafonable fatisfaftion in this matter had been demanded 
 and denied him ; and that the next Parliament, which the King had before 
 declared ffiould mccua November \iQi, had been either hindred from meddling 
 in it, or that they had failed to make a due Enquiry into it. But if we look 
 home 
 
 F. Pray, Sir, before you come to confider what has been done here, give 
 me leave to juftify the late Proceedings of the States-General, and the Prince 
 of Orange in this matter. Firft, As to the States, it is a very great Miftake, 
 that they made this War upon the King in their own Names, or fur- 
 rifhed the Prince of Orange with Ships or Men as their Stadtholder or General ; 
 they did it as he was a fieclndependent Prince, whom they looked upon to 
 have a good Caufe of making War againft the King of England, as one they 
 had great caufe to believe was fo far engaged in the French Intcreft, as inftead 
 of ftanding neuter in this War with the Empire, they every day expedtcd 
 when he would join with France, and declare War againft them, as they had 
 reafon to fear by feveral angry Memorials which t\\z French King's Envoy in 
 HoUand had not long before given them : fo that indeed it was but according 
 
 C c c c 2 to
 
 564 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITlCA. 
 
 to the Rules of Self-prefervation to begin firft, efpecially when it might be 
 done without their appearing in it at all. But granting this War had been 
 made in their own Names, it had been but a juft return for what had beea 
 donetothem before by the late King, who made aftual War upon them, with- 
 out ever giving them the leaft notice, or demanding fatisfadion for any Wrongs 
 or Damages received i and this was the more juftifiable, becaufe his prefent 
 Majefty, when Duke of Tori, was looked upon to have a very great hand ia 
 thofeCounfels which begun that unhappy War, in which he hirafelf ferved as 
 Admiral. But as to the Prince of Orange, there is much more to be faid in 
 his Juftification : for, in the firft place, tho in fome refpedts he was a Subjed, 
 by living under, and enjoying divers Lands and Territories, and Commands 
 within the Dominions of the Vnited Provinces ; yet as he is Prince of Orange^ 
 he is a free independent Prince, and, asfuch, has a Right of making War and 
 Peace: and if fo, all that is to be further enquired into, is, whether the Prince 
 had any juft caufeof making war upon the King or not. Therefore toanfwer 
 your firft Objedtion againft the Prince's making war upon an Uncle and a Fa- 
 ther-in-law, without firft demanding fatisfaftion, and then denouncing War 
 if he could not obtain it j I confefs this were a good Objeftion, if you could 
 once prove to me, that the Prince could have been fure to have had granted 
 him whatever he could in reafon demand, both in refpeft of the Church of 
 England, the Security of the Proteftant Religion, the Rights and Liberties of 
 the Subjeds of England, and his own particular Concerns in refpeft of the 
 Prince of Wales. But whoever will impartially confider the Terms that the 
 Prince and King were upon juft before his coming over, will find that he was 
 not obliged to give the King notice of his Intentions, by firft demanding fa- 
 tisfadion, and then denouncing War if it had been denied •, lince the King 
 might then have joined his own with the French Fleet, and fent for French Forces 
 into England, and then all that the Prince could have done, in behalf of him- 
 felf and the Nation, had been altogether in vain. And then tho 1 grant that 
 fuch fatisfadion ought to be demanded in moft Cafes, yet will it not hold in 
 this ; where if the Prince had fooner difcovered his Deligos, the King might 
 have eafily prevented them. And how near this was to have been put in 
 execution, may appear by this. That Succours were aftually offered by the 
 French King, and if they were refufed by ours, it was partly becaufe it was 
 too late for the French Fleet to be then put out, and partly out of a poli- 
 tick ConCderation, that befides lofing the Hearts of his Englip Subjects, it 
 might give the French fuch a footing here, that they would not be eafily got- 
 ten out again. But indeed it feems as if the old formal way of mjking wax 
 was quite out of falhion ; fiuce Charles II. made war againft the Dutch, and the 
 King of France fo lately againft Spain, the Eledor Palatine and the Emperor, 
 without any Obfervation of thofe Formalities. 
 
 But if we confider the Grounds and Caufes of this War, as t^ey are fet 
 forth in the Prince's late Declaration, they may be reduced to thefe 'three 
 Heads : 
 
 Firfi, The Reftoration of the Church of England, with the Bifliops and Col- 
 leges to their juft Privileges. 
 
 Secondly, The fecuring the Rights and Liberties of the Subjeft from the 
 Difpenfing Power, and thofe other Incroachments that had been made upon 
 them by the partial Judgments of Popifli or Corrupt Judges. 
 
 And, Lafily, The Enquiry into the Birth of the Prince of Wales. In all 
 which the Prince was fo reafonable, as to refer the Decifion of thefe Diffe- 
 rences to the Judgment of a Free Parliament. 
 
 Kow as for the firft of thefe, That the Prince as a Neighbour, and of the 
 fame Religion with us, might juftly fecure the Intereft of the Proteftant Re- 
 ligion here, and alfo redeem the Clergy from the Perfecution they lay under, 
 is very evident i finceit has always been held lawful for Princes to take the 
 part andefpoufe the Intereft of thofe of the fame Religion with themfelves, 
 thoSubjefts to another Prince. Thus Eufehiw makes it a good caufe of War 
 by the Emperor Confiantine againft Licinitu, becaufe he perfecuted the Chrif- 
 tians living under his Dominions: So likewife in later Ages, Queen Elizabeth 
 affifted the Dutch Protertants of the Vnited Provinces, and thofe of France, a- 
 gainft the Perfecutions and Opprefcons they fufi^ered from their own Princes; 
 
 as 
 
 mt.
 
 Dialogue the Eleventh 565 
 
 as totheFr-fwcfcProteftants, KingCW/wI. fent a Fleet and an Army to their 
 Afliftaace in 1627. 
 
 But as to the next Head, the OppreflTions we lay under in refpeft of our 
 Gvil Liberties, the Prince had as great, or rather greater Right to vindicate 
 thefe than the former. For Bodin and Barclay., tho they fuppofe it unlawful 
 for Subjedts to take up Arras againft their Prince, tho ever fo highly op- 
 prefled ; yet they count it not only lawful, but generous and heroiclt for a 
 neighbouring Prince, to refcue injured and opprefTed Subjefts from the Tyran- 
 ny of their Kings. So that if the King had by his difpenfing Power, his le- 
 Tying of Taxes without Law, and taking away the Freedom of Eleftions for 
 Parliament-men, almofl; totally diflblved the Government, and brought it to 
 the Condition of an Abfolute Monarchy, it was high time for the Prince to 
 put a flop to thofe Incroachments, both in refpeft of his own particular In- 
 tereft, and alfo of the States, whofe General and Stadtholder he is. Of the 
 former, fince if this Kingdom fliould once become of the Popilh Religion, by 
 the means of a Standing Army, and thofe other Methods that have been taken 
 to make it fo (granting the Prince of IVales to be truly born of the Qiieen) 
 yet fhould he happen to die, the Popifh Faftion here in England would in all 
 likelihood debar the Prince and Princefs of Orange from their lawful SucccITion 
 to the Crown ; or at leaft would never admit them but upon condition of 
 eftablilhing of Popery and arbitrary Government in England .- the former of 
 which is as contrary to their Confciences, as the latter is to their Principles 
 and Inclinations. 
 
 So on the other fide, if the Prince of IVales be not the Queen's true Son, the 
 Prince and Princefs of Orange had certainly a much greater Intereft, as the 
 prefumptive Heirs of the Crown, to demand fatisfaftion in that great Point, 
 which fo nearly concerned their Right of SuccefTion i for then certainly they 
 might juftly demand fatisfaftion, efpecially when they defired no more but to 
 have this Bufiaefs left to the Infpedion of the Eftates of the Kingdom, as the 
 only proper Judges of the fame. For as to the Privy Council, who by the 
 King's Command (tho without any Precedent) had taken upon them to hear 
 and determine this matter, their Highnefles certainly had no reafon to be fa- 
 tisfied with it i fince, befides the incompetency of the Judges, the King him- 
 felf appeared too partial and interefted in the Affiir, for them to fit dowa 
 by their Judgments. And as for what you fay, that the Prince ought firft to 
 have tried, whether the King and Parliament would give him that fatisfadVioQ 
 he demanded ; this was very dangerous for him to hazard : for fuppofe the 
 King would never have permitted this Affair to have been impartially inquired 
 into by them, or that the Parliament had been (as it was very likely to be) 
 packed and made up of Papifts, Fanaticks, and Time-fervers, who either 
 would not, or elfe durft not have examined this matter as they ought : his 
 Highnefs had been then to play an After-game the next year, and what might 
 have happened in the mean time, God knows ; and therefore he had all the 
 reafon in the World, whilft the French King's Arms were imployed in Germa- 
 ny., to demand fatisfaction with the Sword in his hand. This is what I have to 
 fay in juftification of his Highnefs's Arms, which if they are juft on his fide, 
 1 think I can aseafily prove what has been done for his Affiftance by the Nobi- 
 lity, Gentry, and Commons of this Nation, to have been fo too. 
 
 Af. I Ihall not any longer difpute, whether the Dutch and the Prince of 0- 
 range may not make fome fair Pretences for wliat they have done ; fince mak- 
 ing War for Security, and by way of Prevention, is no new thing : tho I con- 
 fefswhat you fay, in refpeft of the Prince of IVales., had been a fufficientcaule 
 of War, had there been any true grounds for thatSufpicion. But fince there 
 was no juft caufe given why his Highnefs fhould fufped his Birth not to be 
 genuine, and that even in the prefcnt Convention it felf there could be no 
 proof made to the contrary i I think it is now evident, that it was a wicked 
 and unjuft Calumny upon his Majefty and the Queen, fince he himfelf, in the 
 lalt Paper he left behind him at his going away, appeals to all that know him, 
 nay even to the Prince of Orange himfelf y that in their Confciences neither he or they 
 can believe him in the leaft eapable of fo unnatural a yUlany^ nor of fo little common 
 Senfty to be impofed on tn a thing of fuch a nature as that. 
 
 But
 
 566 BiBLIOTHECA POLITICA. 
 
 Bot as for thofe Noblemen and Gentlemen, who have declar'd for the Prince 
 of Orange fince his Arrival, I think that they are no way to be juftify'd ; fince 
 granting them to have been fatisfy'd, that the Prince's Demands were lawful 
 and reafonable, yet fure they ought not to have taken up Arms on behalf of 
 a foreign Prince, againft their natural Sovereign: but if in their Confciences 
 they had believed his Quarrel to have been juft, the utmoft they could have done, 
 had been to have ftood Neuters, without concerning themfelves either with the 
 one or the other Party ^ and then if the Prince had gain'd his point either by 
 Arms or Treaty, they might have enjoy'd the good EfFefts of it, without 
 breaking in upon the Church of England's Principles of Paflive-Obedience and 
 Non-Refiftance, and fo many Afts of Parliament made to the fame purpofe. 
 But as for thofe Officers and Soldiers, who bafely and perfidioufly deferred the 
 King at Salisbury^ and ran over to the Prince's Army with their Commiffions 
 in their Pockets, they cannot pofTibly be juftified either by the Law of the Land, 
 or that of Nations -, fince certainly they afted contrary to both. 
 
 F. Before I fpeak any thing concerning the Bufinefs of the Prince of Walesi 
 give me leave to fay fomething in juftificatiori of thofe Noblemen and Gentle- 
 men you fo highly accufe •■, and tho we difcours'd fomething of this matter at 
 our laft Meeting, yet fince you have again renew'd the Charge againft them, 
 1 cannot but again vindicate them in what they have done. In the firft place, 
 pray call to mind, that it has fufficiently appear'd by the fmall Forces his 
 Highnefs brought over with him, that he never intended to conquer this King- 
 dom, or impofe any thing upon it, contrary to the known Laws and Cuftoms 
 thereof i and therefore, as appears by his Declaration, his chief hopes of Suc- 
 cefs againft fo numerous an Army, made up of the flower of three Nations, 
 depended on that affurance he had of fome confiderable Afllftance from the No- 
 bility and Gentry of England^ and perhaps from fome of the Officers of the 
 King's own Army^ and that this was lawful in both of them, I thus prove: 
 You may remember 1 made out at our laft meeting but one, that when the 
 Nation lay under any great intolerable OpprefTion, by reafon of the Viola- 
 tion of their juft Rights and Liberties •, the Clergy, Nobility and Gentry there- 
 of, did always look upon it as their Right and Duty to vindicate the fame by a 
 vigorous Refiftance, when no gentler means could fuffice. Secondly, I have 
 prov'd that it neither was, nor could be the intent of thofe Oaths and Decla- 
 rations m,ade in the two firft Parliaments of King Charles U. to deliver up their 
 Lives, Liberties and Eftates wholly to the King's Mercy, let him ufe them as 
 he pleafedi and if they did not, it muft neceflarily follow, that upon the 
 • King's Violation of their Religion, Liberties and Properties, they had ftill a 
 Right left them to defend themfelves from fuch Opprefllon and Tyranny. 
 Laftly, " I have alfo prov'd (as the Convention alfo lately declar'd) that the 
 *' King by exercifing his difpenfing Power, by committing and profecuting 
 *' the feven Bifiiops, by fetting up an Eccleliaftical CommilTion contrary to Law, 
 J' by levying Mony by his Prerogative, without or contrary to exprefs Ads 
 " of Parliament, and by raifing and keeping up a ftanding Army in time of 
 " Peace, commanded by Officers who had never taken the Teft appointed by 
 *' the Statutes made for that purpofe, and confifting of fo many Popifh Sol- 
 " diers, who having never taken the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, were 
 " altogether uncapable of ferving in his Majefty's Army ■■, and by doing divers 
 " other things contrary to the known Laws, Statutes and Liberties of this 
 " Realm, too long now to particularize ; had broken the Fundamental Confti- 
 " tution of the Kingdom." This being the Cafe, I defire to know how it was 
 poffible for the Nation to have a firm and fettled Redrefs of thefe Grievances, 
 without a Free Parliament ? Or how it was poffible to obtain fuch a Parliament 
 (the late taking away of Charters and Regulation of Corporations confider'd) un- 
 lefs thofe Obftacles had been firft removM ? And how they could be remov'd, 
 without fome Force proportionable to what the King had raifed to hinder it, 
 I cannot tell. And therefore it is a very vain Projeft of yours, to fuppofethat 
 thofe Noblemen and Gentlemen fliould have fat ftill, and not have declar'd 
 themfelves fome way or other in this Quarrel i which is all one, as to fay, they 
 ought to fit ftill and fee a generous Prince ruin'd, who had come in for their 
 Redemption, and to have then expefted a Remedy for all thefe illegal Viola- 
 tions and Oppreffions, when the King had kill'd or deftroy'd the Prince of 
 
 OraB^e
 
 'Dialogue the Eleventh 567 
 
 Orange and his Army, by his Majefty's yielding to all the fame Conditions that 
 the Prince had demanded. This indeed would have been not to be parallel'd 
 any where but in a Romance. 
 
 But as forthofe Officers and Soldiers who you fay deferted the King, and 
 went over to the Prince from 5(j/w^ary ^ tho 1 grant they make a great noife, 
 yet were they not a Thoufand Men, Soldiers, Officers and all, (as 1 am credi- 
 bly inform'd) which was but a fmall Number, in comparifon with the King's 
 whole Army : and yet thefe may very well be detended upon the fame Prin- 
 ciples with the former ■■, for if the Violations of our Liberties were fo great 
 and dangerous, as I have now fet forth, thofe Gentlemen were certainly 
 oblig'd to prefer the common Good of the Kingdom, in the Prefervation of 
 their Religion and Liberties, before any private Interelts or Obligations what- 
 foever, tho it were to the King himfelf : therefore it was more his than their 
 fault, if they deferted him. And as for their going away whilft they were his 
 Soldiers, and with their CommilTions in their Pockets ^ 1 fuppofe you cannot 
 exped that the King (hould have ever given them leave to quit his Ser- 
 vice, or have accepted of their CommifTions, if they would have furrender'd 
 them, unlefs at tlie fame time he had clapt them up in Prifon for offering of 
 it : and if t+ien they were perfuaded that it was their Duty fo to do, it is but 
 a Punftilio of Honour, whether they went away with their Commiirions in 
 their Pockets, or had left them behind them; fince their going off was a Sur- 
 render of their Comraifrions, and a fufficient Declaration, that they could not 
 with a fafe Confcience ferve the King any longer in this Quarrel. And you fee 
 that the Defertion of thefe few Mett had fuch a fatal Effeft, that it caft fuch a 
 panick Terror upon the King, and the whole Popifh Faftion about him, as to 
 make him run away to London without ftriking a ftroke. But that the Prince of 
 Denmark, with the Dukes of Grafton and O)moniiy and Lord Churchill, v/eve con- 
 Tinc'd of the danger this Kingdom was in, both in refpeft of their Religion 
 and Liberties, appears by their leaving the King, and going over to the Prince, 
 where they could never expeft to be. put into higher Places of Honour or Truft, 
 than what they enjoy'd already under his Majefty : and therefore that Ex- 
 prefFion of the Lord C/;«rc/W/'s, in his Letter to the King, is very remarkable ; 
 *' That he could no longer join with felf-interefied Men, who had frarnd Defigns 
 '* againfi his Majefiy's true Interejt and the Proteflant Religion, to give a pretence 
 '* to Contjuefi to bring them to effect". And one would be very much inclin'd 
 to believe fo, confidering the great number of Irif) and Scotip) Papifts who 
 have been brought over and lifted here j tho with the turning out and dif- 
 i>anding of a great many Englijh Officers and Soldiers out of feveral Compa- 
 nies. 
 
 But to come to the Bufinefs of the Prince of Wales, which you fay was a 
 mere Calumny, and an unjuft Sufpicion on the Prince's fide: tho 1 will not 
 affirm any thing pofitively in fo nice a matter, fince the Convention has not 
 thought fit to meddle with it ; I (hall only fay this much, that if there have 
 been any jealoulies or Sufpicions raifed about it, the King mjy thank thofe of 
 his own Religion, who were iiitrufted with the managemeut of the Queen's 
 Lying-in. For in the firft place it look'd very fufpicious to us Proteftants, 
 who do not put much Faith in the Miracles of the Romifli Church, that 
 immediately after the prefenting of the Golden Angel to the Lad^ of Lorettoj 
 and the King's Pilgrimage to St. Winifred^ Well, the Queen after feveral Years 
 Intermiflion, Ihould again be with Child ; and when fhe was fo, fliould have 
 two different Reckonings : which tho it may be forgiven young Women of 
 their firft Children, yet thofe who have borne fo many Children as her Majefty, 
 are commonly more experienced in thefe matters. 
 
 Af. What is all this to the purpofe ? Was it not prov'd by many credible 
 WitnefFes, and thofe of the Proteftant Religion, before the Privy-Council, that 
 they were not only prefent in the Room when the Queen was dclivcr'd, but 
 that they had feen Milk upon her Linen before her Delivery •, and that they had 
 alfo felt her Belly immediately before it, and found that her Majefty was big 
 with Child, and ready to be deliver'd? and the Midwife fwears that fhcai^u- 
 ally deliver'd her. So that fince every Perfon is to be prefum'd to be the 
 true Son of thofe Parents that own him for theirs ; fo nothing but a dircd 
 Proof to the coatrary, and that by undeniable Evidence, ought to make any 
 
 Man
 
 568 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITlCA. 
 
 Man believe otherwife ; much more in the concern of the Heir Apparent to thfc 
 Crown: and therefore I know not what you would have had done, which has 
 not been obferv'd in this nice matter. 
 
 F. And, Sir, let me tell you, becaufe it was fo nice a matter, and concern'd 
 no lefs than the SuccefTion of three Kingdoms i therefore the whole Nation 
 as well as the Prince and Princefs of Orange, were to be fully fatisfy'd of the 
 reality of the Prince's Birth : fince they were all fufficiently fenfible that there 
 wanted nothing but a Male-Heir to entail Popery on us and our Pofterity. 
 And therefore there ought to have been prefent fuch Perfons as had no depen- 
 dance upon the Court, and who ought to have been delegated by the Prince and 
 Princefs of Orange, fince the Princefs of Denmark could not be there in Per- 
 fonj butinfteadof this, the only two Ladies who (as I aminform'd) were 
 trufted by the Princefs to be prefent at the Queen's Labour, were never fent for 
 till flie was brought to Bed and the Child drefs'd. And as for the reft of the 
 Witnedes, they were either Lords, or other Perfons, who only fwear they flood 
 in the Room at a diftance, and heard the Queen cry out; and immediately 
 after the Child cry, fome time before they faw it. And as for the Ladies, the 
 greateft part of them fwore no further than the Lords. So that notwith- 
 ftanding all that they have fworn in this matter, there might have been a trick 
 Siderfin'i Ke- put upon them, and they never the wifer : fince you m.ay read in Siderfin^^ 
 forts. Temp. Reports, of a Woman who pretended to have been deliver'd of a Child by a 
 Car. 2. Fol. Midwife within the Bed \ and yet many years after, this was prov'd to be a 
 Vhe'Ktnt'a- f^ppofititious Birth, by the Depofition of the Midwife, and the poor Woman 
 galnfl Buck- who was the real Mother of the Child, anctothers that had been of the Confpi- 
 worthjTuckee, racy. And what has been done once, may be done again. 
 Gill, vc. 'Tis true, the King himfelf with one or two Ladies depofed fomething fur- 
 
 ther as to Milk, and the feeling of the Child immediately before the Birth , but 
 his Majefty, if it be animpofture, is too deeply concern'd in it, to be admit- 
 ted as a competent Witnefs. And as for the reft of the Ladies, they are 
 likewife, as being the Queen's-Servants, and having an immediate dependence 
 upon her, to be excepted againlt, and under too much awe, to fpeak the whole 
 Truth. But it is very ftrange to me, that none of them depofed any thing 
 concerning their feeing any Milk come from her Majefty's Breafts after ihe was 
 deliver'd. And perhaps there was good reafon for it, for I have had it from 
 good Hands, that fhe had none afterwards, whatever fhe had before ; the rea- 
 fon of which deferves to be enquir'd into, fince it is very rare. But as for 
 the Midwife, her Depofition is equivocal \ That Jhe took a Child from the 
 Body of the Queen. She is alfo a Papift, and confequently a fufpefted Witnefs 
 in this Caufe. Whereas all this might have been prevented, had the Queen 
 (were fhe really with Child) been perfuaded to be deliver'd not within the Bed, 
 but upon a Pallate i where all the Perfons whofe Bufinefs and Concern it was 
 to be prefent, might have feen the Child actually born : nor needed there to 
 have any Men been by, tho 1 have heard that the late Queen of France was 
 deliver'd of the prefent King, the Bake of Orleans not being only prefent ia 
 the Room, but an Eye-witnefs of the Birth. And fo fure, if fomewhat of this 
 nature had been done, it might have fav'd a great deal of Difpute and Blood- 
 fhed which has already, or may hereafter happen about it. And therefore I 
 do not at all wonder that the Prince of Orange fhould not take this partial Evi- 
 dence that has been given for fufficient SatisfadHon ; fo that whether this Birth 
 of the Queen's was real or not, 1 fhall not now farther difpute. It is fufficient, 
 that if his Highnefs and his Princefs had juft and reafonable fufpicions of an 
 Impoflure, whilft they remain under them, they had alfo a juft Caufe of pro- 
 curing a Free Parliament to examine this great Affair, and alfo to obtain iG 
 by Force, fince it was to be got no other way. 
 
 Af. I need not further difpute this Bufinefs of the Prince of IVaies with you, 
 fince I durll appeal to your own Confcience, whether you are not fatisfied, not- 
 withltanding thefe fuppos'd Indifcretions in the management of the Queen's 
 Delivery, that he is really Son to the Queen : and I think it would puzzle you 
 or 1 to prove the Legitimacy of our own Children by better Evidence than this 
 has been. And I think all thofe of your Party may very well defpair of produ- 
 cing any thing againft it, fince the Prince of Orange himfelf has thought it beft 
 to let it alone, as knowing very well there was nothing material could be 
 
 brought
 
 Dialogue the Eleventh. 5(^9 
 
 brought in Evidence againft him : But I Ihall defer Tpeaking further on this 
 Head, till I come to conlider of the Convention's fettling the Crcwn upon the 
 Prince and Princefs of Orange. But before I come to this, 1 have many things 
 further to obferve upon the Prince's harfh and unjuft Proceedings with his Ma- 
 jefty, and refufing ail Terms of Accommodation with him, upon his laft 
 return to London. 
 
 In thie firft place therefore I muft appeal to your felf, whether it were done 
 like a Nephew, and a Son-in-law, when after the King was voluntarily re- 
 turned to White-Hall., at the Perfuafion of thofe Lords who went down to at- 
 tend him at feverjlj-tm., before he had fcarce time to reft him after his Journey, 
 and the many Hardfhips he had endured fince his being feized in that Portj 
 and when he had but newly fent my Lord FeverJIiam with a kind MelFagc and 
 Compliment to the Prince, inviting him to St.James^s^ together with fome 
 Overtures of Reconciliation, as 1 am informed ; the Prince fliould make no 
 better a return to all his Kindnefs, than to clap up the MefTenger, contrary to 
 the Law of Nations, as his Majefty obferves in this late Paper I now mentioned : 
 and fhould, without any Notice given to the King of it, order his Men to 
 march, and difplacing his Majefty's Guards, to feize upon all the Pofts about 
 White-Hall., whereby his Majefty's Perfon became wholly in his power. And 
 not content with this, he likewife difpatch'd three Lords (whofe Names I need 
 not mention) to carry the King a very rude and undutiful Meflage, defiring him 
 no lefs than to depart, the next Morning, from his Palace, to a Private-Houfe 
 in the Country, altogether unfit for the Reception of his Majefty, and thofe 
 Guards and Attendants that were neceflTary for his Security. Nor would thefe 
 Lords ftay till the Morning, but difturbing his Reft, delivered their Meftage at 
 Twelve a Clock at Night ^ nor did they give him any longer time than till the 
 next Morning to prepare himfelf to be gone : and then the King was carried 
 away to Rochefier under the Conduft, not of his own, but of the Prince's Dutch 
 Guards ; in whofe Cuftody his Majefty continued, for thofe few days he thought 
 fit to ftay there, till his Efcape from thence, in order to his PalTage into France: 
 by which means the Prince hath render'd the Breach irreconcileable between 
 his Majefty and himfelf: For whereas, if he had come to St. James^s^ in pur- 
 fuance of the King's Invitation, and had renewed the Treaty, which was un- 
 happily broke off by the King's firft going away, there might have been, in 
 , great probability, a happy and lafting Reconciliation made between them, upon 
 fuch Terms as might have been a fufficient Security for the Church of England^ 
 as alfo for the Rights and Liberties of theSubjeft, which you fo earneftly con- 
 tend for ; whereas, by the Convention's declaring the Throne vacant, and 
 placing the Prince and Princefs of Orange therein, they have entail'd a lafting 
 War, not only upon us, but our Pofterity, as long as his Majefty lives, and the 
 Prince of IVales, and his IfTue (if he live to have any) are in being. 
 
 F- I confefs you have made a very Tragical Relation of this Affair, and any 
 that did not underftand the Grounds of it would believe, that Kiagjames 
 being quietly fettled in his Throne, and the Prince of Orange refufing all Terms 
 of Reconciliation, had feized upon his Palace, and hurried him away Captive 
 into a Prifon ; whereas indeed, there was nothing tranfafted in all this Affair, 
 which may not be juftified by the ftrifteft Rules of Honour, and the Law of 
 Isiations : for the doing c^f which, it is neceflary to look back, and confider the 
 State of Affairs immediately after the King's leaving Salisbury, and coming to 
 White-Hall, where one of the firft things he did after he was arrived, was to 
 ilTue out a Proclamation for the calling a New Parliament, which was received 
 with great Satisfaction by the whole Nation j and immediately upon this, the 
 King fent the Lords MalUfax, Nottingham, and Godolphin, to treat with his 
 Highnefs upon thofe Propofals of Peace which he then fent by them, and to 
 which the Prince return'd his Anfwer, the Heads of which are very reafonable, 
 when he did not demand any other Security for himfelf, and his Army, than 
 the putting of the Tower, and Forts about London, into the Cuftody of that 
 City. Now pray obferve the Iffue of all thofe fair Hopes; before ever the 
 Terms propofed by the Prince could be brought to Town, the King following 
 the ill Advice of the Popilh Faftion, inftead of fufferingthe Eleftions for Par- 
 liament-Men to proceed, as he had promifed, and as was hoped for by us, all 
 on a fudden he order'd the reft of the Writs for Elediioas, that were not font 
 
 D d d d down,
 
 57 
 
 O BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTlCA. 
 
 down, to be burnt, and a Caveat to be entered againft the making ufe of 
 tliofc that were fciit already into the Country ^ and at the fame time he fent 
 Older to the Earl of Feverfliam to disband the Army, and difmiisall the Sol- 
 diers with their Arms. But 1 had forgot to put you in mind, that juft before 
 this the King had font away the Qticeu, with the Prince, into France, and that 
 file carried the Great-Seal of England along with her j whereby it was plain, 
 tlte King intended to put it wholly .out of his power to illue out any Writs, 
 or pafs any publick Ad, wherein the Grcut-Seal fhould be ufed : and that this 
 Seal was carried away, appears by its being not long fince drawn up out of the 
 Thames, by a Filherman's Net, near Lamhth- Bridge, where it's fuppofed to 
 have been thrown in by the Qjieen, or fomeof her Attendants, in her Palllige 
 over the Water : And tarther, that the King was then refolved wholly to quit 
 the Government of this Kingdom, (at lead for the prefent) appears by his fo 
 fpeedy following of the Qiaeen, within three Days after, ftealing from his Pa- 
 lace by Night in a Boat to Crave/end, and from thence in a fmall Veflel toF^- 
 vcrpam ^ where how he was feiz'd by the Adob of that Town, and afterwards 
 return'd to London, as you have fet forth, I need take no further notice. 
 
 Now this being a true and fair Narrative of the whole Matter, 1 fliall only 
 offer two or three Qucftions to your Confideration, and defire you would give 
 me a fair and fatisfaftory Anfwer to them : Firft, Fray tell me whether it 
 was not the King's fault, that it was rendered impofiible for the Parliament- 
 Men to be elefted, by burning of the Writs, and fending away the Great-Seal ? 
 Secondly, Whether the King by firft ftealing away, did not plainly confefs him- 
 felf conquer'd by the Prince, and did thereby Abdicate the Government? Alfo 
 by his obftinate refufal to redrefs the Grievances of the Nation, he forfeited 
 his Crown and all Allegiance from his Subjefts, and was not after this to be 
 own'd as King of England, either by the Prince of Orange^ or any body elfe: 
 and therefore, whatever Treatment he after this received from the Prince, it 
 was not to be looked upon as done to a lawful King, but a conquered Prince^ 
 and his Highnefs might not only juftly refule to treat with him any more as a 
 Crowned Head, but might alfo have juftified not only the taking him Prifoner, 
 but fending him into Holland, if he had pleas'd : but inftead of this, he only de- 
 lir'd his removal out of Town, from that Conflux and Influence of thofe 
 Multitudes of Papifts that flocked to him ■■, and by fecuring hisPerfon, to put 
 it out of their power to play any After-Game, and rally the late disbanded 
 Army, of whom there was at leaft Twenty Thoufand of the Scots, hijl}, and 
 EngliJ!), who would have ftood by the King till the laft : And therefore the 
 Englijii, as well as the Dutch, Council about the Prince, did not think it fafe 
 fof^him to come to Town, as long as the King had his Guards about him a( 
 Whitehall, fince they might have been increafed to an Army whenever he 
 pleafed. 
 
 And though I grant good Breeding and Manners, efpecially to Kings, as alfo 
 Rf fpedt from a Soa-in-law to a Father, are Duties incumbent upon Princes, as 
 well as private Men; yet when thefe lefier things ftand in competition with 
 their own Welfare and Safety, as alfo of the whole Nation, for which the 
 Prince was now engaged ; if he might, for thefe Ends, juftly require the re- 
 moving and fecuring the King's Perfbn, it was no great matter what time of 
 Kight he had notice to remove : though this was not done neither with any 
 Defign to affront or furprize him, but happened indeed through pure Acci- 
 dent ^ for when it was refolved that the Prince's Guards fhould march to 
 London and fccure Whitehall, it was alfo refolved that the King fhould have 
 notice to remove. And lince it was not thought fit to let him know it till the 
 Pofts were all fecur'd, the Ways being very deep and dirty between Wtndfor 
 and London, the Butch Guards, commanded by Count Soltnes, could not reach 
 the Town till paftTen at Night j and after that it was near Twelve before 
 the £ff^//jfc Guards, aboMt Whitehall, could be drawn off without fighting: and 
 till that was done, it was not thought at all proper, or fafe, to deliver to the 
 King the Prince's Mefiage for his departure. So that indeed it was not from any 
 Delign in either the Prince and his Council who ordered it, or of thefe 
 Lords (who very well underftand good Breeding) thus to deliver their Wellage 
 to him at that time of Night- 
 
 But
 
 Dialogue the Eleventh, 571 
 
 But tho he was in bed, yet that he was not alleep is very probable, Cnce 
 he had not been above half an hour in bed •■, and it is not very likely he Ihould 
 be alleep, w'nea he very well knew in the Evening before of the Arrival of 
 the Prince's Troops about JF/j/Vek-!//, and therefore could not be without too 
 much Concern about it, prefently to compofe himfeif to deep. 
 
 But as for his Removal from London, it is plain that his Highnefs was fo far 
 from owning, or receiving the King in the fame Capacity he was in before his 
 Departure, that as Ibon as ever he heard he was at the Earl of WiachelfeaSy 
 and about to return to London, he fent away Monfieur Zvhftein with a Letter 
 to let him know, that he dcfired him not as yet to come x.o London, but to 
 ftay it RocheftertiW he himfeif fliould come to Town; but Montieur Z«/f/?«« 
 milling of the King by the way, he came in the mean while to Whitehall .• yet 
 could not but know that his being there was not with the Prince's Confent, 
 fincethe fame Gentleman followed him thither, and there delivered him the 
 Priiice's Letter •■, fo that this fecond Meffage by thefe Lords could be no new 
 thing, or Surprize to him. Yet that his Highnefs never intended the leafl: 
 Violence towards the King's Perfon, may appear by this, that he left it to the 
 King's Choice what place he would go to, as alfo what Guards or other Atten- 
 dants he would take with him ; when the Kingrefufed to take his EngUfl) Guards 
 with him, tho they were ottered him. And indeed thefe Dutch Guards that 
 attended him, might, in his Majefty's Judgment, be very well trailed, they 
 being (is well as their Officers) for the moll part Papifls ; but that the Prince 
 did net intend to detain his Majefty's Perfon as a Prifoner, may appear in 
 this, That whilft he remained at Kochefier, none that would were debarred 
 from accefstohim, and that the Officers and Soldiers of the Guards were or- 
 dered to be under his Command, and every night to take the word from him ; 
 and had it not been for the King's commanding a Gentry to be drawn off from 
 his ufual Poll, he could never have gone away without being difcovered ■■, and 
 if he would have gone away at noon-day, I know not who, unlefs the Rabble, 
 would have hindred him. bo that I think it is evident, that this was the civilett 
 and mildcft Ufage that a vanguilhed Prince could expedl from him that had fo 
 much the better of him, and in whofe power he now was, and I doubt more 
 than the King would have allowed the Prince, had it been his Fortune to have 
 got him as much in his power : nay, the King was fo far from being confined, 
 that it is plain he had the liberty given him to go whither he pleafed •, nor 
 were thefe Guards placed fo much about him for his Confinement, as to fecure 
 him from the Infults of the Rabble, who otherwife there, as well as they did 
 at Feverfijam, might have exprelTed too violent a Refentment againft his Perfon. 
 
 Af. I cannot deny but you have given a very fair, and as far as I know, a 
 true account of this Tranfadion, and have told me fome things which I never 
 heard before i but however, 1 cannot depart from my firft Opinion, that it 
 was neither honeftly nor wifely done of thofe, who took upon them to advife 
 the Prince to pufh things to Extremities in this Conjuncture: and therefore I 
 impute it chiefly to thofe Englifl), who fuppofmgthey had by taking Arms, and 
 joining themfelves to the Prince's Party, provoked the King beyond all poffibi- 
 lity of Pardon, were refulved to do their utmoft to put it out of the King's 
 power ever to call them to an account for it. And tho perhaps his firft fend- 
 ing away the Queen and Prince, and then going away himfeif, in the middle of 
 a Treaty with the Prince, and thereby leaving his Affairs in fuch Confufion, 
 tnay feem to deferve Cenfure ; yet certainly his Majefty is to be excufed in a 
 great meafure for what he then did : for as he tells the Earl of Feverp>am, in 
 his Letter to him to disband the Army, Th^t things being come to thtit extremity^ h, D. />. 92. 
 that he was forced to fend away the Queen, and the Prince his Son, that they might 
 not fall into the Enemies hands, he was alfo conftraincd to do the fame thmg 
 himfeif, and follow them, fince the Troops of his Army were not to be relied 
 on ; that it was not advifable for him to fight the Prince of Orange in the head 
 of them, much kfs was it fafe for him to truft himfeif in the Prince's power : 
 andfnreitwas but reafonable that Princes, as well as other Men, fhould pro- 
 vide for their own Security as well as they can. 
 
 But yet I can never believe that his Majefty's firft going away was any Abdi- 
 cation of the Government, much Icfs a Forfeiture of his Crown or Royal Dig- 
 nity, any more than the fecond : for in the firft place it could be no Forfeiture, 
 
 D d d d i according
 
 57'^ BiBLIOTHECA PoLITlCA. 
 
 according to your own Principles, becaufe he had already difTolved the Eccle- 
 fiailical Court, and reftored the Cities and Corporations to their former Char- 
 ters and Freedom in Eleftions of Parliament-men, and put again in Com- 
 milTion all Lords Lieutenants, and Jufticesof the Peace, who had been before 
 turned out : And if he could not give an entire Redrefs to all our Grievances 
 by a Free Parliament, it was only becaufe he durll not ftay to hold it, fince he 
 thought he could have no Security for his Perfon, the whole Nation being in 
 a manner poifoned and prepofleflbd againft him, by thofe malicious Artifices 
 D-D- of a French League, and a fuppolititious Prince, and that his Majefty had fo 
 
 many unfortunate Difappointments, and fo furprizing and unparallel'd Acci- 
 dents j part of his Army deferring him, and the reft proving unferviceable, 
 when there were fuch terrible Diforders in the Kingdom, and all Places were 
 either flaming, or about to take the fire of Rebellion. 
 
 So likewife could it not be properly any wilful Defertion or Abdication of 
 the Government, fince he was forced to quit it, like the Mafter of a Ship, 
 who when the Veflel is like to fink, is forced to leave her, and efcape in a 
 Cock-boat. And that his Majefty did not aft thus without an Intention to re- 
 turn, and again to vindicate his Right, when Opportunity ferved, appears 
 likewife in that Pafl'age in the above-mentioned Letter, wherein he defires both 
 the Officers and Soldiers of his Army, then to be disbanded, to continue their 
 Fidelity to him, and to keep themfehes from j^jfociations, and fuch pernicious things. 
 From whence it plainly appears, he went not away without a Profped of re- 
 turning to his Throne when time Ihould ferve : and if he left no Orders at 
 all for the Government of the Kingdom in his abfence, nor named any Com- 
 miflioners or Lieutenants to reprefent him, it was becaufe he thought it to no 
 purpofe; fince befides that he could find nobody who durft undertake fo dif- 
 ficult an Employment, fo they that had undertaken it, would have found no 
 body who would obey them ^ the Generality of the People, and alfo of the 
 King's Army, being more inclinable to the Prince of Or^w^f than to himfelf. 
 
 Yet however you fee, upon his return to Town, the King was fo well per- 
 fuaded of the Prince of Orange^ kind Intentions towards himfelf and the Na- 
 tion, that I verily believe his Majefty would have yielded to any thing that 
 could in reafon have been defired of him. And upon this ground I fuppofe he 
 ■writ fo kindly to the Prince, and invited him to come to St. James'' s with what 
 Troops he ftiould think fit for his Security^ therefore I muft needs tell you a- 
 gain, I think it was a great Overfight of the Prince of Orange thus to let Hip 
 this Opportunity, by refufing all Terms of Accommodation with the King, 
 and by clapping up my Lord Feverjliam, then feizing the King's Perfon, and 
 fending him out of Town, to let all the World fee he was refolved to treat 
 no more with him. And this being the true State of the Cafe, it is not your 
 faying that he had forfeited his Crown by going away, and confulting his own 
 Safety, that will convince any unprejudiced Man : for as to your notion of a 
 Forfeiture, that it was not then entred into the Thoughts of the Peers, 
 and others of the Privy Council, appears by the Order they made for fending 
 the Lords FeverJJiamy Ailsburyy Tarmouth, and Mtddleton moft humbly to in- 
 treat the King to return to Whitehall \ fo that he was received very joyfully, 
 and with great Acclamations of the common People, as he palled thro the 
 City: and when he came to Whitehall, he called a Council, where he made an 
 Order to ftop the demolifliing and plundering of Houfes by the Rabble ; fo that 
 he was not only received, but alfo adted as a King after his return to Town. 
 This being the true State of the Cafe, I fliall not difpute the Point, whether 
 his Majefty and the Prince were in a ftate of War or Peace, after his return, or 
 what the Prince might have done as an Enemy and a Stranger to the King's Per- 
 fon; but what might be expefted from him as a generous Prince, a Nephew, 
 and a Son-in-law, and one who was bound in Confcience and Honour to con- 
 fult the lafting Peace and Happinefs of the Nation more than his own private 
 Intereft, or the Ambition of wearing a Crown. 
 
 F. You have made the utmoft Defence that I fuppofe can be brought for the 
 King's firft going away ■■, yet if it be better confidered, I doubt it will not 
 ferve the turn. I fee you are forced to lay the whole blame of the King's De- 
 parture in the midft of the Treaty with the Prince, and his refufing to call a 
 Parliament according to his own Promife and Proclamation, upon his want of 
 
 fecurity
 
 Dialogue the Eleventh. 575 
 
 fecurlty for himfclf, tbeQiiecn, and Prince, if he had ftaid ; by reafon of the 
 failure of Fidelity in his Army, the general prejudice of the Nation againfl 
 him, and the great Firmnefsand Refolution there was in the Prince's Army to 
 adhere to him. Now 1 (hall (hew you that every one of thefe were but Preten- 
 ces and that the real caufe of his Departure was, becaufe he feared to leave the 
 Inquiry into the Birth of the Prince of Wales, and the free Examination and 
 Redrefs of our Grievances, and thofe Violations he had committed upon the 
 fundamental Conftitution of the Government, to the impartial Judgment of 
 a Free Parliament. For in the firfl place, as to want of Fidelity in his Army, 
 there can be no jufl: excufe for his deferting and disbanding them as he did, 
 without any Pay •, (i nee he himfelf, in his faid Letter to the Earl of Fever^mmj 
 exprcfly owns, " That there were a great many brave Men, both Officers and 
 *' Soldiers, among them : " And therefore, if he was fatisfied of this, he ought 
 to have firll fent for all his Officers, both Colonels and Captains, and have ex- 
 amined them how far they would ftand by him in the Defence of his Perfon and 
 Caufe againft the Prince of Orange •■, and he might have alfo ordered thofe Offi- 
 cers to have examined every Regiment, Troop, and Company in his whole 
 Army, how far they would engage in his Defence, And if he had proceeded 
 thnszt Sdiihury, before he fled away in that Confufion to London, 1 have been 
 credibly informed by divers Officers of that Army, that the King might have 
 found above 20000 Men, that would have Itood by him to the laft Man, in his 
 Quarrel againft the Prince; and therefore 1 impute his going away, as he did 
 from Stliihvyy, to fome ftrange panick Fear that God had caft upon him, and 
 all the Popifh Faftion about him, fince he has been known not to want fuffi- 
 cient Courage upon other Occafions. But tho he had omitted it there, yet he 
 certainly ought to have tried this laft Experiment after became to London, ra- 
 ther than have quitted the Kingdom fo difhonourably as he then did, and there- 
 by giving the Prince of Orange's Friends an Opportunity of feizing or getting 
 delivered into their power all the Garifons and ftrong Places in England, be- 
 fiies Portfmouth, in thofe three or four days time that he was not heard of; be- 
 lldes great part of the Army, that was not disbanded, had in that time gone 
 into the Prince, in hopes of their Pay and future Preferment. Now that the 
 King might with fafety have refided with his Army fomewhere about London^ 
 he himfelf grants, in his Propofals to the Prince, to this efTed: " That in then. D./. 90. 
 *' mean time, till all Matters were adjufted concerning the Freedom of Elec- 
 *' tions, and a Security of their Sitting, the refpeftive Armies may be re- 
 *' tained within fuch Limits, and at fuch Diftance from Z,oWo«, as may pre- 
 " vent all Apprehcnfions that the Parliament may be in any kind difturbed." 
 Which Propofals being made not long after the King's Arrival at London, we 
 may reafonably fuppofe, that he was then well enough fatisfied with the Fi- 
 delity of the grcateft part, at leaft of his own Army, to him ; and if he were 
 not, he might have been better fatisfied if he pleafed in the Word and Ho- 
 nour of the Prince. But as for the next Difficulty, the Nation's being poifoned 
 and prepolTcfTcd againft him ; admit it were fo, as long as he had a fufficient 
 Army about him (as I fuppofe he might have had) he need not have feared any 
 thing the People could do. But indeed this was a ncedlefs fear : for before the 
 Parliament could fit, it was not the People's Intereft to hinder it, or to fall up- 
 on the King or his Army when matters were in a fair way of Accommoda- 
 tion ; fo after the Parliament fat, there would have been iefs caufe of Fear, 
 lince the Reverence of that Court would have kept them in awe. But as to the 
 Firmnefsand Refolution of the Prince's Army, the fear of that was alfo need- 
 lefs, as long as the King's Army continued as firm to him ; and if the Prince's 
 Army had been the firft Aggreffors, I doubt not but the People would have 
 taken part with the King againft them. But after all it was certainly (and you 
 muft grant it fo) much more fafe and honourable for the King to have treated 
 with the Prince, and held a Parliament, with an Army about him, than to have 
 yielded the fame things (as you fuppofe him willing to have done) after his re- 
 turn to Town, when his Army was disbanded, and London had received the 
 Prince, and had joined with him, and when almoft all the ftrong places of 
 England were in the Priace's power. So that upon the whole matter it evi- 
 dently appears, that the King chofe to truft his own Perfon, together with 
 that of the Queen and Prince, to a foreign Monarch, rather than he would 
 
 rely
 
 574- 
 
 BiBLiotHECA Politic A. 
 
 rc\y upon the Juftice or Fidelity of his own Kation. And notwithllanding 
 all you have faid concerning the King's Willingnefs, you fay in the next place, 
 that nothing the King has done in all thefe Exorbitances he committed, caa 
 in any wife amount to a Forfeiture, or Abdication of the Government i 
 not to the former, becaufe the King redrefTed all our Grievances before he went 
 away. Tis true, I grant he red lefTed fome of them, by putting divers things 
 in the fame ftate they were before ^ yet for all this, the greateft ftill remain'd un- 
 redreffed, viz^. the raifiiig of Mony contrary to Law, and the Difpenfing 
 Power, both which (as I have alrfady fhewed you at our lafl; Meeting) he ne- 
 ver difclaimed, neither took any fnfficient Courfe, by calling a Parliament, to 
 prevent its being exeicifed for the future i befides his going away, without 
 giving the Prince and Nation any further fatisfaftion about the Birth of the 
 Prince of Ifales. All which not being done, 1 mud ftill affirm, that this wrought 
 a Forfeiture of the Crown, or an Abdication of it, at leaft by his refufal to 
 hold and govern it according to the fundamental Laws thereof; for he that 
 deftroys the Law or Conditions by which he holds an Eftate, does tacitly re- 
 nounce his Title to it, as I fhewed you in the Cafe of a Tenant for Life, alien- 
 H.D. p.!)2, inginFee. So that this being confidered, as alfo that the City of London and 
 94- the whole Nation had furrendred themfelves to the Prince of Or«»^f i and that 
 
 even the Archbifhops of Canterbury and York, together with the Bilbops of 
 WincUfier and Ely^ with divers other Earls, Bifhops, and Lords then in Town, 
 had fen t an Addrefs to the Prince, immediately upon the King's Departure, 
 and fent three Lords and one Bifhop with it, defiring his Highnefs to come 
 fpetdily to London^ and to take the Government upon him, having before de- 
 clared that they would, with their utmofi; Endeavours, afTift his Highnefs for 
 tlie obtaining of a Free Parliament : the Prince had no reafon, upon the 
 King's Return, to furrcnder that Power which the Nation, as far as it was able 
 to do without a Parliament, had put into his hands ; and that to a King, 
 whom he had very little reafon to believe, would ufe it any better than he had 
 done before. 
 
 But I fee you wilfully decline entring into the Merits of the Caufe, and ar- 
 guing the main Point in the Controverfy, viz.. Whether the King was in a 
 State of War or Peace with the Prince upon his Return •, for if he were ftill in 
 a State of War, the Prince might certainly very well juftify his clapping up 
 the Earl of Feverjham (his late Alajefty's General) for offering to come within 
 the Limits of the Prince's Quarters without his leave, efpecially fince he was 
 ftill anfwerable for doing his Endeavour to disband an Army (a great part of 
 Which confifted of Papifts and Foreigners, with their Arms in their hands) 
 whereby they might have robbed and fpoilcd the Countries, or at leaft have 
 kept thofe Arms to renew the War again with the firft Opportunity : fo that 
 certainly it could not be fo flight a thing as a bare Invitation to St. J.irnes\ 
 whither the Prince could have gone without his leave (being now Mafter of the 
 City) which could fo far efface all the Prince's juft Refentments, and make him 
 fo far confide in the King's Word, as to come to London^ whilft he remained 
 therewith his Guards, and all thofe Papifts and Tories in and about London 
 ready to take his part, and rally again into a new Army upon the firft Signal. 
 
 But as for any Propofals of Peace or Accommodation, which you fay the 
 Lord Feverjljam hroaghtviith him, I neither know nor have heard of any fuch 
 thing. 'Tis true, the King fays in the faid Paper he left behind him, that he 
 had writ to the Prince of Orange by the Lord FeverPiamy and alfo mentions 
 fome Inftruftions he had given him ; but what they were, he does not tell us: 
 but fure they were not Propofitions of Peace, fince it is to be fuppofcd, that the 
 King would not have fent any thing of that confequence, without firft ac- 
 quainting the Privy Council with it before it was fent. But fince we hear of 
 nothing concerning them, we may very well fuppofe there was no fuch thing ; 
 or if there were, his Highnefs was the fitteft Judge whether they were reafo- 
 nable or not : and if the King had any defire to propofe any juft orreafona- 
 ble Terms, whereupon he might have hoped to have been reftored again to his 
 Royal Dignity, he had a very fair Opportunity for it, when a great Council of 
 the Nobility were met at St. James's, in order to fign an Afibciation, to ftand 
 by the Prince in the calling of a Free Parliament : for the King might then, if 
 hehadpleafed, have made his^ Propofals by fuch of the Lords and BiDiops as 
 
 be
 
 Ikakgue the Eleventh. t^ji^ 
 
 he could moft coiifide in, and have conjured all the Peers there afTembled to 
 have inlcicedeit v^ich the Prince of Or«nge to renew their Treaty with the 
 King, which had beca before unhappily broken ofi'; and then if either the Peers 
 had refulVd to do this, or t!ie Prince had refufed to hear them, the King might 
 the.i (1 grant) have had fufficient Reafoa to declare to all the World, that he 
 was not f.iiily dealt with. But for him again to go away only upon a Pretence 
 that his pjrfon was under Reftraint, when really it was not, plainly fl:ewed, 
 tha.t he had no fmcerc Delign of making an amicable end of thofe DifTeren- 
 ces» or really defired to be reftored to his Throne by the general Confent of 
 the Kilion ■, but either hoped for it from thofe Civil DifTenfioas he expedled 
 wc Ibould fall into qpon his Pcparture, or elfe to the Arms of France. And 
 this being the Cafe, I think nothing is plainer, than that the King, both by 
 his. filft and fecond Departure, hath obllinately refufed all thofe means where- 
 by the Ni^tion mig^ht have been fettled, with a due Confideration of his Perfon 
 and Authority wbilft he lived, and of the fuppofcd Prince, when his Legiti- 
 rnacy fh:^!! be fufEciently proved, and ^nade out before a Free Parliament. S^i 
 that liiice 1 hive already proved that the King had, before the Prince's Arri- 
 val, coijimic^ed fp m^ny Violations upon the whole Conftitution of the Go- 
 vernment, and that thefe Violations, if wilfully and obllinately perfifted in, 
 do at laft produce an ^bfoJute Abdication and Forfeiture of the Crown it 
 f<;ir-, I thi.^^ the late King ha,s done all that could be required to make it fo. 
 
 But I have forgot to gnfwer one Objeftion you made, viz.. that the Peers 
 a,nd BirtiPps when they invited the King to return to Whitehall^ had no no- 
 tJQn Qf this Forfeitqre, nor the People of Londony who, you fay, received 
 hw with great Joy and Acclamations i and that therefore it is wholly anew 
 Ipveption. To this 1 anfwer. That if the Lords you mention did fend this 
 Milage tQ the KiRg* it might be beeaufe they were furprized with his unex- 
 pcfti?d Return, and had not vyell confidered all the Circumftances of the Cafe, 
 and ttieveby did more than they could well juftify, havipg before declared, they 
 wot'ld ftand by his Jiighnefs in procuring a Free Parliament, which muft cer- 
 tainly be without the King, fince he was then gone away, and they had alfo in- 
 vited him to come to London as well as the City had j and how that could confifb 
 vith inviting the King thither, without the Prince's Confent, I do not well un- 
 derftand. But it feems they quickly altered their Sentiments, as appears by 
 their prefently after fubfcribing a Paper, in the nature of an Alfociation, to 
 ft4nd by the Prince, without taking any notice at all of the King : and the ve- 
 ry day of the Ki.ig's Departure they met to confider upon the Prince's Speech 
 he had a djy or two before ni;^de tq them, defiring them to advife on the belt 
 means how to purfue the ends of his Declaration, in calling a Free Parlia- 
 ment. And within two days after they prefented the Prince with their Advice, 
 to call a Convention on the 22.d of January^ which was alfo the next day agreed 
 toby one hundred and fixtyPerfons, who had fcrved as Knights, Citizens, and 
 BurgeflTos in any of the laft parliaments, in the time of King Charles II. with- 
 out taking any notice at ail of the King : for tho it was true he was then gone 
 away when the Comtnons and City, two or three days after, made their Ad- 
 drefles to the Prince \ yet when the Peers met both the firit and fecond time on 
 the 2 lit and lid of December., he was ftill here, for the King did not leave Ro- 
 cbefier untjl the 23d in the morning. So it is plain, it was not their Defign to 
 own, or take notice of him any more as King 5 and that which makes it more 
 remarkable, is, that feveral of the Bilhops, viz.. the Archbifhop of Torkf to- 
 gether v^'n\■\ the Bi,fhop of St.J/aph., and others, joined with the reft of the 
 Pews in tlnf^e Addrefles •, which was a plain fign they all looked upon the King's 
 Power t9 be now at an end. But as for the Acclamations of the People, or 
 any great Joy in the City cxpreifed upon the King's Return to Town, 1 doubt 
 you have had a falfc account of that mattery for I cannot hear that any of the 
 Citizens went out to meet hini, or fet any Lights in their Windows, tho he 
 came into LtndaH after it was dark, or that any of the better fort bid him 
 God-fpecd. I grant indeed there was a great many of what you call the Mob, 
 but more Bays than Men, who followed his Coach, making Huzza's, whilft 
 the reft of the People lilently looked on. 
 
 M. i cannot deny but you may have given a true account of thefe Matters, 
 fince you may have obfervcd them better than I j yet as you your felf have re- 
 lated
 
 57^ 
 
 BiBLlOTHECA PoLITlCA. 
 
 hted tliem, fure the King had fufficient caufe to confult his own Sifety, and 
 make his Efcape as foon as he could : for what could heexpeft when once the 
 Prince had fecured hisPeifon under a Guard, and had refufed to treat with 
 him as King ^ and that alfo the Peers, and divers of the Bilhops had made an 
 AfTociation to fland by the Prince of Or^«^f, and had made a frefh Addrefs to 
 him, without taking the leaft notice of him, as if there had been no fuch thing 
 as a King in being ? 1 fay, what could his Majefty now expeft, but either a 
 more clofe Confinement, or elfe being taken off privately by Poifon, or fome 
 other ways, fince he could not be forgetful of the King his Father's Saying, 
 That there is no great diflance between the Prifons and the Graves of Princes ? Or 
 admit he had lived till this Convention-State, what could he have expefted 
 more, than retaining the bare Title of King, whilfl the Prince of Orange^ 
 or fome others appointed by him, had wholly managed the Government at 
 their pleafure ? Or elfe they might, according to your Dodrine, have either 
 declared the Crown forfeited, or elfe that he had abdicated it by his going a- 
 way. Or who can tell but they might have again renewed theVillany of 48, 
 and have made him undergo the fame Fate with his Father ? 
 
 F. 1 grant you have urged the utmoft that can be to juftify the King's fe- 
 cond Departure j and as I would not deny but that he was the beft Judge of 
 his own Danger, fo were the Prince, Peers, and Commons, together with the 
 City, the beft and only Judges we could then have of the true means of our 
 Settlement and Safety : li nee after fo many Breaches that the King had made 
 upon his firft Declaration and Coronation-Oath, as alfo his going from his 
 late Promife of calling a Free Parliament \ I cannot fee what farther Security 
 he could have given us that he would not repeat the fame things over again. 
 H.D./. 110. Or admit the Prince had fuffered him tocontinue at Whitehall., and to call a 
 third Parliament, what alTurance could he have given, that in the end of ano- 
 ther forty days we fhould not have the fame Trick plaid us? and thfen in 
 March or ^fril have been left in the fame State of Confufion we v/ere in ia 
 December., to the certain Ruin of thefe three Kingdoms, and Holland into the 
 bargain ? And then by that time the French King might have got ready an Ar- 
 my and a Fleet, and under a pretence of redeeming his Majefty from the Con- 
 ftraint he lay under, and of reftoring him to the free Exercife of his Regal 
 Power, have invaded this Kingdom. And 1 fuppofe you cannot deny but the 
 King would then have found Papifts and High Tories enough to have joined 
 with him in this pious Defign : for certainly the Scruples of the High Church- 
 men would have been the fame they are now, the Obligations of the Oath of 
 Allegiance the fame, and the fuppofed Sin of depofing a lawful King the fame, 
 tho he had utterly refufed to give the Prince and Nation any fufficient Satif- 
 faftion. So that then if we had been forced to take Arms, and to declare he 
 had forfeited his Right to the Crown, all thefe things would have given as 
 Ibid. /.III. great, or rather greater Scandal, than for the Nation to take him at his firft 
 Offer j and fince he had thus rafhly deferred the Throne by a needlefs Depar- 
 ture, to refolve he (hould afcend it no more. 
 
 But fuppofe (what might alfo as well have happened) that the Quarrel be- 
 ing renewed, the Prince and his Party had been killed, or expelled the King- 
 dom by the King, do you think he would have granted us then what he would 
 not grant us now ? Would he not, think you, have disbanded his Proteftanc 
 Army, and have kept only Jrijh, Scotch, and French Forces in pay, and have 
 every day increafed them ? What refpeft can we hope he would ever after this 
 have fhewn to our Laws, Religion, or Liberties, when he had now no longer 
 any thing to fear ? The memory of what happened after the Duke oi Monmouth's 
 Defeat (thoeffefted only by thofe of the Church of England) will certainly 
 never be forgotten by others, whatever you Bigots of Loyalty may pretend 
 or fay. 
 
 So that for my part 1 ftand amazed to fee you, and fo many others, fcruple 
 fnbmitting to the prefent King i for if ever Man had a juft caufe of War, he 
 had, and that creates a Right to the thing gained by it: the King by with- 
 drawing, and disbanding his Army, yielded him the Throne ; and if he had 
 without any more Ceremony afcended it, he had done no more than feveral 
 Princes formerly have done on the like occafions : for the Prince was no longer 
 then bound to confider him as one that was, but as one that had been King of 
 
 England j
 
 Dialogue the Eleventh, 577 
 
 Endnnd-, yet in that Capacity he treated him with great Refpeft and Civility, 
 how much foevcr the King complained of it, who did not enough conlider 
 what he had done to draw upon himfelf thatUfage. Bat as for your Infi lua- 
 tioii, that if he had ftaid, he might have run the fame Fate with his Farher, 
 I think it is fuller of Palfioii than Truth j for befides that the Lords and Com- 
 mons would never have had the Impudence to have committed fuch a Villany, 
 the Pi ince himfelf, as a Nephew and a Soa-ia-law, would never have fuf- 
 fered it. 
 
 M. Well, God only knows the Event of things, and we ought to judge cha- 
 ritably, and ftill to hope, that if the King might have been reflored upon 
 Terms, he would have been the better for his Affliftion, and have amended 
 all thnfe Errors he committed •, fince he had fcen that neither the Nation, nor 
 yet his Neighbours the Dutch, would permit him to make himfelf an Abfolute 
 Monarch. 1 believe he would have been too much afraid of the King of France., 
 ever to have made ufe of his Forces, to have fettled Popery and arbitrary Go- 
 vernment ^ and without his affiftance, I fuppofe you will grant it could not 
 have been done, fince he plainly found that a Proteftant Army would never 
 have joined with him to aft in fuch pernicious Defigns : but however, let the 
 wovfl; have happened that could be, I think it had been much better for the 
 Nation to have endured it with patience, than to have done that which was 
 Evil, tho for the procuring of the greatellfeemingGood, tho for the advan- 
 tage of our Religion and Civil Liberties. And therefore it had been better for 
 us, in this extremity, to have truftedGod than Men, fince he always promifes 
 lo proted thofe that rely upon him, and ftriftly perform his Will. And ad- 
 mit the worft that could have happened, God would either have removed thofe 
 Afflidions from us in due time, or have given us patience to have borne them ; 
 iince I fuppofe you will not deny, that God oftentimes brings Perfecutioi.s and 
 Affliftions upon a finful Church and Nation, either for aPunifhment for their 
 Sins, or elfe to give an occafion for thofe that are truly pious and fincere, to 
 Ihew their Courage and Conftancy in fuffering for the Truth, and by with- 
 flanding, not by Force, but Paflive-Obedience, all the King's illegal and arbi- 
 trary Commands, if he fliould, after his Re-efl:abli(hment in the Throne, have 
 again renewed his former Caurfes. Thefe are the only Remedies which we of 
 the Church of England, as obedient Subjefts to the King and his Laws, muft 
 think could have been lawfully taken in this Cafe. 
 
 F. I do not deny but what you fay is in the main very pious and honelt, 
 were the Cafe as you have put it \ but the greatefl; part of your Difcourfe de- 
 pends wholly upon thofe old Principles and Prejudices, of the Unlawfulnefs of 
 all Refiftance of the Supreme Powers, and that the King is the only Supreme 
 Power in this Kingdom : both which Propofitions I have fufRciently confuted 
 at our third, fourth, and fifth Meetings, and alfoat our laft faveone: in which 
 I gave you a true account of the legal Senfe of thofe Oaths and Statutes of King 
 Charles II. concerning Refiftance, as was alfo given by the belt Lawyers, and 
 moft confidcring Men of the then Houfes of Lords and Commons. So that if 
 the means we have ufed are lawful, both by the Laws of God and Man, I think 
 we are not bound to bring Affliftions upon our felves, but to avoid them all 
 we can ^ efpecialiy when they come evidently attended with the utter Lofs and 
 Ruin of what ought to be moft dear to us, our Religion, Civil Liberties, and 
 Properties, and that not only for our felves, but our Pofterity, who perhaps 
 would never have regained them when they were once loft : of which the 
 French Nation is an evident Example before our eyes, who by not oppofing 
 the arbitrary Power of their Kings in due time, have fallen into a Government 
 almoft as dcfpotick as that of Turkey. For when once the common Good of the 
 Subjects ceafes to be the main End of the Governours, the Government thea 
 ceafing to be God's Ordinance, degenerates into Tyranny : which I think may 
 be always lawfully oppofed by a freeborn People, who at firft agreed to be go- 
 verned, not as Slaves but Subjefts. 
 
 Rut as for the firft part of your Speech, it needs not any long Anfwer-, it 
 firft fuppofcs the King might have been again reftored upon Terms. Now fince 
 it is plain thefe Terms muft have been impofed upon him againft his Will, and 
 asnecefiary Conditions of his Reftoration, I would be glad to know who it was 
 Ihould undertake to impofe them upon him, and to fee them kept when they 
 
 < E e e e had
 
 ^78 BiBLIOTHECA JPoLlTlCA. 
 
 • bad been made, whether the Prince of Orange or the Parliament. If the for- 
 mer, 1 grant indeed he might have made inch Conditions with the King, that 
 the Church of England^ as well as the whole Nation, (hould for the future en- 
 joy their juft Rights and Liberties •, but then the Prince muft either have trufted 
 wholly to the King's Honour, or elfe he muft have had fome ftrong Places put 
 into his hands for a Security, that the King would not again make the fame 
 Violations upon our Laws, Religion, and Liberties, as he had done before. 
 Yet 1 fuppoi'e you will not deny, but that the King might, if he had plcafcd, 
 have broken them all again, fo foon as ever the Piiace's back had been turned, 
 and that he had been once engaged in a War with France j which could not 
 have been long avoided, confidering the necedity there is at this juncture 
 of time for the States of HolLwd (and confeqaently the Prince as their 
 General) to engage with the Emperor and King of S^ain, to drive the 
 French out of the Empire, and to hinder him from making hiniftlf Uni- 
 verfal Monarch of Europe j which it is plain is the thing he now drives at. 
 But if the Prince fhould have kept any ftrong Places here as cautionary 
 Towns, for the King's Performance of the Terms agreed upon, this muit have 
 been done either by Engli^i or foreign Forces: if by the former, this would 
 have been looked upon as inconfiftent with their Duty and Allegiance to the 
 King, if he (hould have commanded them to be delivered up into his hands ; 
 fince you tell us, the King has the fole Command of the Militia^ and confe- 
 quently of all Garifons manned by hisSubjefts within his Dominions. But if 
 the Forces that Ihould have held thefe Places had been Dutchmen^ or other Fo- 
 reigners, it would never have been endured either by the King or Nation, that 
 Foreigners fhould polfefs the ftrong Holds and Keys of the Kingdom •, as.d 
 the King might foon have wrought (by fome Jealoufies and Sufpicions, which 
 he would not have failed to have raifed) that the Nation it felf Ihould have 
 joined with him to drive them out, and then the King might have done what 
 he pleafed without controul. But if you will place this Power in the whole 
 People or Nation, or elfe their Reprefentatives the Parliament, of holding the 
 King to thefe Terms agreed upon, this could not have been done without their 
 conltant Sitting, and a power of refitting him, in cafe he infringed them ; and 
 then either they muft have given up all their Liberties to the King's Will, or 
 elfe fareweltothe darling Doctrines of Paftive- Obedience and Non-refiftanceJ 
 So that, take it which way you will, all impofing of Terms upon the King, ei- 
 ther by the Prince of Orange, or the Nation, would in a fhort time have become 
 either unpradicable or infignificant. Nor is your other Suppofition any whit 
 truer, that the King would never have made ufe of the Fcfrces of France, to 
 fubdue and keep under the People of England, for fear he fliould not be able to 
 get the French cut again. 'Tis true, this would be a very good Argument to a 
 Prince who was no Bigot, and was not refolved to introduce his Religion by 
 all the ways and means he could •■, but how near the French Forces were to be 
 brought over into this Kingdom the lalt Summer, is very well known to thofe 
 who were then in France, and faw them upon the Sea- Coaft ready to imbark: 
 nor was their coming over put off by any other Motives, than that the Earl 
 of 5. and Lord C two of the Cabinet-Council, reprefented to the King, that 
 it would be the only means to make the whole Nation rife up againft him, 
 and join with the Prince of Orange as foon as he landed ■■, which 1 fuppofe was 
 the only reafon that hindred it, for that the. F>f«c/3 King offered to fend them, 
 is very certain : Yet it does not follow for all that, but the King might take an 
 Opportunity of doing it another time, and bringing them over in their own 
 Ships, if ours would not do the Bufinefs. 
 
 Andthol will not affirm that there is any private League viilh France, for 
 the extirpation of the Proteftant Religion ; yet this much I think may be fuf- 
 ficiently made out, that long ago the King was wholly in the Intereft of France, 
 as appears by Cff/ewM»'s Letters (whilft he was his Secretary) when Duke of 
 Tork. The firft Paflage is to Sir William Throgmorton, Feb. i . 1 67{-. I'ou well know 
 that when the Duke comes to be Mafler of our Jjfairs, the King of txiace rvill have 
 reafon to fromife himfelf all things that he can deftre. The next is to Father La 
 Chaife, the French King's ConfefFor, in thefe words, TToat his Royal Highnefs rvai 
 convinced, that his Intereft and the King of France'^ was the fame. And whether 
 
 the Duke, by his AcceiUon to the Crown, has Ihewed any Alteration in his In- 
 clinations
 
 'Dialogue the Eleventh, 579 
 
 dilations to fr^D/c^-, either in refpeift of Religion or Intcren:, I appeal to tlie 
 World. 
 
 Nor is your next Suppofirion lefsojtof the way, that the King could have 
 made ufe of no Forces hut French to fettle Popery and Arbitrary Government 
 lure, as if he had not Scorch and hi^ Papifts enough in his Dominions for 
 this occa (ion. And as for Arbitrary Government, we have found to our grief, 
 that there are too many mercenary Soldiers in the King's Army, who fought 
 only for Pay, and would have afTifted the King to have raifed Mony without 
 the Favliament, nay to pull the very Parliament out of doors if he had bid 
 them i and if fome of them were difcontented when the Prince came over, I 
 do not fo much impute it to their honeft Principles, as fear, left they them- 
 felves fhould he cafhiered, and Scotch aad InPi lifted in their rooms. So that 
 upon the whole matter, confideriag the Temper the King was in ever fince 
 his laft coming to Town, and that as foon as he arrived, the Priefts and je- 
 fuits flocked about him as thick as ever, that they and the French Envoy were 
 his chief (if not his only) Cabinet Couufcllors, I cannot fee (unlefs he had ta- 
 ken new Meafures) how we could have been fecure, or could have relied on 
 any thing he could have farther promifed, nay fwore to perform ; fince no 
 Oath could be more facred than that at his Coronation, when he fwore to main- 
 tain the Church fthat is, the Doftrine of the Church) of England, and the 
 Laws of the Kingdom ; if that be a true account of the form of it, which we 
 have in Pi int. 
 
 M. At this rate of arguing, I know not what to fay to you, fince this Ar- 
 gument amounts to no more than this, That the King could upon no account he 
 tru/iedj and therefore was not any more to be treated with. If this were fo, to 
 what purpofe did the Prince of Orange declare, that he came not to conquer 
 the Kingdom, but only to procure a free and legal Parliament, which could not 
 be called without the King's Confent, and owning his Authority? Neither 
 could they have done the leaft Aft for the Amendment of our Grievances, with- 
 out his Majefty's Confent. Or to what purpofe did the Prince enter into a Trea- 
 ty with the King's CommifTioners at Hungerford, if his Royal Word and Pro- 
 niifes were not to be relied on ? But if his Majefty could ever be trufted, I fee 
 no reafon why he could not have been fo, as well fince his laft coming to Town 
 as before, fince he came voluntarily ■-, and, as I have great reafon to believe, with 
 real Intentions, to grant and perform whatever the Nation could reafonably 
 expcft for theRcdrcfsof their Grievances; and would have given any reafona- 
 ble Security of his performance for the future, without divefting himfelf of 
 his Royal Power of making Laws, and protefting his Subjedts. 
 
 But as for the former part of your Speech, whereby you would prove it 
 lawful to refift the King, bccaufe you fay it conduced to the common Good and 
 Intereft of the Nation, both as to the Proteftant Religion and Civil Liberties; 
 this is no more than the old Commonwealth Maxim in other words : which 
 I grant is true, if the Safety and Prefervation of the King or other fu- 
 preme Powers of a Commonwealth (who, according to your own Princi- 
 ples, are the Reprefentatives of the People, and confcquently part of it) be 
 likewife comprehended and maintained (as they ought to be) in their due 
 Power and Authority. For Bi(hop5.i«^fr/tfw, in his learned Lectures, hath very 
 well proved, that thofe cannot be feparated from each other, without de- 
 ftroying the Civil Government, which is all the Security we have for our Ci- 
 vil Properties and Liberties i and we fee in thofe few days in which his Maje- 
 fty's Perfon was withdrawn, when there was no Civil Government in being, 
 that there was greater Infringement of them, both by plundering and deftroy- 
 ing of Houfes, and fpoilingof Parks and Forefts in three or four days time, 
 by theVioleiKe and Fury of the Mob, than have been committed by the nioft 
 arbitrary Kings from the Conqueft to this day. 
 
 F. You very much miftake me, if you think I maintain that there was never 
 any time after the Prince's Landing that the King might not have been treated 
 withal, and likewife trufted with the Adminiftration of the Government •■, 
 but then it muft have been upon fuch Terms, as fhould have fccured us for the 
 future from his aSing the like, or worfe things over again. As in the flrft place, 
 he (hould have renounced his Difpenling Power, and that of taking the Excife 
 without hiX of Parliament, and levying Chimny-mony upon Cottages and 
 
 Eecc 2 Ovens,
 
 58 
 
 O 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTlCA. 
 
 Ovens, direfHy contrary to Law. Next he (hould have disbanded hisftanding 
 Aimy, and kept up no Forces in timeof Peace, befides the necedary Guards of 
 his Perfon, the number of which fhould have been agreed upon by Parlia- 
 ment, which (hould alfo have fat once every year, or two years at leaft. And 
 laftly, that in refpeft of the Church, as long as he or his SuccefTors continued 
 of the Roman Catholick Religion, the Nomination of all Bifhop?, Archbifliops, 
 Deans, with other Eccleliaftical Preferments, which are not in the immediate 
 Difpoial of the Lord Chai cellor, Ihould have been in the Archbifhop and Bi- 
 fhops of each Province , they chufing two, out of which his Majefty fhould have 
 chofen one, for to fupply each Biflioprick, &c. as it became vacant. 
 
 And therefore, for my own part, I was fo far from believing all Agreements 
 with the King to be unprafticable, that there was no body rejoiced more than 
 1, when upon his Majefty's firll return to LWow, he fo far complied with the 
 Delires of the whole Nation, as to ilTue out his Proclamation for a Free Parlia- 
 ment, and that he fent down his CommilTioners to treat with the Prince ; and 
 1 had then great hopes of an Accommodation. But when, inftead of this, the 
 King had burnt the Writs for the Eleftion of Parliament-men, and had fent 
 away the Queen and Prince, together with the Great Seal, that no more Writs 
 might be ilFued, and that before ever the CommifTioners could return to Lon- 
 don^ or before any Anfwer to the Prince's Propofals was given by the King, he 
 had withdrawn himfelf, and done ail he could to get away into a foreign King- 
 dom •, it v?as then, and not till then, that I faw all hopes of Agreement abfo- 
 lutely defperate. And tho you put a great ftrefs upon the King's lafl Return 
 to Town, which, youfuppofe, was with a Defign to agree with the Prince in 
 every thing that could be in reafon demanded, I can fee no caufe for your 
 drawing fuch a Confequence from it ^ for if he did not look upon himfelf as 
 fafe here before his Army was disbanded, he could not think himfelf more fo, 
 when it was either wholly diflblved, or elfe was gone over to the Prince. And 
 therefore I have much greater reafon to believe, that his Return again to 
 Town was only to comply with the prefentNeceffity, and to wait for a fitter 
 Opportunity to get away, there being never a Veflel then ready to tranfport 
 him ^ efpeciallyif that be true which 1 have heard, that the King declared to a 
 Perfon of Credit, T^oat the Queen had obtained from him a fokmn Oath on the 
 Sacrament^ on the Sunday^ that if jhe went for France on Monday^ he would not 
 fail to follow her on Tuefday following. And if this were fo, tho he was difap- 
 pointed in his intended Pailage, yet ftill was he under the fame Obligation to 
 the Queen : nor do I fee any Tranfadlion of his with the Prince of Orange, or 
 with thofe of the Church of England, that can perfuade me to believe other- 
 wife ^ fincehis long Confultations with the Frf»cfc Envoy, and the Priefts and 
 Jefuits, could only tend to the taking new Meafures for his Departure, or elfe 
 how he might imbroil us further while heftaid, by fome faint hopes of new 
 Treaties and Agreements. 
 
 But as for the other part of your Anfwer, whereby you would confute my 
 Notion of the Lawfulnefs of Refiftance, for the Defence and Prefervation of 
 our Religion eftablifhed by Law, as alfo of our Liberties and Properties j I 
 Vid. Sand.ae hopel (hall let you fee, that it is not I, but your felf, who are mi(taken in 
 oblig.Con- this matter. For firft, all Writers on this Subjeft, and even Dr.Sanderfon 
 V.^'ii I'rx- *iimfelf? '''his Leduresof the Obligation of Confcience, do acknowledge that 
 leil. VII. §.4. all Civil Government is principally ordained for the Good and Prefervation of 
 the People ; and that the Good of the Governours is only to be confidered fe- 
 condariiy, and in order to that : which if fo, 1 pray tell me whether the Good 
 and Prefervation of the People ought not to be confidered in the firft place, 
 fince the End for which a thing is ordained, is always more worthy than the 
 Means by which it is procured. And therefore I (hall freely grant, that as long 
 as the Safety and Intereft of the King, and that of the People are all one, and 
 can any ways confill together, and that he makes the Happinefs and Preferva- 
 tion of the People to be the main end of his Government ; I fo far agree with 
 you, that the Good or Prefervation of the Prince or fupreme Powers can- 
 not (nay ought not) to be feparated from that of the People : but when they 
 once let up afeparate Interelt quite different from that of the People (as aU 
 Princes do, who turning Tyrants go about to inllave them) they then ceafe to 
 be the true Heads of that political Body the Commonwealth j and thereupon 
 
 the
 
 Dialogue the Eleventh. 581 
 
 the Commanity or People become free, and at liberty, either to oppofe or re- 
 move thefe artificial Heads, and to fet up new ones in their room. So that 
 fince Similies are not Arguments, your Comparifon between a Natural and 
 Political Body, hath only ferved to impofe upon your Judgment in this mat- 
 ter i and therefore 1 affirm that a Natural and Political Body do wholly 
 differ in this point : for in a natural Body, the real Good of the Head cannot 
 be feparated from that of the Body, nor the Good of the Body from that of 
 the Head •, nor yet can the Body alone judge of the proper means of its own 
 Prefervation, nor when it is hurt or alTaulted, but by the Head, which is the 
 Principle of Senfe and Motion. But in a Political Body it is quite otherwife: 
 for firft, the Supreme Powers of a Commonwealth, which you fuppofe to be 
 Head of this Political Body, do often purfue and fet up an Intereft quite dif- 
 ferent from (nay contrary to) that of the Body or People, and that not only 
 to their prejudice, but alfo fometimes to their deftruftion. And, fecondly, when 
 they do this, the Political Body, or the People will in evident and apparent 
 Cafes judge for themfelves, let this Political Head fay or declare what it will 
 aeainft it, and will when they are thus opprefs'd and enflav'd by thofe that 
 they have fubmitted to as their Political Heads, and in fuch cafes of Extremity, 
 endeavour to free themfelves from the Severity of their Yoke. 
 
 M- Notwithftanding what you have now faid, 1 am not yet convinced, that 
 the King had no real Defign to redrefs our Grievances, and to make a final 
 Agreement with the Prince \ for tho 1 do not deny but his Majefty did converfe 
 with fome Priefts, and others of his own Perfualion, as alfo with the French 
 Envoy after his coming to Town, yet might this be for no ill Intent : and he 
 did alfo converfe with divers Reverend Bifhops and Lords of our own Religion, 
 to whom he (till exprelTcd a great Defire of making an end of all Differences 
 between himfelf, the Prince, and the whole Nation. And this I fuppofe is the 
 true reafon why the Archbidiop of Canterbury^ (tho he fign'd the firlt and fe- 
 cond AddrelTes to the Prince, upon his Majefty's firfl: withdrawing himfelf, 
 yet) has been ever fince fo fenfible of that Miftake he then committed, that he 
 has never appeared or afted in any Meeting of the Peers, nor yet in the Con- 
 vention. And that his Majefty, even at Rochefier^ did not lay afide all thoughts 
 of Agreement, and making up all Breaches between himfelf and his People, 1 
 could give you another Demonftration, which is not commonly known, and 
 which I had from a particular Friend, viz.. That the King, during his Con- 
 finement there, fent a Lady I could name on a MefTage to two Reverend Pre- 
 lates of our Church (together with an Emerald Ring from his Finger, as a 
 Teftimony of the Truth of her Coramiffion) to this efTed, That his Majefty, 
 being fenlible of the fad Condition the Church of England as well as himfelf 
 was in, and that there was no way fo likely for him to get out of it, as by 
 granting his Subjcfts, and particularly the Church of England, fuch Securities 
 for the Enjoyment of their juft Rights and Liberties, as they could in reafoa 
 demand ; therefore he wholly left it to the Difcretion of thofe Bifhops, to 
 make to the Peers and Bifhops that were then to meet fuddenly, whatever 
 Propofals they fhould think reafonable on his behalf, for the Satisfaction of the 
 Church, and Safety of the Nation, and that he would be ready to grant and 
 ratify them whenfoever he fhould be required. 
 
 F. This is indeed more than I ever heard before, and can fcarce believe : 
 but did the Lady go and deliver her MelTage ? And pray what Anfwer did thofe 
 Bifhops give to this fair Propofal ? 
 
 Af. Yes, the Lady did deliver her MefTage, and thefe Bifhops anfwer'd both 
 to the fame effed, That they had a real Duty and AfFeftion for his Majefty, and 
 a great Defire to fcrve him , but that confidering the great Power of the Prince 
 of Orange, and his prefent Averfion to any Agreement with his Majefty, they 
 very much feared that the Peers would not venture to give the Prince any fuch 
 Advice, or to interpofe with him on his Majefty's behalf: which in my opinion 
 was very meanly and cowardly done of them, not confidering their Duty to 
 him as a King, and alfo thofe particular Obligations they owed him as their 
 Bcnefador, and who had been the greateft means of their being raifed to thofe 
 Dignities in his Brother's Keign. Now I defire to know, if this Mefljge had 
 received its intended efFed, what greater Demonftration his Majefty could have 
 
 given
 
 582 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTICA. 
 
 given to fatisfy the World that he really intended to fet all things right again, 
 had he been permitted to do it. 
 
 F. 1 will not farther queftion the Truth of this Relation, tho perhaps I 
 might have fufficient reafon for it, fince you fay you had it from a Perfon 
 of good Credit, and who was privy to this Tranfaftion ■■, nor yet will I be 
 fo inquifitive as to Icnow the Kames either of the Bifhops, or of the Lady, 
 fince you make it a Secret : but yet notwithftanding, I do ftili very much qucf- 
 tion whether the King did ever really defign to do what he then ofFer'd, and 
 did not intend to put a fhani upon their Lorfhips, to ferve his prefent Occa- 
 fion, and to fee if he could divide the Bifhops and Peers of the Church of Eng- 
 latid from the Prince,of Orangeh Interell : and fo by making them offer fuch 
 Propofals as the Prince Ihould not think fit to agree to, might make them de- 
 clare againft his Proceedings^ which would have created great Divifions and 
 Heart-burnings between thofe of the High Church-oi-Etigland Party and the 
 Prince i and thereby have involved us again in frefh Difturbances, of which 
 no doubt the King and the Popifh Faftion were like to receive the greateft Ad- 
 vantage : for you know the old Saying, Divide & impera. 
 
 But to let you fee that I do not fpeak without juft Grounds for my Opinion, 
 let us examine every Circumftance of this matter: Firft, if the King had 
 meant really, is it likely that he would have trufted a Bufinefs of that high 
 ittoment to a Woman, when he had then the Lords of AUesbury and Arran^ 
 befides other Protelfant Gentlemen then waiting on him, and they were much 
 fitter to be trufted than this Lady, let her be whom fhe will ? Or can any one 
 believe if the King had meant really, that he would not have fent his Propo- 
 fals in Writing, fince he very well knew from the Prince's Declaration, as well 
 as the Bifhops Petition and Addrelles to him, what the whole Nation, and the 
 Charch of England in particular, required of him ? But forfooth he muft fend 
 a loofe and uncertain MefTage, which it was in his power to difown whenever 
 he pleafed, by faying, the foolifh Woman miftook his Meanings and fhe alfo 
 might be fo much his Creature, as to take the Fault wholly upon her felf, 
 whenever it fliould ferve the King's turn fo to do. And therefore 1 think it 
 was very wifely and honeftly done of thofe Reverend Prelates to refufe raed- 
 ling in fuch a ticklifli Affair \ fince it is plain by his not making any fuch Pro- 
 pofals to the Prince of Orange himfelf, or the Lords about him, that he was 
 not to be made privy to it, but rather it fhould be carried on, whether he 
 would or no, and without giving him any fatisfaftion in his particular Concern 
 as to the Prince of Wales. And laftly, 1 defire you farther to coofider, whe- 
 ther the King might not hereafter, whenever he had power, have made void 
 whatever Agreements or ConcetTions he (hould have then granted either to the 
 Church of England^ or to the Nation, by pleading afterwards, that they were 
 obtain'd by Durefs, whilft he was not \ui ;»>•«, but ander the power of the 
 Prince of Orange. 
 
 1 have but one thing more to add, which I before omitted, which is to make 
 fome Reply to what you faid concerning the mifchief that the Mob has done 
 npon Houfes, Forefts, and Parks, (ince his Majefty's firft Departure : and 
 therefore granting the Matter of Fad, that much Mifchief and Spoil has been 
 committed \ yet 1 deny that it is more than has been done by the molt Arbi- 
 trary Kings fince the Conqueft to this day, as you are pleafed to affirm: for 
 1 believe you forget the thirty Parifh-Charches and Towns, which our Hiflorian 
 tells us, your Wilham the Conqueror, and his Son ^»//«, deftroy'd, when they 
 enlarged new Forefts, and therein adted contrary to their Oaths, like true 
 defpotick Tyrants. You likewife forget the miferable Spoil apd Walte which 
 King John and HenryXW. made upon the Houfes, Caftles and Eftates of the 
 Barons and Gentry of England^ who oppofed them in their unjuft and illegal 
 M'x^hxXo'O.'ioi Magna Chart a\ belides othei" Tyrannical Adions of the fame kind 
 committed by King Edward and Richard II. too long here to relate. But if 
 thefe Mifchiefs were done you fpeak of, whom have we to thank for it bat the 
 King-, who Itealing away on a fudden, without leaving any Orders for the 
 Government of the Kingdom, all Perfons in Commiffion, either Civil or Mili- 
 tary, doubted whether tbeir Commiflions were not at an end by the King's 
 defertlng the Government as he did ? Befides, you very well know that the 
 common People were fo enraged againft the Popifh Faftion, for fo many in- 
 
 foleut
 
 Dialogue the Eleventh. 583 
 
 folent Aftions they had committed in King James^ Reign, and fo many appa- 
 rent Breaches and Contcmpcs of all the Laws made againft them, that you 
 cannot wonder, if when they were rid of the Fear of the IriJJ), aud of King 
 Jamesh Army, they kept their Arms in their hands, and took that opportu- 
 nity of revenging themfelves upon thofe they looked upon as the Authors 
 of all this Coafulion. So that except the rifling of the Houfe and Chappel of 
 the Spaniflj AmbafTador, which I grant was contrary to the Law of Nations, 
 there were very few Popifh Houfes plunder'd or fpoil'd, but fuch as had be- 
 fore render'd themfelves fome ways or other obnoxious to the Laws, by their 
 Apoftacy and accepting of CommilTions, which they were utterly difabled by 
 Law to take : and tho to my knowledg the Deputy Lieutenants, and Juftices 
 of the Peace, did their utmolt in molt Counties of England^ to quell thofe 
 Riots and Diforders, yet the Mobile were too much enraged, and too nume- 
 rous to be commanded, when like a vicious Horfe, whofe Rider is call off, they 
 run away with the Bridle in their Teeth. 
 
 M. I confefs you have made the beft Apology for the Mob that the matter 
 will bear i and I cannot deny, in comparifon of what has been done in other 
 Nations on the like Occafions, it was a very civil Mob : but yet this may 
 ferve to let us fee the Danger of your Dodrineof Refiftance, fince by the fame 
 Law, by which they then puU'd down and plunder'd the Popifh Chappels, 
 and Roman Catholick Houfes, by the like Right they might have done the fame 
 Violences upon any other Nobleman's or Gentleman's Houfe in England^ whe^ 
 ther a Papift or Proteftant, that they had a fpleen to ^ fince it was but their 
 crying out that he was a Papift, or at leaft a Favourer of them, and then it 
 had been enough to make them fufFer, as if they really had been fo : as I 
 could tell you of my own knowledg, of a very honeft Gentleman of my Ac- 
 quaintance, who becaufe he was a true Son of the Church, and had been al- 
 ways a Loyal Subjed to his Majefty, and a great Enemy to the Whig Fadioa 
 in the Country, and had alfo put the Law fcverely ia execution againft the 
 Diflenters, was like to have had his Houfe plundered by the Fanatick Mob of 
 51 certain Town, from which this Gentleman's Houfe was not far diftant. 
 
 F. If you pleafe to conlider it, this is a very unjuft Inference from our 
 Dodrine ^ for thefe Adions were not any Refiftance of the Supreme Powers 
 of the Nation, but certain violent Adions or Revenges, which the Rabble 
 thought they might take upon thofe whom they looked upon as publick Ene- 
 mies, when there was no Civil or Military Power-in being that was of fufH- 
 cicnt Strength to keep them in order. But if you pleafe to call to mind my 
 Pofitions, 1 do by no means allow the Rabble or Mob of any Nation to take 
 Arras againft a Civil Government, but only the whole Community of the Peo- 
 ple of all Degrees and Orders, commanded by the l^^obility and Gentry there- 
 of. And tho I grant the People may be fometimes miftaken in the Exercife of 
 this Right (as what is there, tho ever fo lawful, that may not be abufed ? ) yet 
 I think you will grant, that the bare Abufe of a lawful thing is no fufficient 
 Ground for the taking away the Liberty of exercifing iti and I think I have 
 fufficiently proved, that the total Denial of this Liberty would be of far worfe 
 confequence to whole Nations and Kingdoms, nay to all Mankind, than the al- 
 lowing of it (as thofe of my Opinion do) only in cafes of extreme Neceflity, 
 and when no other Remedy will ferve. 
 
 M. 1 will not renew this old Difpute again about Refiftance \ we fufficiently 
 know one another's Minds about it, and arc not, as I can fee, like to bring 
 over either of us to the other's Opinion. But fince 1 know you have ftudied 
 the Common Laws, and Hiftorics of this Kingdom better than I, I cannot for- 
 bear making divers juft Refledions upon the lace Proceedings of the Conven- 
 tion: for tho indeed they had no Legal Authority to aftemble upon the Cir- 
 cular Letters of a Foreign Prince, yet fince this was the greateft (if not the 
 only Liberty we had left us) and the only Means to procure a Settlement, if 
 it had ufcd that Power as it ought to have done, I will not quarrel or dif- 
 pute the Legality of their Meeting •■, but then they muft ufc it only for lawful 
 Ends, and fuch as in their private Capacities they were obliged to purfuc if 
 they were able. Therefore when they alfemblcd, if they would have main- 
 tain'd the due Rights of Monarchy and Succedion in this Kingdom, furc they 
 ought, in the firlt place, to have enquired what v/as become of the King, 
 
 where
 
 ^84 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTlCA. 
 
 where he was, and who forced him to go away: And when they had known 
 that, they ought then to have join'd in addreffing to the Prince, that fince he 
 had dechr'd that he came not to conquer this Nation, but only to free it 
 from Arbitrary Government, and rellore it to its juft Laws, there co:ld be 
 no fure Enjoyment of thefe without the King, therefore he would join with 
 them in fending to him, to dcfire him to return to the Government of thefe 
 Kingdoms, and to govern them according to Law. But inftead of this they 
 not only negle£ted taking any notice of the King, as if he were not at all in 
 being, but have alfo rctufed to receive thofe gracious Letters he feat them, 
 in which he promifed to amend all former Errors^ and to govern according to 
 Law : which certainly deferved to be taken notice of, fince comi:;g from their 
 Lawful Prince, they ought at kaft to have propofed feme Terms to him, 
 before they had proceeded to that rafh and unparallel'd Vote, which 1 defire 
 1 may read to you word for word, bccaufe I intend to examine every Claufe 
 of it. Refolved, 
 
 Tkat King James II. having endeavoured to fuhvert the Co>7fiitutio» of this Kinffm 
 dom^ by breaking the Original Contrail betneen K^ng and People '■, and by the Ad- 
 vice of Jefuits and other wicked Perfons^ having violated the Fundamental Laws, 
 and having withdrawn himfelf out of thii Kingdom \ hath abd.cated the Ccvernmenty 
 and that the Throne is thereby vacant. I (hall make bold to confider each of thele 
 Claufes, one after another : And therefore firft pray take notice, that this Vote 
 of the two Houfes colt above a Week's Debate in the Houfe of Lords, which 
 pall in the Houfe of Commons in two or three days^ becaufe divers of the 
 Lords, as well Temporal as Spiritual, did with great Honour, Reafon and 
 Refolution oppofe, and protefted againft it to the laft : and it was carried at 
 laft: by a very fmall Majority. But that we may examine each Claufe in this 
 Vote; firft, it is here only faid, Th At King James \\. endeavoured to fuhvert the 
 Conftitution of this Kingdom \ not that he really did it, which is as much lower 
 than you are pleafed to put it, as endeavouring a thing falls fhort of aftually 
 doing it: and therefore it is very hard to declare a Prince to have forfeited, 
 or abdicated his Kingdom, for bare defigning and endeavouring ; fiace thofe 
 things that you bring to prove it, may bear a much more favourable Inter- 
 pretation, efpecially with Subjefts, who are no fit Judges of the private De- 
 Hgns of Princes, which may oftentimes tend to quite other Purpofes than whaC 
 we fuppofe. 
 
 As for the next Claufe, by.breahing the Original Contract •, I have heard that 
 divers of the Lords and Bilhops, who were for the King againft this new In- 
 vention of an Abdication, put the other fide very hard to it, to make out 
 this Original Contraft, and defired them to Ihew in what part, either of 
 our Common or Statute Law, it was to be found ■-, for they knew no fuch 
 Maxim in the Common Law, nor no fuch Claufe in any Statute, antient or 
 modern. 
 
 And tho I confefs yon have undertaken to prove to me, that there is fuch 
 a thing, yet it has been only by far-fetch'd Confequences, and from the old 
 Form of Government among the Saxons, of above 600 Years ftandingj which 
 if there were any fuch thing, it is now become fo antiquated, and out of date, 
 that neither the King himfelf, nor yet our Lords, Bifhops or Judges, except 
 fome few Lawyers of your Kidney, ever before now thought of any fuch 
 thing. I pafs by the next Claufe, by the Advice of Jefuits^ &c. becaufe I can- 
 not fay by whofe Advice thofe things, which you call Breaches of the Funda- 
 mental Laws, were afted : but as for the next, wherein the Violation of thefe 
 Fundamental Laws is laid to his charge, I confefs you have given me a pretty 
 large Catalogue of thefe Fundamentals at our ninth Meeting, which yet you 
 cannot fay are to be found together in any one Law ^ but are to be picked up 
 here and there out of Magna Charta, and divers other old Statutes. But fince 
 the King and Parliament have declared in the firft Year of King James 1. that 
 there are fuch fuch things as Fundamental Laws and Privileges, 1 will not fay 
 there arc none; yet certainly any Breach of them by the King was never in- 
 tended to create a Forfeiture of the Crown : for if it had, I think there 
 would have been but few Kings or Queens of England^ who would not have 
 forfeited, for fome one or more of thefe Breaches, committed in their 
 Reigns, by the Advice of thgir Judges and Counfellors, as thefe were lately 
 
 by
 
 Dialogue the Eleventh 585 
 
 by the King : for I fuppofe you cannot expeifl that Princes (hould fee any 
 otherwife in matters of Government than by other Mens Eyes, nor hear but 
 by other Peoples Ears. And therefore if the wilful Breach of thefe Funda- 
 mentals muft caufe a Forfeiture or Abdication of Government (call it which 
 you pleafe) methinks it had been reafonable for the Parliament to have given 
 a Lift of thefe Fundamentals in fome one Law, that the King might have beea 
 fure to have avoided the tranfgrefhng of them, and fear of lofihg both his 
 Royal Dignity, and his Penalty ought alfo to have been declared. 
 
 But the next Claufe deferves more particular Confideration, ('wx.-^ And hav- 
 ing withdrawn himfelf out of the Kingdom^ hath abdicated the Governrunt. Now 
 I muft confefs, it is the firft time that ever the King's going away, for fear of 
 lofing both his Royal Dignity and his Life, and that with a declared Defign 
 and Intention to return again to the Exercife of the Government, whenever 
 he might do it with fafety, fhould be judged a wilful Defertion or Abdication. D.D. /.u?. 
 I am fure there is nothing in our Common or Statute Laws, that can at all 
 warrant this Notion i for Common Law is nothing but antient Ufage and im- 
 memorial Cuftom. Now Cuftom fuppofes Precedents and parallel Cafes \ but 
 it is granted on all hands, that t^itCxoviaoi England was never judged to be 
 abdicated, by the withdrawing of the Prince, before now : And therefore it 
 follows, by undeniable Confequence, that this Opinion can have no Founda- 
 tion in the Common Law, becaufe there is not fo much as one ruled Cafe to 
 prove it by. 
 
 But if we come to thofe Precedents we have in our Englijh Hiftory, I fliall 
 give you fuch of them as I can remember. We read in the Reign of Edward IL 
 that when he fled from the Forces of his Wife and Son, who had feized the 
 Kingdom by Force, the King being deferted by his Soldiers and Followers, en- 
 deavoured to get into the Ifle of Lvndy for fafety ■-, but not being able to make 
 it, was driven back, and taken in difguife at the Abbey of Neath in Wales. 
 Isiow it is certain, that King Edward went away without appointing any Go- 
 vernour of the Realm in his abfence; and if this Notion of an Abdication 
 had been then taken for Law, the Parliament needed not to have been put to 
 their (hifts to find out fo many other matters for which to depofe him. The 
 next is the like cafe, of Edward IV. who when the Earl of Warwick had raifed 
 a great Army againft him on a fudden, and forced him to fly with a few 
 Followers to the Duke of Burgundy, his Brother-in-law, thoagh Henry VI. was 
 again put into the Throne i yet was it not objected againft King Edward, that 
 he had loft his Title to it, or that it was become vacant by his deferting it. 
 And if thefe two are not parallel Cafes, and do not reach the matter in 
 hand, I defire you to fliew me wherein they differ from the prefent Cafe of 
 the King. 
 
 But I am come now to the laft Claufc of all, That the Throne u thereby become 
 vacant, which feeming only to refer to the Claufe of Abdication, 1 thiuk 1 
 have faid enough already againft that Notion \ therefore we will admit at pre- 
 fent, for Difcourfe fake, that the King had really abdicated the Government, 
 by deferting the Kingdom, and thereby wholly loft his Regal Power. Now 
 according to the Fundamental Laws and Cuftoms of this Realm, which is, you 
 know, an Hereditary Monarchy, the cldeft Son, or other next Heir, either 
 Male or Female, immediately fucceeds the King his Father, or other Pfede- 
 ceflbr, and that without any Interregnum at all-, fo that the Reign of the Suc- 
 ceflbr immediately begins from the very moment the laft King or Queen de- 
 ceafes. This being the fettled Law, I cannot fee any one ftep the Convention 
 has made in their whole Proceeding that can be juftify'd by the Fundamental 
 Laws of the Land, or the Laws of Equity and Juftice ^ for Equity has no 
 quirks in it, and never lies at a catch : Reafon is always juft and generous, lb. p. 149- 
 it never makes Mens Misfortunes an Accufation, nor judges in favour of Vio- 
 lence ^ for indeed what can be more unrighteous (tho in the Cafe of a pri- 
 vate Pcrfon) than that any one (hould fuffer yet worfc for being injured, and 
 be barred his Rights for the Injuries of others? If a Man Ihould forfeit his 
 Houfe to thofe who fet it on fire, only becaufe he quitted it without giving 
 fome formal Direftions to the Servants, or be obliged to lofe his Eftate for 
 endeavouring to preferve his Life •, I believe it would be thought a ftrange piece 
 of Juftice in any Law whatever: and if this be proved illegal, the Title of 
 
 Ffff your
 
 586 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 your prefent King and Qpeen being wholly founded upon the Validity of this 
 Vote, will prove fo likewife. 
 
 F. Well, you have made a pretty long Difcourfe in defence of K'lagjamej's 
 Anions, as well as of his late Defertion, and I have heard you patiently, be- 
 caufe I grant you have put a great deal of matter in a few words ^ and I think all 
 that can be juftly urged in your King's defence. I (hall therefore begin with the 
 firft falfe ftep that you fay the Convention made, in not inquiring after the 
 Caufes of the King's departure, whither he was gone, and their not voting of 
 • an Addrefs to the Prince, todefire his Return. As for the firft of thefe, they 
 were not at all oblig'd to do it, fince a great many of the Peers and Bilhops, 
 and Members who were then in Town, very well knew the Caufes of the King's 
 Departure, and that he either went away voluntarily, or at leaft without any 
 other neceflity than what he had brought upon himfelf, by his own evil Govern- 
 ment, or the ill Counfel of others j which may be eafily prov'd by feveral Cir- 
 cumftances : for it is very well known, that above a Fortnight before the King 
 
 went away, the Lord D and Mr. Brent did not ftick to declare that it was 
 
 necedary the King (hould withdraw himfelf. So that it is plain the Popifh Fac- 
 tion 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 SaUshuryy w hich 
 can be yet produc'd : he was there told that it was the unanimous Advice of all 
 the Catholicks at London^ that he Ihould come back from thence, and withdraw 
 himfelf out of the Kingdom, and leave us in Co«/}(y?o« ; alluring him, that with- 
 in two years or lefs, we fhould be in fuch Gonfufions, that he might return and 
 have hu Ends of m. Now if the King was pleafed to take fuch a defperate 
 Counfellor's Advice, and thereupon do all he could to quit the Kingdom, the 
 Caufeof his going is too evident, as well as his defign of returning, to have hU 
 JLndi of ui (as they phrafe it) that is, in plain EngUfij to have both our Re- 
 ligion, Liberties, and Properties wholly at his difpofal. Islor in the next place 
 needed they inquire where he was, for every one knew he was gone into France^ 
 to the greateft Enemy of our Religion and Nation, as well as of the Prince ; and 
 therefore it had been altogether unfafe and indifcreet for them to have joined 
 in an Addrefs to the Prince for his return : for whilft he was in fuch hands, 
 what hopes could we have of his returning to us with better (but rather worfe) 
 AfTeftions towards the Church of England and this Nation, than what he carried 
 with him? 
 
 But you fay they refus'd to receive his Letters ^^ for my part I do not know 
 that he ever fent any, at leaft to the Houfe of Commons. 1 heard indeed, that 
 one of the King's ordinary Servants was at the Door of the Houfe with fuch 
 a Letter, but that he was fo inconfiderable, that no body would receive the 
 Letter, or make any mention of it in the Houfe : and it was very ftrange, 
 that the King (hould have never a Friend there, who had fo much Courage and 
 Kindnefs for him, as would take the Letter and move for the Reading of it, 
 tho he had run the rifque of being committed for his pains: fo that the 
 Houfe of Commons is not to be blamed for not receiving a Letter which was 
 never ofTer'd them. But as for the Houfe of Lords, I have been told it was 
 mov'd to be read there, but it was carried in the Negative, becaufe it was not 
 brought by a Perfon of fufficient Credit ■■, and therefore it was the King's fault 
 if he would imploy fuch mean Perfons in a matter of that great moment. And 
 indeed if we may give cr^it to thofe Copies of thefe Letters which I have 
 feen, they retain'd rather a Juftification of his paft Actions, than an Acknow- 
 ledgment of thofe Violations he had committed upon our Laws : for as to his 
 promifing to govern by Law, there is nothing in that, for he never yet own'd 
 that he govern'd otherwife. 'Tis true, there is in one of thofe Letters an Ex- 
 preiTion of his amending fafi Errors ; but thofe are general words, and may 
 mean fuch Errors, as he had committed in the ill management of his Defigns, 
 which he would have mended, whenever he was to do the like things again. 
 This may very well be the true Senfe of a Letter, it is very likely, written 
 with the Equivocation of the Jefuits, and Advice of a French Cabal. 
 
 But you would have him fent for, to return upon certain Terms: I wonder 
 you (hould be fo undutiful, as to urge it; fince if he is an abfolute King, with- ' 
 out any Conditions whatever, he ought certainly to be reftored, as King 
 Charles II. was, without any Terms or Conditions at all j and rather fo, than 
 
 with
 
 Dialogue the Eleventh 587 
 
 with them, fincc he cannot give us greater afTurances for his keeping them than 
 he has already broke, unlefs you can fuppofe, he would give us the Guaranty 
 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, 
 fuppofing the King and him to pafs his word for the Performance of thefe 
 Conditions, pray confider whether the Bond of two Bankrupts can ever pafs for 
 a good Security. And fo much for the Letters and Addrefs. 
 
 1 come now, in the next place, to confider your Exceptions againft that Fun- 
 damental Vote of the Houfe of Commons, concerning King Jamesh Abdication 
 of the Government, and thereupon declaring the Throne vacant. To begin 
 with your firft Exception, I think it is a very fmall one, that becaufe this Vote 
 declares the King to have endeavour'd to fubvertthe Conftitutionof this King- 
 dom, that it was very unjuft to declare him to have abdicated the Go- 
 vernment for a bare Endeavour^ becaufe we are ignorant of the true Ends 
 of the Aftions of Princes. To which 1 anfwer, that in this Cafe, a bare 
 Endeavour ought to be fufFicient •■, if it be fo evident, that there can be no 
 difpute about it: for if he had once actually fubverted it, the two Houfes could 
 never have met to have made this Vote •, and if in the cafe of Kings, the very 
 bare Defign or Endeavour to deftroy them be fufficient, tho it be never reduc'd 
 into Aft, I cannot fee why by the fame Rule the endeavours of Kings tode- 
 Itroy the fundamental Conftitution of a mixt or limited Kingdom fhould not 
 have the like Conftruction in refped of them : fince according to the Maxim 
 you but now cited (and which 1 have fufficiently juftilied) that in all fuch Go- 
 vernments, the Safety and Prefervation of the People (that is, of the Govern- 
 ment they have eftablifh'd) is to be prefer'd before that of the King alone, 
 when afting in a diredi Oppofition thereunto^ or otherwife, it would be ia 
 the King's power to deftroy the Conftitution whenever he pleas'd: fince 
 according to your Doftrine, the bare endeavouring it would be nothing j 
 and after he had once brought it to pafs, it would be then too late to re- 
 trieve it. 
 
 But that the King did really endeavour thus to fubvert the fundamental Con- 
 ftitution, appears not only by his clofeting and threatning Members to turn 
 them out of their Places, if they would not fubmit to his Will in taking off the 
 Penal Laws about Religion, whereby all Freedom of Voting would have been 
 quite taken away : but when the King faw this would not do, he then fell 
 a new modelling of Corporations, and by bringing Quo Warranto' s againft their 
 Charters, to get it into his own power to nominate, or approve of all Mayors, 
 Aldermen, and Common Council Men, who in thofe Corporations having the 
 fole Eieftions of Parliament-Men, he would thereby have had the naming ot 
 them alfo in his power. Your next Exception is againft their declaring him to 
 have broke the Original Contraft between the King and the People •■, for that you 
 are not yet perfuaded there was any fuch thing, becaufe we cannot (hew it you 
 in-any Common-Law or Statute-Book, written in exprefs words. As for the 
 Statute-Law, I grant there is no fuch exprefs Contraft to be found in any 
 Statute i yet doth it not therefore follow, that there is no fuch Contraft by 
 the antient Common-Law of the Kingdom. Mow that our fundamental Laws 
 arc not all to be found in Writing is no wonder-, fince it is a Maxim of our 
 Common-Law, that it was not a Law, becaufe it was written, but it was 
 written becaufe it was a Law •, for it was a Law when it was only in the Brcaft 
 and Heads of the King and People of this Nation, without any writing at all : 
 and you your felf muft grant, that if the Hereditary SuccefFion to the Crown 
 be a fundamental Conftitution, it is notwithftanding no where to be found in 
 Writings as I know of, but the contrary is alTerted by divers Afts of Parliament. 
 But that there is fuch a thing as an Original Contraft, I (hall prove from fuch 
 a ncceffary Confequence as I think cannot be denied : for as that Statute of King 
 Jamet L fets forth (which I have now cited) and your felf have already ac- 
 knowledged, there are fuch things as fundamental Laws (that is. Laws that 
 are as antient as the Conftitution of the Government) there muft have been 
 alfo an implicit fundamental Covenant or Contraft on the King's part, that 
 he would maintain them without any Violation -, and this is that we mean by 
 an Original Contraft. And if it were not fo, it ha<l been the moft foolifh and 
 unreafonable thing in the World to require every King to fwear before be 
 
 Ffffi was
 
 588 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTlCA. 
 
 was ciowu'd, that he would maintain the Rights of the Church, and the an- 
 tient Laws and Cuftoms of the Kingdom. And that this was antiently look'd 
 upon as a renewal of this Original Contraft, appears by all ourantient Hifto- 
 rians, who till the Reign of King Edw-l. never give the next Heir the Title 
 of King, but of Duke of Normandy^ till he was adually crown'd, and had taken 
 his Coronation-Oath : and for this I defire you would confult all our antient 
 Hiftorians fince your Conquelt, beginning with Ingulf a.ad Eadmerus, and ending 
 with Tho. Walfingham. 
 
 But as for your Exception againfl: his violating of the fundamental Law, it is 
 yet more trivial : for you cannot deny that there are fuch things j and if fo, 
 furely a King may violate them if he pleafes : and therefore your excufe 
 for the King's Breach of them, becaufe they are not to be found together in any 
 one place, but are to be pick'd up here and there from Magna Chan a^ and 
 other Statutes, makes nothing againfl: the validity or the pofTibiiicy of his know- 
 ing them : for as before they were reduc'd to Writing by thofe Statutes (which 
 only declare and confirm the antient Common Laws and Liberties of England) 
 they exifted (as I faid but nowj in the Heads and Hearts of the King and Peo- 
 ple ; fo when divers Kings of England by their tyrannical and illegal Praftices 
 had made divers Violations of thefe fundamental Rights and Privileges, there 
 then grew a necelTityof new granting and confirming thofe Liberties, andcon- 
 fequently of reducing them into Writing, which there was not before. And that 
 is che true Reafon why Magna Charta., and other Statutes, made in the time of 
 Henry 111. Edw. 1- and divers others of their Succeflors, were made either for 
 their Explanation, or Ratification, according as occafion requir'd ■■, and as feveral 
 Princes had moreorlefs violated thefe fundamental Laws of the Government : 
 for before they had fo done, there was no need of the Parliament's making, or 
 declaring any Law about it. But if the King would have but read and confi- 
 dered the Articles exhibited in Parliament againfl; Edward and Richard II. he 
 might eafily havefeen the Laws all together, that will make a Prince to be de- 
 clar'd by his Subjeds to have forfeited his Crown. 
 
 But that King James had before his Defertion endeavour'd to extirpate the 
 Proteftant Religion, the Laws and Liberties of the Nation, appears by thofe 
 feveral Articles the Convention has given us in their late Declaration, which 
 ( they prefented to King William upon their declaring him and his Princeis King 
 and Queen of England^ and to which 1 Ihall refer you, fince it is commonly to be 
 had : you know it confifts in the recital of divers things, the Violation of which 
 has been always counted in all Kings Reigns a Breach of the Original Contraft. 
 
 1 come now to the laft: Claufe fave one you except againfl:, viz.. ' That ha- 
 
 • ving withdrawn himfelf out of the Kingdom, he hath abdicated the Govern- 
 
 * ment.' Kow your main Argument agaiiift it is. That the King's Defertion 
 of the Government being only for fear of his Lite, or of being depos'd from 
 his Royal Dignity, he couid not by his going away be faid to abdicate or renounce 
 the Crown, fince he went away with an intention to return, and repoflefs it as 
 foon as with fafety he might. To which before 1 make any anfwer, I mufl: 
 freely own, that were this the Cafe as you have put it, 1 think there would be 
 no great difpute about it j fince 1 grant that a King who is thus forc'd to fly for 
 fear of his Life, ought not to have any fuch Injuftice put upon him. But if 
 you pleafe better to confider it, the Cafe was quite otherwife : for I have 
 already prov'd that when ¥Angjames^x&. went away, he had then an Army 
 about him, was free, and in his own Palace, and was at that time in adtual 
 Treaty with the Prince; nor had London^ nor any confiderable ftrong Place in 
 England then furrender'd it felf to the Prince: fo that if there was any ne- 
 ceflity for his Departure, but what he had brought upon himfelf by his re- 
 fufing to call a Parliament, burning the Writs, and fending av/ay the Queen 
 and Child, together with the main Inftrument of Government, the Great Seal 
 of England \ this mufl: certainly be look'd upon as a wilful Forfeiture or Abdi- 
 cation of the Government : and it is from this firfl: going away, that 1 fuppofe 
 the Convention dates his Abdication. And tho it is true, after his return 
 to London he took upon him to make an Order in Council to flop the further 
 pulling down and plundering PopifliChappels, and PapiftsHoufesj yet was it 
 lign'd by very few of the» Council, and almofl: only by thofe who had been in 
 fome Olfjce or Place of Truft : fo that tho he was then own'd by them, yet 
 
 fince
 
 Dialogue the Eleventh. 589 
 
 fince that Order did only ferve to (hew his Zeal for the Popilh Party, and was 
 never obeyed or taken notice of by thofe to whom it was direfted •, and that 
 neither the Prince nor the City of Z-(»»^o» owned him afterwards, fince it had 
 already delivered it felf up to the Prince, and had as well as the Peers invited 
 him to repair to that City \ I cannot fee that fo llight an Aft, as this Order 
 of Council, fhould be counted a Return to, or a Re-eftablifhment in the 
 Throne: fince the King had not only loft the Crown by his wilful Departure, 
 without calling a Parliament, or giving the Prince any fatisfadion in the great 
 Bufinefs of the pretended Prince of WaUs^ or the Nation, by repairing 
 thofe defperate Breaches he had made upon our fundamental Laws ; but had 
 alfo loft his Title to the Crown, by being conquer'd by the Prince in open 
 War, as I fhall prove more at large another time. So that if you pleafe better 
 to confider this Vote of the Convention, you will find that thefe words, h:td 
 abdicated the Government^ do not only refer to the laft Claufe of his having 
 withdrawn himfelf out of the Kingdom, but to every one of the foregoing 
 Claufes, viz.. " His having endeavour'd to fubvert the Conftitution of this 
 " Kingdom, his breaking the Original Contraft, and his having violated the 
 *■<■ fundamental Laws." So that it is plain, their notion of Abdication was 
 not fixed only in the King's Defertion, or bare withdrawing himfelf out of 
 the Kingdom, but from his renouncing the legal Title by which he held the 
 Crown, and fetting himfelf up as a defpotick Sovereign, and ruling by a mer- 
 cenary Army : and therefore all that you have faid about the King's quitting 
 the Government with a defign to return to it again, as foon as with fafety 
 he might, is altogether vain ^ for as he went away becaufe he would not go- 
 vern any longer as a King by Law, fohath he yet given us no fatisfadion tliat 
 he would not return again to govern worfe than he did before, had he an op- 
 portunity fo to do J that is (as the Letter I cited but now phrafes it) to return^ 
 and have his Ends of ms. So that this being indeed the Cafe, I think 1 can very 
 well juftify the laft Claufe in this Vote, that the Throne was thereby vacant. 
 
 M. Sir, you have fpoke a confiderable time, and I doubt more than I can 
 diftindly remember to anfwer as I fliould : therefore before you proceed to this 
 laft Claufe of the Vacancy of the Throne, the Difpute about which I forefee 
 may hold longer than upon any of the former ^ pray give me leave to reply 
 to what you have already faid in juftification of all the other Parts of this 
 Vote. In thefirft place I will not deny, but that if the King had once got the 
 power of making Mayors, Aldermen, and cother Officers in Corporations 
 at his pleafure, it would have gone a great way towards the making the Majo- 
 . rity of the Parliament-men \ nay, I likewife grant, that by his difpenfing 
 Power he might have made what Papifts, or other Perfons he pleafed, SherifTs in 
 any County, who might have made fuch return of Knights of Shires as he (hould 
 have thought fit : yet I fuppofe this would not have been to the Subverfion of 
 the Conftitution of the Kingdom, which I think I have proved to confift ori- 
 ginally in the King alone, before any great Councils or Parliaments were infti- 
 tuted. 
 
 And as for thofe Violations of the fundamental Laws and Liberties of this 
 Kingdom the Declaration inftances in, I think feveral of them may very well 
 be juftified by antient Precedents and adjudged Cafes in Law j and therefore 
 were fo far from being Violations, that they arc no more than the King's excr- 
 cifing of his due Prerogative. And tho at our ninth Meeting I had not time fo 
 well to confider thefe Matters, as alfo becaufe I was not then prepared to de- 
 fend the King's Proceedings, I fhall therefore make bold to examine the moft 
 confiderable of thofe Articles, which the late Declaration fuppofcs did fo high- 
 ly tend to fubvert the Proteftant Religion, and the Laws and Liberties of this 
 Kingdom. I fhall begin with the firft, viz.. " His aflTuming and exercifing a 
 *' Power of difpenfing with, and fufpending the execution of Laws, without 
 '* Confentof Parliament." Which Power, let me tell you by the way, was not 
 afTerted todifpenfe with all Laws or Statutes whatfoever, but only ilich as the 
 Subjed has no particular Caufe of Adion in, and where the Damage that may 
 arife by it doth not concern the publick Safety, of which the King is fole Judge, 
 and not any particular Man's Intereft. I fuppofe you cannot but have read that 
 learned and (hort acconnt of the Authorities in Law, upon which Judgment 
 waseiveu in Sir Edrvard Hales'sdk, written by Sir Edward Herbert , Lord 
 
 Chief
 
 590 SiBLIOTHECA PoLITlCA. 
 
 Cliief Julliceof the Common Pleas, in vindication of himfelf ; wherein I think 
 he proves beyond any pofTibility of a juft Anfwer, that the Difpenfatioa 
 
 Pag. 6,7. granted to Sir £</iiirfr<//yrf/f/ to receive a Comminion, and aft as a Colonel of 
 Foot, was good, notwithftanding his not having received the Sacrament, 
 and taken the Oaths and Tell appointed by the Statute of the 25th of 
 
 cliap. 2. Charles II. where he firfl; proves from my Lord Coke\ Authority, that it be- 
 longs to the King's Prerogative todifpenfe with all pofitive or penal Laws, the 
 Penalty whereof is only popular and given to the King. And to (hew you that 
 my Lord Ceke (who was never counted any great Friend to the King's Prero- 
 
 Fol. II, 12. gative) was not fingle in this Opinion, he gives you alfo the Authority of the 
 Year-Bookof Henry the Vllth, where it was owned by all the Judges, " That 
 *' the King can difpenfe with all things which are only Mala Prohibitay and not 
 *' Mala in fe, tho exprcfly forbid by Aft of Parliament i for tho (fays the 
 " Year-Book) before the Statute, coining of Mony was lawful, but now it is 
 " not fo, yet the King can difpenfe with it." So that, fay I, if he can dif- 
 penfe with that which is now made Treafon by Edward 111. he may certainly 
 difpenfe with all other penal Statutes of a lefs nature. 
 
 But becaufe I grant there is fome Difference between common penal Laws, 
 which barely prohibit the doing of fome things under a Penalty ; and this Aft, 
 in which there is alfo an exprefs Claufe of Non-obflante., that all Licences or 
 Difpenfations, contrary to this Aft, are declared abfolutely void: yet the faid 
 Lord Chief Juftice Ilkewife proves, that this Claufe of Non-obftavte is void j 
 and he makes this out, not only from conftant Praftice in other Statutes of 
 like nature, but alfo from the Opinions of Plorvden, and the faid Lord Coke. 
 
 Chap. 8. I. As to the Statutes, " There is a Statute of the 23d of HemyV\. that no 
 *' Man fhall be Sheriff for above a Year. 2. That all Letters Patents, made 
 ** for Years or Lives, fhall be void. 3. That xio Non-objiante 9[\z\\ make them 
 *' good (which fhews that the Parliament thought the King could otherwife 
 " have difpenfed with this Aft by a Non-obftante.) There is likewife in this 
 ** Aft a Penalty of 200 /. and the Party is alfo difabled from bearing the OfBce 
 ** of Sheriff in any County of England^ and alfo every Pardon for fuch Offence 
 *' fhall be void." So that in all refpefts this Statute anfwers that of K. Charles 
 the Second now in difpute, only in this the Penalty to the Profecutor is higher, 
 'Viz.. 500 /. and the Difability is not only from holding that Office, but any o-. 
 ther whatfoever for the future. 
 
 Vid. the rear- And yet it wasrefolved by all the Judges of England, in the fecond of //Irw- 
 
 t'"'m ^^'^' ^y ^'I- itti the Exchequer-Chamber^ upon the King's Power of difpenfing with 
 • ^' this Statute of the 23d of Henry VI. that the King's Difpenfation with that 
 
 Statute was good ; and fo it hath been held ever fince : for it is very well 
 known that the King hath not only exercifed this Prerogative of difpenfing 
 with this Statute, for divers Sheriffs holding more than a Year, but hath alfo 
 granted this Office for Life, as appears by the fame Cafe cited by Plorvden (in 
 his Commentaries^ between Gretidon and the Bifhop of Lincoln, where he exprelly 
 
 Pag. 502. fays, " That notwithftanding this Statute of HenryVl. the King's Grant to 
 " the Earl of Northumberland to be Sheriff during Life, ought to have a 
 *' Claufe of Non-obftante, becaufe of the precife words of the Statute before- 
 " mentioned i and with fuch a Claufe of Non-obftante the Patent to the Earl 
 " was good." 
 
 Pag. 18. But yet my Lord Co;5f is more exprefs in his Opinion concerning thefe Dif- 
 
 penfations • for in his twelfth Report he has thefe words : " No Aft can bind 
 " the King from any Prerogative, which is fole and infeparable to his Perfon, 
 " but that he may difpenfe with it by a Non-ebftante, as a Sovereign Power to 
 " command any of his Subjefts to ferve him for the publick Weal : and this 
 '* folely and infeparably is annexed to his Perfon. And this Royal Power can- 
 *' not be reftrained by any Aft of Parliament, neither in Theft, nor in H^o- 
 " theft, but that the King by his Royal Prerogative may difpenfe with it i for 
 ** upon the Commandment of the King, and Obedience of the Subjeft, does his 
 " Government confift." And therefore for this reafon he allows this Judg- 
 ment of all the Juftices in England, in the 2d of Henry VII. to have been ac- 
 cording to Law, that judged the King's Difpenfation, with this Statute of 
 Henry V], to be good ; and he alfo inftances in another Statute, in the 4th of 
 
 chap. 31. Henry IV. in which it is ordained, " That no Weljhman fhould be Juftice, Cham- 
 berlain,
 
 IC 
 
 Dialogue the Eleventh 591 
 
 " berlain, &c. nor any other Officer whatfoever, in any part of Walesj not- 
 " withftanding any Patent made to the contrary, with Claufe of Non-ohjiante 
 licet (itWallicus natus:" and yet without queftion the King may now grant 
 thofe Offices to Wel^imen with iNon-obftunte. And the faid Lord Coke^ in Cal- 
 vin % Cafe, tells us, " That the fame was refolved by all the Judges of £«f-Rep. VII. f. 
 *' land^ (viz.. in the id of Henry VII.) that every Subjed is by his natural Al-14. 
 *' legiance bound to ferve and obey his Sovereign, g^c." And he then proceeds 
 to recite the Statute of the 23d of Henry VI. and the Opinion of the Judges a- 
 bovc-mentioned, and gives us this Reafon for it, for that the Ad could not 
 bar the King of the Service of hisSubjeft which the Law of Nature did give 
 unto him. This is there reported as the Senfe of all the Judges of England ia 
 King J^OTfA time j and therefore fince this has been ever the Opinion of the 
 judges, and a conftant Prerogative exercifed by the King ever fince, 1 defire 
 you would fhew me any Difference, why the King's Difpenfation to a Sheriff 
 fhould be good for the holding of his Office for above a Year, notwithftanding 
 the Statute of Henry VI. and yet a Difpenfation for the taking or holding any 
 Office or Command Civil or Military, without taking the Oaths and Lefts 
 appointed by the 25th of Charles II. fhould be declared a Breach of our funda- 
 mental Laws : for I can fee no manner of difference between them, fince their 
 Preambles fet forth the Defigns of the Law much to the fame purpofe, viz.. 
 *' That of making the Statute of Henry VI. is the infupportable Damage of 
 ** the King and his People, Perjury, Manflaughter, and great Oppreffion." 
 And in the Statute of King Charles 11. the Mifchiefs recited are of a much lefs 
 nature, viz.. '* For preventing Dangers which may happen from Popifh Re- 
 " cufants, and quieting the Minds of his Majefty's good Subjefts." So that 
 the Subjeft of neither of thefe Ads being A^ata in fe, but only Mala frohibita^ 
 if the King might difpenfe with the one, he may certainly do as much with 
 the other for the fame reafon. 
 
 Therefore if this be fo, I need not fay much againfl: the fccond Article in 
 the Declaration of the Convention againft the King's Proceedings, viz.. " His 
 *' committing and profecuting divers worthy Prelates, for humbly petition- 
 *' ing to be excufed from concurring to the faid afTumed Power." For if by 
 the Opinion of all, or moft part of the then Judges, the King's Power of dif^ 
 penfingwith this Statute of King Charles U. was good, it was certainly much 
 more lawful in difpenfing withall other Statutes againft Papifts ani Noncon- 
 formifts, fince they are no more than bare penal Statutes, without any Claufes 
 of Non-obftante. And tho I grant that King CW/ci's Declaration giving a To- 
 leration to Papifts and DifFenters, by difpenfing with all the Afts againft Malfes 
 and Conventicles, were declared illegal by the Houfe of Commons in the 
 year 1672. and that the King, to get a good Sum of Mony, did recal that 
 Declaration j yet it was never declared by him to be illegal, only that it fhould 
 not be drawn into confequence for the future: and you know an Addrefs or 
 Declaration of the Houfe of Commons alone, was never looked upon as a 
 Declaration of the whole Parliament. And the Opinion of the Judges hath 
 ever been, that no Statute or Judgment of Parliament can bar the King of his 
 lawful Prerogatives (of which this of difpenfing with fuch penal Laws is one) 
 fo that it was certainly very undutifully done of the Bifliops, not only to deny 
 diftributing his Majefty's late Declaration for Liberty of Confcience in their fe- 
 vcral DiocefFes, butalfoto have the Confidence to give him a Petition, where- 
 in they defir'd him not to inlift upon the Diftribution and Reading of it, be- 
 caufe it was againft Law : tho admit it were, being no way contrary to the 
 Law of God, they ought to have obeyed it, fince their bare diftributing of 
 it had not rendered it the more lawful. So that it being a great Mi fc\emea nor 
 in thefe Bilhops to deliver this Petition, their Commitment and Profecution at 
 Law for the fame was alfo legal, and what the Privy Council told his Majefty 
 he might well juftify : fo that if the King was too fevere in this matter, they 
 were to bear the blame, and not he. 
 
 F. I cannot deny but you have given a juft account of the main Arguments 
 made ufe of by the late l,ord Chief Juftice Herbert^ in defence of the King's 
 difpenfing Power, and of giving his own Opinion for it ^ but I think, not- 
 withftanding all that Gentleman has written in defence of it, the King's De- 
 claration of Indulgence, and his Difpenfation grounded thereupon, to be both 
 
 of
 
 592 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITl C.A. 
 
 J. H.c. p. 33. of them void and contrary to Law : and for proof of this, I fliall firfl; give 
 
 L. 6. c. 14. you the opinion both of Divines and Civilians, concerning this matter. As 
 
 Difp. i,2.c. 2. firft Saarez.., in his Learned Book de Legihusy faith, " That he hath the 
 
 " Power of Difpenfing, qui legem tuUt^ quia ab ejus voluntate & fotentia fendat^\ 
 
 But Fafques another Learned Spanijh Cafuift: holds, that no Prince whatever 
 
 hath a Power to difpenfe with his Laws according to his Pleafure, or be- 
 
 caufe that they are his Laws : nay, he alfo denies fuch an unlawful Difpen- 
 
 fation to be valid. But to come to thofe of your own Faculty, H. Grotim fays 
 
 De5rquit.Ind. exprefly, Difpenfare^ hoc eft, lege folvere., is foltts potefi qui ferend<e ahrogandaque 
 
 cap. 2. legii potejftatem habet. Pujfendorf affirms, " That none can difpenfe with a 
 
 De Jure Nat. ic Law, but fuch as have the power of making it." And the very Reafon of 
 
 L i/c'.'d!' ^^^ "^hing fufficiently Ihews it, for to difpenfe is to take away the Obligation of 
 
 the Law in refped of them to whom it was granted ^ and whoever takes it a- 
 
 way, muft have the power of laying it on, and there is no difference between 
 
 the Difpenfation of a Law, and the Abrogation of it : but a Difpenfition 
 
 is an Abrogation of it to particular Perfons, while others are under the Force 
 
 of it j and an Abrogation is a general Difpenfation, that being no more thaa 
 
 a Relaxation of the whole Law, to thofe Perfons who were bound by it before. 
 
 Therefore if the King have not the whole Legiflative Power of this Kingdom 
 
 (as 1 think I have already proved he has not) he neither can have the fole Power 
 
 of difpenfing with Laws. 
 
 But to anfwer your main Argument, that the conftant Praftice hath been 
 other wife for the fpace of above 200 Years, and that confirm'd by the Judgment 
 and Opinions of all the Judges, and molt confiderable Lawyers in England 
 ever fince that time : to anfwer this 1 fay, it is neceflary, that 1 give you a 
 o. E. J. pa". ^^^^ Hiftory of the difpenfing Power, and the Original of Difpenfatioqs, 
 66. & dein.^ vvith Non-obftantes, which are fo tar from being as old as your Conqueft, that 
 \'\A.Mat.Piir.i\-\Q firfl: News we hear of them, is from Mat. Paris ■■, who exprefly tells us, 
 p. 810, 811. they were firft introduc'd by the Pope, and were afterwards inferted into the 
 s'i's ib'icf'^' ^'"S's Patents and Proteftions, in imitation of them, by King^*«ry HI, fo 
 854 87V. ^ t'^^y ^^""^ never made ufe of by any of our Kings to elude Afts of Parliament, 
 till after the Statute o{ Mortmain^ which was made in the feventh of Edward U 
 Which (irft Attempt muft needs be illegal, becaufe contrary to Magna Charta^ 
 Ch. 36. which is the firft Law which prohibits Alienations in Mortmain ; and 
 was not only fworn to when enadVed, but is alfo confirmed by many after Ads 
 of Parliament, and order'd to beobferv'd in all points : infomuch that when 
 the Clergy petition'd King Edward I. for a Relaxation of this Statute of Mort- 
 main, his anfwer was, that he could not do it, becaufe it was enafted Com- 
 Hcn, Knigh- muni Conftlio Magnatum fuorum, C^ fine eorum conjilio non erat revocandum. And 
 ion, p. 2502. I grant that fuch was the mifguided Devotion of thofe Times, that fuch A^o«- 
 m Dec. Scrip, obftantes were often obtained, as appears by the Patent and Charter-Rolls in the 
 Tower, from the eighth of Edwardl. downwards, abounding with fpecial Li- 
 cences to purchafe and hold Lands, &c. Statute de terris & tenementis in manum 
 mortuum non ponendis non obftante. And yet were not thefe Licences accounted 
 legal, or the Clergy fafe in purchafing fuch Lands, Rents, Advowfons, &c. 
 by virtue of them, till it wasenadedand ordained in Parliament in the eighth 
 Chap. 3. of Edward HI. to this effeft J " That if Prelates or other Religious People 
 *' have purchafed Lands, and the fame have put to Mortmain, and be impeach'd 
 " upon the fame before our Juftices, and they fhew our Charter of Licence, 
 " and Procefs thereupon, by an Inqueft of ad quod damnum, or of our Grace, 
 ** or by Fine, they (hall be freely left in peace, without being further im- 
 " peach'd for the fame Purchafe, <^c." But Non-ebftantes with the Statute of 
 Mortmain having been introduc'd, as aforefaid, tho undeniably illegal at 
 firft, ana gaining afterwards a Countenance from this Aft of Parliament, have 
 I fuppofe given occafion to the difpenfing with other Afts of Parliament alfo, 
 tho at firft they were very rare, and feldom occur in the old Books, but are 
 more frequent in the new ; and that our Judges and Courts of Juftice have 
 invented little Diftindions betwixt Malum in fe, and Malum prohibitum, be- 
 twixt Laws made pro bono publico, and Laws of more private regard j betwixt 
 Laws in which the King's Profit and Intereft is concerned only, and Laws in 
 which the Subjeds have an Intereft, and are intitled to an Adion as the Party 
 grieved: yet the Cafes that have hitherto come before them judicially, have 
 
 been
 
 Dialogue the Eleventh. 592 
 
 been Queftions upon Difpcnfations granted to particular Perfons, to exempt 
 them, fro hie & nunc, from incurring the Penalty of fuch and fuch a Law ; but 
 a Difpenfation and Sufpenfionof fo many Laws at a lump (as the late Decla- 
 ration of Indulgence did take upon it to do) has been fo far from receiving 
 any countenance from Courts of Juflice hitherto, that it has always been a fa- 
 tal Objeftion againft any particular Difpenfation of it j it was fuch as confe- 
 quently eluded and fruftrated the whole Law, for that fuch a Difpenfation is 
 in efTeft a Repeal of the Law it felf : And therefore in that great Cafe of Tho- 
 mas and Sorrel j in the Lord r^a^fc^w's Reports, where Difpenfations with penal 
 Statutes are in fome Cafes allowed ■■, yet it was then agreed by all the Judges, 
 that the King had no power to fufpend a Law for ever. 
 
 But to let you fee how jealous the Parliament, and in particular the Houfe 
 of Commons, have ever been of trufting the King with an unlimited power 
 of difpenfing with penal Statutes, with Non-ohftantes, appears alfo by feveral 
 other Laws of great moment, and in particular from the Statutes of Provtfors 
 and Pramunire •■, and I could fhew you from divers Records of Parliament, in 
 the Reigns of Richard II. Henry IV. and Henry V. that they never intrufted the 
 Crown with an jbfolute power of difpenfing with thofe Statutes but only for 
 a time, as till the next Parliament or longer, as they thought fit. But fmce I 
 have not now fo much time to give you fo many Precedents at length, I Ihall 
 only tell you, that as to the main Inftance you rely upon, viz.. the King's 
 difpenfing with the Statute of Sheriffs, at firll it was not taken for Law, as 
 appears by feveral Afts of Parliament, as in the 28th of HenryW. whereby 
 thofe Sheriffs that had held their Offices for more than a year are pardon'd : 
 likewife in the Aft of Edward IV, there is a like Statute pardoning thofe 
 Sheriffs, " who by reafon of the late Troubles in the Realm, had held for 
 *' above a year •," yet neverthelefs it confirms all former Afts concerning 
 Sheriffs for the time to come. And this held as far as the 6th of Henry VIU. 
 which is long after the Judgment you mention in the Exchequer-Chamber, of 
 all the Juftices in England to the contrary : for there was then an Aft made, 
 *' which reciting all the former Statutes about Sheriffs as then in full force, ic 
 ** cnafts that the Sheriffs and Under-Sheriffs of the City of Brifiol, may con- 
 " tinue to occupy their Offices, in like manner as the Under-Sheriffs, and o- 
 *' ther Sheriffs Officers in London do, without any Penalty or Forfeiture for 
 *' the fame, the faid Afts or any other Afts to the contrary notwithftanding." 
 From all which Statutes 1 think it fufnciently appears, that neither the She- 
 riffs of thofe times, nor the City of Brifiol, nor the whole Parliament, when 
 that Aft was made, did believe the King had power to difpenfe with the Aft 
 of the 25th of HenryWl. concerning Sheriffs j for if they had, certainly it had 
 been much eafier and cheaper for them to have obtained the King's Difpenfa- 
 tion, than to have got an Aft of Parliament for it. 
 
 M. I believe you may have cited thefe Statutes right enough, but yet 1 think 
 they are notfufEcient proof againft fo folemn an Opinion, as that of all the 
 Judges in the Exchequer-Chamber, 2d oi Henry Wl. And whatever the Par- 
 liament might have declared in the cafe of this or that particular Statute, I 
 confefs carries fome Authority with it ^ yet ought it not to be countervaled by 
 fo folemn a Judgment as that of a.11 the Judges and Lawyers of England, toge- 
 ther with the King's conftant Exercifc of this Prerogative, not only fince, but 
 before that time, and that without any Queftion or Difpute with the Parlia- 
 ment about it •, as in the Cafe 1 have already put of the Statute, that forbids 
 any WelJItman being an Officer in [Vales. To which I may add divers other Ca- 
 fes of the like nature, fuel) as the Statute againft a Judg's going the Circuit in 
 his own County, as alfo thofe Statutes that prohibit the King from granting 
 Pardons to Perfons convift, nay condemned for Murder, with feveral other pe- 
 nal Statutes 1 could name : for tho the King's hands are tied up by particular 
 Claufes of Non-obfiante, yet has his Majcfty, and his Predeccflbrs, at all times 
 excrcifed their Prerogative of difpenfing in all thofe Cafes, notwithftanding 
 thofe Afts of Parliament, with Non-ohftantes to the contrary. And tho I 
 grant you have given me feveral Precedents of the Parliament's fometimcs re- 
 ftraining the King in this Exercifc of the difpenfing Power \ yet they are all, 
 or the greateft part of them, before the beginning of Henry Vll's Reign, 
 when I grant the Law firft began to be fettled in this matter. And fince the 
 
 G g g g Judgment
 
 594 
 
 filBLIOTHECA PoLlTlCA. 
 
 Judgment of all the Judges in the Exchequer- Chamber is the only Rule of 
 Law we can have in the Intervals of Parliament, and this Cafe of Difpen- 
 fations being by them adjudged, and ever fince fettled and owned for Law, 
 without the leaft Difpute, I can fee no reafon we have to queftion it now. 
 
 But as for the Statute of the 6th of Henry VIU. which you urge as a Prece- 
 dent to the contrary fince the Reign of Henry V II. I think it will not reach 
 the Point in queftion : for the Aft you now cited feems to me no more than 
 a private Aft for the Sheriffs of Brifiol alone, who being it feems afraid to 
 rely upon the King's Difpenfations, becaufe they thought them too chargeable 
 to be taken out as often as they (hould have need of them, did think it a great 
 deal lefs Charge and Trouble to pafs an Act of Parliament to indemnify them- 
 felvcs, which I grant put that matter beyond all difpute. But fince this Aft 
 of Henry VIII. I find no Conteft between the Parliament and the King about 
 his Power of difpenfing with penal Laws, till the Reign of King Charles II. 
 when I grant the Houfe of Commons did addrefs his Majefty, that penal Sta- 
 tutes, in Matters Ecclefiaftical, cannot befufpended but by Aft of Parlia- 
 ment ^ as alfo the laft Addrefs of the Houfe of Commons in 1685. againft 
 the Kind's difpenfing with the Officers of the Army, their holding Employ- 
 ments without taking the Oaths and Teft according to the Aft, whereby they 
 were appointed. But thefe being only againft the King's Power of difpenfing 
 with Laws Ecclefiaftical, as concerning Liberty of Confcience, can noways be 
 extended to their excepting againft the King's Power of difpenfing with divers 
 other penal Laws (1 will not fay all) which hdive Non-obftantes in them. 
 
 F. Since 1 fee not only your Opinion, but alfo that of moft of the Judges 
 and Lawyers of Etighnd., concerning this matter of the King's Difpenfations 
 with penal Laws, has been chiefly (if not only) founded upon that Opinion of 
 all the Judges in King //wry VII's time, give me leave to examine the validity 
 of that Judgment j for if that can be proved not to have been according to 
 Law, or elfe never given at all, I fuppofe you muft grant that my Lord Coke^ 
 and all others who have founded their Opinion upon this adjudged Caufe of 
 Henry VII. were miftaken. 
 J. E.C /.43. Now pray give me leave to argue a little with you in point of Reafon: If 
 a Non-obftante from the King be good, when by Aft of Parliament a Non-oh- 
 ftante is declared void, what doth an Aft of Parliament Cgnify in fuch a Cafe ? 
 Muft we fay it isa void Claufe? But then to what purpofe was it put in ? Did 
 the Lords and Commons, who drew this Aft of the 23d of Henry VX, as alfo 
 thofe Afts concerning Sheriffs, underftand this Claufe of Ncn-obfiante to be 
 void when they put it in? If it were fo, and contrary to the King's Preroga- 
 tive, why did the King pafs this Aft without any Refufal or Proteftation a- 
 gainft it ? Certainly it was then thought otherwife, and if fo, we have the 
 Authority of the twoHoufesof Parliament againft the Opinion of the Judges. 
 But if it were not a void Claufe then, how came it to be fo afterwards ? Pray 
 fay what Alteration has been made in the Laws of England by Aft of Parlia- 
 ment as to this Point, fince the time that thefe Afts have been made j for if 
 not, how comes a Claufe that had force in 23 Henry VI. to have none in 2 Hen- 
 ry VII ? Could the twelve Judges in the Exchequer- Chamber, by giving their 
 Opinions, deftroy the force of an Aft of Parliament ? 
 
 M. I do not fay they can, only I affirm with my Lord Coh., and all the 
 Judges, " That no Aft can bind the King from any Prerogative which is infe- 
 " parable from his Royal Perfon, but he may difpenfe with it by a new Obfian- 
 " rf, as a Sovereign Power to command any of his Subjefts to ferve him for 
 " the publick Weal." Kor can this Royal Power be reftrain'd by any Aft of 
 Parliament: And upon this ground it is that my Lord Coke^ in the 12th Re- 
 port (from whence I have taken this Conclufion) maintains, that fuch Dif- 
 penfations made by Sheriffs are good •■, and upon the fame ground the Difpen- 
 fation lately granted by the King to S'lv Edward Hales, and all other Popifh Of- 
 ficers and Miaifters, as well Civil as Military, muft be alfo good. 
 
 F. But admit I fhew you that there was never any fuch Judgment in the 
 Exchequer-Chamber, in the 2d of Henry VU. as my Lord Coke and late Lord 
 Chief Juftice Herbert fuppofe ; will it not then follow, that all their Argu- 
 ments, that are wholly founded upon this Statute, will fall to the ground ? 
 
 M. Yes,
 
 Dialogue the Eleventh. 595 
 
 M. Yes, indeeJ, that will be fomething ■■, but how will you prove that ? 
 Cm you believe fo many learned Judges Ihould be miflraken in this matter, 
 and thofe of your Opinion only (hould make this Difcovery ? 
 
 F. 1 do not delire you (hould believe me, hot your own Eyes, and there- Vid. 2. H.Vll. 
 fore look upon the Year-Book it felf. Here you fee that it is indeed fo far Ter.M.cajl. 
 true, that all the Juftices were of Opinion, that the Grant of the Sheriffdom ^'^* '°^^^' 
 of [he County of Northumberland, to the Earl of that County for Life, was 
 good, but do not tell us all the Reafons whereon their Judgment was grounded ■■, 
 tho it fcems to have been bccaufe the Sheriffdom of that County had been com- 
 monly granted for Life, before this Statute of HemyV]. was made, as appears 
 by thefe words in the Year-Book: For it {vIt.. a Sheriffdom) m fuch a thing us 
 may be voell granted for Term of Life, or Inheritance., as divers Counties have Sheriffs 
 by Inheritance, which began by the Kings Gram. Then was (hewn a Refumptioii 
 (^I fuppofe it meant an ^it of Refumption of the Sheriffalty) aS appears by the fol- 
 lowing words ; and then was Ihewn a Provifo for it, Count.de N. and if fo, the 
 King had a Right to grant it only for Life again. But none fave RadcUjf (one 
 of the Barons of the Exchequer) cites the Statutes of the 28th and 42d of 
 EdwardWl. againft Sheriffs holding for above a year i buthedoth notcitethis 
 Statute of the 23d of Henry \'\. at all. Nor doth he, or any other of the 
 Judges, nor the Court, ground their Opinion upon any iVoH-o^/i^wff^ expreded 
 in the faid Ads ; for if you pleafe to confult them, you will find there is no 
 Claufe of AV/-ot/?rt?;f£ in any of them, before the 23d of Henry VI. which is 
 not at all mentioned here : therefore I wonder how Fitz.- Herbert, in his A- 
 bridgment, comes to vary fo far from the Year-Book, from whence he mull: 
 have took it, as to make the Judgment to have been groundecl upon the iVo«- 
 obflante in that Statute of Henry Vl. for none but RadcUf i'l^eaks any thing of 
 the Patent's being good with a Non-obf} ante to thofe Statutes •, and the Court, 
 in all the reft of the Cafe, agree the Patent to be good, by reafon of the faid 
 Provifo in an Aft of Refumption, and then fall into Debates concerning the 
 other Point, how this Patent was to be underftood. 
 
 Af. I mult confefs if this be fo, as it feems to be prima facie, I wonder my 
 Lord Coke, and other learned Lawyers, have laid fo great a ftrefs upon, and 
 drawn fo many Arguments from this Judgment of the Judges-, tho 1 mud 
 needs alfo tell you, that tho OR\y RadcHJf iaii^^ upon the Non-obftante, yet 
 fince the reft of the Judges did not contradift him, it feems to me that they 
 all concurred with him j fince, according to the Proverb, Silence often gives 
 Confent. 
 
 But this much I fuppofe you cannot deny, that ever fince Henry Vlllth's 
 time at leaft. Sheriffs have been frequently continued 'for above a year, and the 
 Judges have been alfo difpenfed with to go to the Circuit in their own Coun- 
 ty ; and IVelflnnen have been commonly made Judges and other Officers in Wales, 
 by virtue of the King's Difpenfations, notwithftanding the particular Claufes 
 of Non-obftante,'\nt\KSt2itMtQ%oi RichardW. Henry W. and //W7 VI. by which 
 they arc expredy prohibited. 
 
 f . I do not deny what yon have now faid as to matter of Faft, only let me 
 tell you, I conceive that the Reafon why the King has taken upon him to dif- 
 penfe with thofe Statutes you mention, was, becaufe the Caufes for which 
 they were firft made, have long fince ceafed. For when thofe Statutes againft 
 Judges going the Circuit in their own Counties, and Sheriffs holding for above 
 a year were made, both the Judges and Sheriffs were found (the one by go- 
 ing their Circuits in their own Counties, where they had great Intereft and Ac- 
 quaintance) to have too much awed the common Juries ^ and the other (by 
 their great Eftaces and Commands in the Country) to have made partial Re- 
 turns of Juries, and alfo by their long Continuance in their Office, to have 
 learnt a Trade of oppreffiiig the People. So when by theftop that was put to 
 thofe Abufes by thefe Statutes (you have mentioned) there was no need of a 
 Itrict Obfervation of thefe Lawsi and alfo when after the Civil Wars between 
 York and Lancafter, and all things became fettled under King /^/«/ry VII. (who 
 was of a IVclfi Family) there was then no more need of obfcrving the Sta- 
 tute of //fwr^ IV. agz'init IVeljJjmens bearing Offices ^ efpecially after the Sta- 
 tute of the 27th of Henry Will, when IVales became incorporated with Eng- 
 land, and had by that Statute a Right conferred upon it, of fending Members 
 
 G g g g 2 to
 
 596 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITlCA. 
 
 to Parliament, tho the Parliament might not think fit, or at lead forgot to re- 
 peal them : and yet finding that the Kingdom receiv'd no Prejudice, but rather 
 Benefit by fuch Difpenfations 5 and not caring to quarrel with their Kings, 
 for fometimes ufinga Prerogative by which they were rather benefited, than 
 grieved ^ thofe Difpenfations have ever fince palTed, without any complaint in 
 Parliament: which v/ould certainly have been before this time, bad they found 
 the fame Grievances and Reafons to have ftill continued for the ftrift obfervance 
 of thofe Laws, as there were at firft for the making of them. Tho if they will 
 have my private Opinion, I think it had been much better, for avoiding all Dif- 
 putes between the King and Parliament, as alfo for preventing the evil ufe that 
 has been made of thofe Precedents, to advance the King's Prerogative to what 
 height he plcafed j rather to have repeal'd all thofe obfolete Statutes, than to 
 havefufFer'd them ftill to continue. 
 
 But to let you fee that the diftinftion of mala in fe^ and mala prohibita^ 
 often fails, I think I can prove it to you by divers undeniable Inftances: 
 for there are divers things which are not mala in fe j that is, neither Na- 
 tural nor Moral Evils, either by Common or Statute Law ; and yet being 
 declar'd common Nufances, are only mala poUtlca & introduUa, which the 
 King cannot difpenfe with at all, only becaufe they are prohibited. Thus 
 the King cannot difpenfe with the leaft jsJufance to the High-ways, as by laying 
 Dung in them, or the like ^ tho Men may very well pafs through them for all 
 that. So likewife by the Statute of the 1 8th of King Charles II. the bringing 
 over of Irifj Cattel, is declar'd a publick Kufance, and therefore the King can- 
 not difpenfe with it j yet no Man will fay it was fo before that Statute was 
 VAughan'si made: and therefore it was well obferv'd by the late Chief Juftice Faughan^ ia 
 Re^. f. 358. jj^gj. Cak of Thomas and Sorrel I now mention'd, that publick Nufances are 
 not mala tn fe, but mala poUtica & introduBa. And when a thing is faid to be; 
 prohibited by the Common-Law, the meaning is no more, but that the antient 
 Record of fuch a Prohibition is not to be found. 
 
 M. I grant indeed the Author you have now cited in that Cafe, very well 
 reftrains the King's Prerogative, as to things that concern the Right or Property 
 of others ; and therefore the King cannot pardon the Damage done to particu- 
 r- 333> 334- lar Perfons, where the Suit is only the King's : but for the Benefit and Safety 
 of a third Perfon, if hedifpenfes with the Suit, it mult be by the confent and 
 agreement of the Party concern'd. And again, penal Laws, the Breach whereof 
 is to any Man's particular Damage, cannot be difpenfed with j and the 
 ^- 29- Chief Juftice Herbert himfelf owns, that the King cannot difpenfe with Laws 
 
 which veft the leaft Right of Property in any of his Subjefts. 
 
 F. Very well then, we fee the Prerogative is bounded where the Intereft of 
 particular Perfons is concern'd : But doth the Law take more care of them, than 
 of the publick Intereft, and the Concernment of the whole Nation ? And this 
 Aft againft Papifts holding Employments was certainly made pro bono publico^ to 
 prevent the danger that may happen from Popifli Recufants, who were before 
 prohibited by divers Statutes to hold any Offices or Employments, before they 
 had taken the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance. Therefore I cannot fee 
 how fuch a Difpenfation can be good, the Breach whereof muft tend fo much to 
 the danger of the Commonwealth j if, according to the Rule you have laid 
 down but now, no Law can be difpenfed withal, that is for the Benefit 
 and Safety of a third Perfon, or where the Breach thereof is to other Men's 
 particular Damage. Now certainly whatfoever is prejudicial to the publick 
 fafety of the Commonwealth, muft be alfo prejudicial to the fafety of every 
 private Perfon, and the Breach thereof does tend to each Man's particular Da- 
 mage in the Nation, if they are once generally difpenfed with. 
 
 M. I grant this is the moft natural Objeftion you have made, againft the 
 P. 341, 342. King's Power of difpenfing in this Cafe: but my Lord Chief jnlVice Tau^haa 
 in the Cafe already cited, anfwers this Objeftion very -.ve!! : No offence, fays 
 he, againft a penal Law could be difpenfed with, if the reafon of not difpenfing 
 were becaufe the Offence is ctntra bonum publicum ■■, for all Offences againft penal 
 Laws are fuch : and tho fuch Laws are pro bono publico, they are not Laws pro 
 bono fingulorum populi (which are the Laws which the King cannot difpenfe 
 with) but pro bono populi complicati, as the King in his difcretion fliall think 
 fit to order them for the good of the whole. In this Nation the Eftate of 
 
 every
 
 Dialogue the Eleventh. ^pj 
 
 every Pater-famtliM may be faid to be fro bono communi of his Family, which yet 
 is only at his difcrction and management i and they have no Property in it, 
 tho they have Benefit by it. And therefore it is but reafoiiable, that as to the 
 honum publicum fngulorum the King (hould not difpenfe, becaufe every Man hatli 
 a particular Inter.efl: in it, and they are Judges of it thcmfelves : whereas in 
 thofe Afts that are pre bono popuU complicatiy as thefe A£ts of Sheriffs, and for 
 taking the Oaths and Teft are, the King is the fole Judg in what Cafes they , 
 
 concern the publick good of the Commonwealth, and where they do not. 
 
 F. I confcfs this is a fubtle piece of Learning , but pray let us take it a little j. e. c. p.41. 
 out of thefe L<«f»« Terms, and then the meaning of it is no more than this. 
 That the King can do nothing to the prejudice of the People in their private 
 Capacities, but he can do what he will with the Publick. I thought indeed a 
 Prince had been in the firlb place bound to regard the Good of the Publick, and 
 to take care of the falus populi compUcati (as you call it) that is, as they are 
 imbodied together, above the private Good or Interelt of particular Men, 
 which you call bonum Jin^dorum populi ; which can never be preferved, but where 
 the Laws and Statutes ordain'd for the publick benefit and fecurity of the Com- 
 monwealth have been generally broken and violated by common and eafy Dif- 
 penfations, and have beenabufed to that degree, that we lately faw a Popifh 
 Lawyer, who was thought any thing fit to be a Judge, might fit upon the Bench, 
 upon the Lives and Efbates of Proteftants ■■, every Deputy Lieutenant, Juftice 
 of Peace, or other Officer, either Civil or Military, might be fure of being 
 prefer'd, if he either was a Papift or Fanatick •■, every Minifter or Parfon of a 
 Parifh, who would renounce the Orders of the Church of England^ might hold 
 his Living without doing any of the Spiritual Funftions j and all this by virtue 
 of thefe Difpenfations, grounded upon the diftindtion of the publick Good of the 
 whole People taken together, as different from that of the publick Good of each 
 particular Perfon. 
 
 But it feems Itrange to me that our Anceftors fliould take fuch care of the jf. £.c. p.42. 
 Laws concerning the Meafures of Bread, Drink and Flefh, as that the King 
 cannot difpenfe with them, becaufe they refpeft the common Good of the 
 whole People, and of every particular Perfon •■, but as to the Laws which con- 
 cern the publick Good of the whole Nation in general, they were content to 
 leave them to the fole Will and Pleafure of their Prince. No one that reads 
 the Hiftory of our Anceftors, and the Conteft they had with their Kings to 
 obtain thefe publick Liberties, could ever entertain fuch a thought concern- 
 ing them. But that the Laws concerning the Oaths and Teft, are not 
 only for the publick Good of the Commonwealth, and that the King is 
 not the fole Judge when they may be difpenfed with, appears plainly by this, 
 that the Law for taking the Oaths and Teft, has given every particular 
 Perfon a Right to profecute any one that hath afted contrary to it, and the 
 Penalty of 500/. is given wholly to the Profecutor : which fhews plainly, that 
 the Intent of the Law was to make it every Man's particular care as well as 
 benefit to fee it obferved; and confequcntly fince every particular Pcrfoa has 
 an Intereft in it, it cannot be difpenfed with by the King. 
 
 M. Since it grows late, I Ihall not further difpute this Point with you, of 
 the King's Difpenfing Power, tho I had a great deal more to urge in defence 
 of it ; for notwithftandingall you have faid againftit, it is now counted fo in- 
 herent a Prerogative, and in many cafes fo neceffary for the Benefit of the Sub- 
 jedts, that the Convention it fclf, after a great deal of difpute about it, tho 
 they had condemn'd the King for affuming and exercifing a Power of difpen- 
 fing with, and fufpcnding of Laws without confent of Parliament ^ yet in this 
 very Declaration, when they allcrt their antient Rights and Liberties, they only 
 declare, " That the pretended Power of difpenfing with Laws, or the Execu- 
 " tion of Laws, by Regal Authority, m it hath been affumed and exercifed of 
 *' liite^ is illegal :" which fhews that they do not go fo high as you, who feem 
 to be abfolutely againft any fuch thing. 
 
 F. You very much miftake me if you fay fo: for tho I maintain that an- 
 tiently, till about the middle of the Reign of King Henry the Third, there 
 were no Difpenfations at all, either becaufe they were not thought necellary, 
 or elfe that Penal Laws were not then multiplied to that degree they have 
 been fince ; yet feeing they have beep now fo long in ufe, and do (I grant) 
 
 often
 
 5p8 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 often tend not only to the Benefit of the King, but alfo of theSubjeft, I db 
 no ways condemn them, provided they arc reltrain'd within thofe due Limits 
 prefcribed by the late Chief ]u9iicc Taughan in the cafe above-meation'd j and 
 that they do not tend to the common Mifchicf and Ruin of the Froteftant 
 Religion eftablifh'd by Law, and the Rights and Liberties of the Subjea. Nay, 
 1 grant in times of necelTity, as in the coming over of the Duke of Monmouth 
 (for example) the King might perhaps juftify the granting CommifTions to 
 Popilh Officers, and therefore the Parliament did very well to ofTer the King 
 to prepare an Adt to indemnify them from the Penalties they had incurred by 
 afting without taking the Teft : So that when the King utterly refufed this 
 reafonable Propofition, and chofe to dilTolvc the Parliament, rather than he 
 would permit them in the leafl: to qucltion this ufurped Power, what could be 
 farther expeded, than that he was refolvcd to execute that, as well as all 
 other Difpenfations, whether the Parliament would or not, as we afterwards 
 found he did? 
 
 But admitting he really had been endued with this Prerogative, yet was it 
 ftill under a Trufl: not to abufe it fo notorioufly as he did, by granting it td 
 ^ every Apoftate Perfon, Officer, or Judge, that required it j and i doubt not 
 but if he had govern'd a little longer, we might have foand it granted to 
 Bifhops likewife, as foon as he had thought fit to make them of his own Re- 
 ligion : for tho the King (for example) has an undoubted Prerogative of par- 
 doning Robbers and Highway-men, yet if he fhould fo far abufe his Prerogative 
 as to pardon every Robber that was taken, I leave it to you to confider, whe- 
 ther fuch a Government could long fubfift. I fliall not apply this Cafe to thefe 
 Difpenfations, bccaufe they fay Comparifons are odious. 
 
 Thefe things being apparent, I think it would be very eafy to vindicate 
 that Claufe in the Declaration concerning the Bifhops, if the King's Decla- 
 ration was unlawful (as certainly it was) not only by reafon of the Difpen- 
 fing Power (we have been now difputing about) but alfo for one main Claufe 
 in it, which I have yet but lightly touched i which is this: " We do like- 
 *' wife declare, it is our Royal Will and Pleafure, that from henceforth the 
 *' Execution of all, and all manner of Penal Laws in matters Ecdefiaftical, 
 " for not coming to Church, or not receiving the Sacrament, or for any other 
 " Non-conformity to the Religion cflablifli'd, or for, or by reafon of the Ex- 
 *' ercife of Religion, in any manner whatfoever, be immediately fufpcnded, and 
 *' the farther Execution of the faid Penal Laws, and every of them is hereby 
 " fufpended." So that by this Claufe in the Declaration, not only the Laws 
 of our Reformation, but all the Laws for the Prefervation of the Chriftian Re- 
 ligion in general were fufpended, and become of no force-, fince every Man- 
 might not only chufe whether he would come to Church or not, but alfo all 
 Priefts and Minifters were hereby indemnify'd from either praying or preaching 
 in the Churches, as well as their Parifliioners freed from hearing them : So 
 that not only all the Laws of our Reformation were at once fufpended, but 
 thofe of Chriftianity it felf by thefe words, {or for ^ or by rea/on of the Exey 
 cife of Religion in any manner whatfoever) nor is it confined to the Chriftian 
 Religion, but all other Religions (even Mahometanifm it felf) were thereby 
 permitted. 
 
 But perhaps it may be urged, that the Execution of the Law is only hereby 
 fufpended, and not the Law it felf. But this is a mere Evafion ; for what is the 
 external Obligation of any Law, but its Execution in order to Obedience ? 
 which if it be once taken off, there can only then remain the naked internal 
 Obligation in foro confcientia; and with how few this is of any weight, you un- 
 derftand fo well, I need not tell you. 
 
 So that by this Declaration the King took upon him to fufpend above forty 
 Statutes at once concerning our Religion ; and if he could do fo, I deCre to 
 know whether he might not the next Week have fufpended forty more, even 
 concerning our Civil Properties likewife j and fo might have proceeded till he 
 had fufpended all the Laws in the Statute Book. Nor are thofe Laws fufpended 
 for any limited time, but during the King's Pleafure; and this not only a bare 
 fufpenlion for a time, but in efieS a downright Abrogation of them : For what 
 is an Abrogation of a Law, but the taking away the Force of thefe Statutes, 
 without any time limited ? And if this be not to ufurp the fole Legiflative 
 
 Power,
 
 Dialogue the Elevenths 5pp 
 
 Power, I know not what is j and if this were once commonly put in practice 
 in effcft in all Cafes, Afts of Parliament would fignify nothing, and the Le-" 
 gilliture would be wholly in the King : this wasfo evident, that it was granted Mr.J-iJlice 
 by one of the Judges at the Trial of thefe Bifhops. Powel. 
 
 This being the Truth of the Cafe, I cannot fee wherein the Bilhops that 
 prefentcd this Petition to his Majefty afted at all undutifully towards him, as 
 you fuppofe ^ for being by the King's Order in Council commanded to diftri- 
 buie this Declaration to their inferior Clergy, which they knew in it fclf to 
 be unlawful, their Diftribution of it would not only have been looked upon as 
 the owning of an unlawful thing, but would alfo have drawn the inferiour 
 Clergy into the fame Snare j who if it were unlawful, ought not to have pub- 
 lilh'd to their Parilhioners a Licence to aft direftly contrary to Law : and 
 therefore the Bifhops were not only under the Obligation of that dreadful 
 Charge and Imprecation, exprefs'd in the Statute of Uniformity, ia the firftchap.j. 
 of Qijeen Eliz.abeth, if they did not endeavour the utmolt execution thereof 
 through all their Diocefles and Charges i but being alfo prelTed upon to dif- 
 tribute it contrary to their Confciences, what could they do lefs in order to 
 excufe themfelves from this unlawful Command, than privately to tell the King 
 the reafon of their Difobedience ; and alfo humbly to petition him not far- 
 ther to infift upon it, either in refpeft of themfelves or their inferiour Clergy ? 
 And you know that it was allow'd by your Civil Law for any Judge, or Pratory 
 refcribere Principi, if he were by him commanded to aft contrary to any former 
 Law or Edift of the Emperor. 
 
 M. I will not deny that, but yet methinks the Bifhops in this cafe would 
 have afted more refpeftfully and difcreetly, if they had forbore petitioning j 
 and though they had refufed to obey the King's Declaration, yet needed they 
 not to have declared againft it till the Parliament met, when I grant they 
 might freely and fafely have done it : or elfe if they would have petition'd at 
 all, it Ihould have been in more dutiful and refpeftful Terms, than by telling 
 the King that his Declaration was illegal, and that they could not in Prudence, 
 Honour or Confcience, fo far make themfelves Parties to it, as to diftribute it : 
 and it was this alone which was looked upon as feditious, and for which his 
 Wajefty thought fit to have them indifted in the King's Bench, as a matter of 
 high Mifdemeanour. 
 
 F. I confefs you have faid in (hort the Sum of what was urged againfl them 
 by the King's Council at their Tryal, but all this was very well anfwer'd by 
 one of the Judges themfelves ■■, firit. That it would have been too late to have 
 ftaycd for a Parliament, becaufe the Declaration was to have been diftributed 
 by fuch a time-, neither could they have acquiefc'd under it and fubmitted, 
 for that would have been to run into a contempt of the King's Command, un- 
 lefs they had alfo fhevvn the Reafons why they could not obey him : and fince 
 this could be done no other way than by Addrefs or Petition, what other Rea- 
 fons could they give, but that they thought it had been more than once de- 
 clared illegal in Parliament ^ and therefore that they could not in Prudence^ Ho- 
 nour and Confcience obey it? Not in Prudence, becaufe they were liable to anfwer 
 it in Parliament ■-, not in Honour, becaufe it is unworthy the Charafter of Bifhops 
 and Lords of Parliament to aft any thing that may make them look like Flatte- 
 rers or Time-fervers •, not in Confcience, becaufe of the Imprecation they lay 
 under by the Aft of Queen Elizabeth ^ as alfo becaufe no Man can with a fafe 
 Confcience give his Approbation to that which is contrary to Law. 
 
 And therefore I mud needs tell you, that it was very feverely and unjuflly 
 done in the King to give up this Petition (which was deliver'd him with all the 
 Privacy imaginable) to the Privy Council, in order to have the Bifhops profe- 
 cutcd for it ; but which made a great deal more noifc and heart-burning againlt 
 his Government, to commit them Prifoncrs to the Tower, and then to bring 
 them to their Tryal, and profecute them with the utmolt Rigour •■, where 
 though they efcaped Punifhment, yet was it no thanks to the Profecutors, but 
 to the Direftions of the Judges, two of whom (for their Honour) difTer'd from 
 the late Lord Chief Jultice and his Popilh Companion ■■, as alfo to the Honefty 
 of the Jury, who found them not guilty. 
 
 M. I cinnot deny but you have given a pretty fair account of this matter, 
 and I cannot but own, that it was one of the worft-advis'd things that happen'd 
 
 under
 
 600 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 under tbe King's Government ^ but I cannot impute this to his Majefby's innate 
 Difpofition, which was wont to aft with greater Temper and Moderation to- 
 wards thofe who difFer'd from him in Judgment, and therefore muft impute it 
 wholly to the wicked Inltigations of Father Peters^ and the other Popilh Mi- 
 niflers. 
 
 But as for divers other Articles mention'd in the Convention's Declaration ; 
 " Such as the ifiuing out, and caufing to be executed a Commiflion under the 
 *' Great Seal, for ereftiug a Court, call'd The Court of Commijfion for Ecclefialti- 
 *' cal Affairs, and levying Mony for, and to the ufe of the Crown, by pretence 
 " of Prerogative, for other time, and in other manner than the fame was gran- 
 ** ted by Parliament : " with all the reft of the Articles in that Declaration 
 relating to Civil Affairs •, fince they are to be looked upon as the fole Afts of 
 the Judges, and not of the King, they, and not he, ought to fuffer for the 
 Illegality of them j fince, as you your felf have own'd, the King in his judicial 
 Capacity can do no wrong, that Power being wholly committed to his Judges : 
 and therefore it was very hardly, nay unjuftly done, to lay this to his charge, 
 which he is not to anfwer for j fo that if any thing has been done amifs in 
 this kind, they are to anfwer for it, and not to run fuch things up to a For- 
 feiture or an Abdication, as your Convention have done. 
 
 F. 1 need not fay much more to this Objection, becaufe I have in great part 
 anfwer'd it already, and prov'd that moft of the things found fault withal, 
 were the King's own Afts, as well as thofe of his Minifters and Judges ^ for as 
 lo the CommifTion for Ecclefiaftical Affairs, which is direftly contrary to the 
 Chap. II. Statute of KingCharles I. which took away the Court of High Commiflion, as 
 Chap. 12. alfo to a Claufe inferted in the Aft of the 13th of Charles W. "wherein the 
 " Aft for taking away that Court is not only confirm'd, but alfo the erefting 
 ** any other like Court by Commiflion is exprefly forbid :" This being the 
 cafe, the fault of the ifluing out of this Commiflion cannot be laid upon the 
 Judges i who though fome of them afted in it, yet was it never formally 
 brought before them to determine whether it was illegal or not : and no Man 
 can imagine, that unlefs the King had a paflionate Delire for this Power, that 
 he might thereby be able to fufpend, deprive, and turn out whom he pleafed 
 of the Bifliops and inferiour Clergy, with the Heads and Fellows of Colleges, 
 whom he fliould find the moff: irreconcileable Enemies to his Religion, or obfti- 
 nate in refufing to obey his illegal Commands, as too plainly appear'd by the 
 Sufpenfion of the Bifhop of London^ the turning out ot the Prefident and Fel- 
 lows of Magdalen-CoW^gZy and that Profecution that was lately order'd againlt 
 all thofe Bifliops and inferiour Clergy who had refufed to dift;ribute or read the 
 King's Declaration j though I confefs there was a fl:op put to this, upon re- 
 calling this Commiflion, immediately before the Prince's Arrival. 
 
 So likewife for the other Article, of levying Mony contrary to Law, that 
 was done alfo without any Opinion of the Judges at all demanded about it ; 
 for the illegal Colleftion of Chimney-Mony, by making Cottages and Ovens 
 pay, that were exprefly exempted by the Afts concei-ning it^ and alfo the il- 
 legal levying of Excife, by making SmaU-Beer pay the Duties of Strong j were 
 all of them afted and done by particular Direfticns from the Treafury, or by 
 the private Abufe of the Farmers of the Excife, without any Opinion of the 
 Judges : and of thefe Orders his Majefty could not chufe but be the Author, 
 or Approver at leaft, fince 'tis very well known he confl:antly fate there when 
 any great Bufinefs was to be tranfafted ; and the Lord Treafurer, or Commif- 
 fioners of the Treafury, would certainly never have prefumed to have iflued 
 out their Orders in a Cafe of fo great moment, if they had not been very well 
 fatisfied that it was his Majefliy's exprefs Wifl and Pleafure to have it fo. 
 
 And I my felf have now by me a Copy of the Earl of R, then Lord Trea- 
 furer, his Direftions to the Officers appointed for the levying of Chimney- 
 Mony, commanding them to levy it upon aU Cottages and Ovens whatfoever, 
 which was done accordingly with the utmoft Rigour: which though it was 
 a very great Opprefllon, yet it chiefly concerned the poor and ordinary 
 fort of People, who had not Purfcs to go to law with the King •, or elfe fuch 
 Gentlemen and others, who though they were forced to pay tor their poor 
 Tenants, yet did they not think it worth their while to bring it before the 
 Barons of the Exchequer, where, as things then went, they could not expeft 
 to find any redrefs. 1
 
 Dialogue the Eleventh. 60 1 
 
 I (hall not infifbupon the King's taking the additional Cufloms contrary to 
 the Act of Parliament, by which they were granted to the late King C^^r/« 
 only for Lite : and though in his lafl: Sicknefs there was a Contraft for the new 
 farming of them, by virtue of which, I grant the King might have juftified 
 the taking of them till the end of the Farm ^ yet fince that Contraft never 
 pafled the Seals during the King's life-time, it was certainly againfl Law for 
 the King to take them before they were re-granted by Aft of Parliament : I 
 fay, 1 (hall not infill upon this, fince the Parliament were fo eafy as to pafs it 
 by without declaring it to have been illegal i only it fulHciently (hows, that' 
 from the very beginning of the King's Reign, he was refolv'd to govern arbi-"* 
 trarily, and to levy Mony upon the Subjeft, whether the Law gave him any' 
 Authority to do it or not. 
 
 But as to what you fay concerning the Judges being wholly in fault, for all 
 the unjuft and illegal Proceedings exercifed in their Courts, and that the King 
 was wholly fiultlefs \ I lliould be of your mind, had I not feen that all thofe 
 Judges who would not agree to the difpenling Power (and other illegal Judg- 
 ments I could name) were turned out, and others, either Papifts, or of lefs 
 Confciences than Papifts, were put in their places, which were not confer'd for 
 any longer time, than durante benepUcito : and therefore no wonder if fuch 
 Men were abfolute Slaves to the King's Will and Pleafure. 
 
 Af. I had much more to fay in defence of the King's raifing and keeping up 
 a ftanding Army, and his difarming Proteftants in, and after the Duke of Mon- 
 mouth's Rebellion, which are laid to his charge, as Endeavours to deftroy the 
 Rights and Liberties of the Kingdom. 
 
 But fince it grows late, 1 (hall only now take notice of fomething which I. 
 forgot to infift upon, concerning your Motion of the King's abdicating the 
 Crown by a wilful Breach of the Laws, which is quite different from the Senfe 
 in which this Word is taken in Roman Authors, as alfo in our Civil Laws •, for 
 when Cicero ufes the ExprelTion, Itaque tutela me abdicare cogito^ Brifon tells us 
 his meaning was, fe nolle ejfe tuiorem. But Pomponimy in his Book de Orig. Juru^ £_ §_ j-. 
 gives us the true fenfe of this Phrafe i Abdicare fe Magifiratu, eft ante tempus 
 Magiftratum dcponere : which plainly Ihows the Romans had no notion of a ta- 
 cit or imply'd Abdication of a Charge or Magiftracy without a Man's exprefs 
 Confent. And therefore if the King's bare Defertion of the Kingdom was not 
 an Abdication of the Throne (as you your felf are forced to grant) I cannot 
 imagine how the King's Violation of the Laws, or endeavouring to fubvert the 
 Government (both which you lay to his charge) can properly be call'd an Abdi- 
 cation of it. So that indeed the King hath not abdicated the Government, but 
 your Convention hath abdicated him : and tho we often read in our Civil Law, 
 That a Father may abdicare filium i yet I never read, or can you (how me any 
 Example, that a Son might abdicate a Father, or Subjefts their Prince. 
 
 F. You difcourfe upon a wrong ground i for I never affirm'd, That Subjefts 
 had any Authority to abdicate or depofe their Prince j nor hath the Convention 
 alTum'd any fuch Power to themfelves : what they have done in this Affair hath 
 not been authoritative, or as taking upon them to call the King to an account 
 for his Aftions, or to depofe him for his Mifgovernment^ but only declarative, 
 to pronounce and declare as the Reprefentatives of the whole Nation, that by 
 his endeavouring to extirpate the Proteftant Religion, and to fubvert the Fun- 
 damental Laws and Liberties of the Kingdom, he had wilfully (I do not fay ' 
 willingly) abdicated the Government, that is, renounced to govern this King- 
 dom any longer as a lawful King ■■, which I take to be a tacit or imply'd Abdica- 
 tion of it, as 1 have already proved. And 1 can (hew you farther, that even 
 Tully himfelf allows our fenfe of an imply'd Abdication, in his third Philip- 
 pick, when he fays thus concerning Mark Antony, that by his offiring a Crown 
 to Cafar, Eo die non modo confulatu, fed etiam libertate fe abdicavit, &C. where 
 you fee Mark Antony is faid to have abdicated the Confulfliip without any exprefs 
 Renunciation of iti for C<tfar might have continued him in it after he had been 
 declar'd Diftator. 
 
 M. I grant your Authority to be good, yet even in this fcnfc this Abdication 
 of the Confulfhip could only take its cffeft from Anthony^ own Willi for offl-r- 
 ing a Crown to Cx far, if he did notexprclly, yet he eff^eftually renounced his 
 Confullhip ; for had C<efar accepted it, he could no longer have been the Gonful 
 
 H h h h of
 
 602 BiBLIOTHECA POLITICAL 
 
 of a Popular State, but muft thenceforth have afted by Authority from Cafary 
 or not at all: But then this would not have agreed with your Notion of a 
 Forfeiture, which always fuppofes a Crime, and a depriving the Party offend- 
 ing from his Office or Dignity, whether he will or not. So that if the Conven- 
 tion have adjudged the King to have abdicated, they mull fuppofe it to have 
 been by his own Confent, or not at all j but if they fuppofed him to have for- 
 feited, why did they not downright declare fo, as well as the Scotch Convention 
 had done ? and then I could have told the better what to have faid to them, and 
 have proved that only Subjeds, and not Kings, are liable to Forfeiture. 
 
 F. I will not deny, but that the word forfeited had been more proper than 
 abdicated in this Vote of the Convention •, but yet 1 think 1 have fufficiently 
 proved, that there is no great difference between a Man's abdicating an Eftate 
 by a wilful difpoling of it otherwife than the Law requires, and a Forfeiture of 
 it : for as I fhew'd you, a Tenant for Life aliening in fee, doth not only forfeit 
 his Eftate to him in reverfion, but is alfo an Abdication of it, though perhaps 
 he had referved to himfelf a Leafe of the Eftate for Years : and this is called a 
 Forfeiture of the Eftate, though he committed no other Crime, than the wrong 
 done to him in reverfion \ and therefore (as I faid before) this Forfeiture doth 
 not always fuppofe any Crime for which the Party may be punilh'd, otherwife 
 than by the lofs of the Eftate •■, nor yet doth it fuppofe any fuperiour Power in 
 the Party that takes it. 
 
 But your Exception againft my Authority from Tully^ of Mark Anthony*% im- 
 ply'd Abdication of the Confulfhip without any exprefs Renunciation of it, is 
 very frivolous i for you your felf own, that Anthony did not exprefly, but only 
 in efTcft renounce the Confulftiip, when he ofi^ered C^/^r the Crown: and if he 
 did not do it exprefly, then it feems Anthony could renounce the Confulftiip 
 without ever intending it, by doing an Aft that in efFeft abrogated his own 
 Power j and why King James might not do fo too with his Crown, 1 defire you 
 would fliew me any fufficient reafon. But that the Convention did alfo look 
 upon this Abdication of King James as a Forfeiture, appears plainly by their 
 declaring the Throne vacant, without troubling themfelves to find out who was 
 the next Heir to be placed therein. 
 
 But to conclude : There might be a very good reafon why the Convention did 
 not think fit to make ufe of the word Forfeiturey as the Parliament of Scotland 
 have done in the like cafe i for fome of the mofl; wary and prudent Members of 
 the Houfe of Commons, confidering that this word Forfeiture might prove of 
 very hard digeftion to a great part of the Houfe, and alfo might give great of- 
 fence to divers of the Biftiops and Lords in the Houfe of Peers, they found out 
 this new word abdicatedy as an Expedient to iblve that Difficulty, and which 
 might not only exprefs the King's wilful Defertion of the Government by his 
 firft Departure, but alfo his Renunciation of it, upon thofe legal Conditions he 
 • was to hold it ; fince, as 1 have already obferv'd, the word abdicated in their 
 Vote refers not only to his having withdrawn himfelf out of the Kingdom, but 
 to all the reft of the Claufes foregoing, or elfe they would fignify nothing in 
 that place, both the Abdication and the Vacancy of the Throne being grounded 
 upon all of them alike. 1 ftiould now proceed to your laft Exception againft this 
 Vote of the Convention, viz.. That the Throne is thereby vacant ; but 1 fee it is 
 now very late, and therefore it is beft to defer the farther difculGng of that mat- 
 ter till another opportunity, which I defire I may have as foon as you pleafe. 
 
 M- Yea, and then we will alfo confider that part of the Convention's Decla- 
 ration, whereby they refolve that the Prince and Princefs of Orange be declar'd 
 King and Queen of England, &c. which if you can prove to me to be according to 
 the Laws of England, 1 will then acknowledge them to be lawful King and Queen 
 of England •, but till 1 am convinced of it, 1 muft beg their pardons. 
 
 F. Well, I will wait on you again two or three days hence, and then I hope 
 I fhall make out thofe Points as well or better than any 1 have done hitherto j 
 and in the mean time I am your humble Servant. 
 
 M- I pray do it better if you can, or elfe you will not very much edify me ; 
 but however 1 wilh you good-night.
 
 So 3 
 
 
 iBtbliotfteca ^polttfca. 
 
 DIALOGUE XII. 
 
 I. Whether the Vote of the late Convention, wherein they 
 declared the Throne to be vacant, tan be juftified from 
 the antienc Conftitution, and Cuftoms of this Kingdom. 
 
 II. Whether the faid Convention, declaring King William and 
 Queen Mary to be lawful and rightful King and Queen of 
 En^landj may be juftified by the faid Conftitution. 
 
 III. Whether the A61 pafled in the faid Convention, after It 
 became a Parliament, whereby Roman Catholick Princes 
 are debarred from fuceeeding to the Crown, was according 
 to Law. 
 
 Am glad, Sir, you are come, for I was wlfhing for you ', pray 
 fit down, and let us begin where we left off. You may remem- 
 ber you promifed me, when we laft parted, that the next 
 time I faw you, you would make out to me from undeniable 
 Proofs and Precedents from our antient Hiftories and Laws, 
 that the prefent Convention had done nothing in voting the Throne vacant, 
 and then placing the Prince and Princefs of Orange therein, but what may be 
 juftified by the fundamental Laws and Conftitutions of the Kingdom ■■, for I 
 muft ftill believe (till I am better inftrufted) that there can be no Interregnum 
 in England^ but that it hath been from the firfl: Inftitution of the Government 
 an Hereditary Monarchy, where the next Heir by Right of Blood (unlefs in 
 fome manifefl Ufurpations) has always fucceeded to the laft Predeceilbr : As 
 alfo our beft Lawyers with one Confent maintain in their Books of Reports, 
 and the learned Finch, in his Defcription of the Common Law, lays it down as 
 an undoubted Maxim, That the King never dies -^ and therefore it feems altoge- 
 ther new and unheard of before, for the Convention thus to declare the 
 Throne vacant : for admitting that King James had never fo juftly for- 
 feited or abdicated the Kingdom (term it which you pleafe) yet certainly 
 there could be no Vacancy of the Throne, fince the next Heir by Blood ought 
 immediately to have been declared King, or Queen, and fo placed therein : 
 whereas we heard in the Country, that there was almoft ten days time before 
 the Lords and Commons could agree whether the Crown (hould be declared 
 Vacant, or not •, and when it was fo declared, it took up almoft a Week's time 
 more before they could agree who ftiould be placed therein. Whereas it was a 
 difficulty only of their own making : for fure the Prince of IV/iltt (tho it is 
 
 H h h h i true
 
 604 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTlCA. 
 
 true he is carried out of England) ought to have been immediately declared 
 King, as was done in the Cafe of Edward III. who was fo declared upon the De- 
 pofitionor Refignation of King Edward II. 
 
 F. Tholgrant, ever fince the Crown has been claimed by Defcent, the Law 
 has gone as you have cited it, and that Finch''s Law lays it down for a Maxim, 
 I fhall not deny i but from the Beginning or Original of Kingly Govern- 
 ment, (whether we look before or after your Conqueft) it will appear, that 
 the Throne was often vacant, till fuch time as the Great Council of the King- 
 dom had agreed who fliould fill it. And to fhew you I do not fpeak without 
 good Authority, pray tell me (if this Maxim had then obtained) why after 
 the Death of William I. his eldell Son Robert Duke of Normandy did not imme- 
 diately take upon him the Title of King of England, or at leafl; have done it 
 after the Death of William Rufm ? who, you know, was placed on the Throne 
 not by Right of Inheritance, but by his Father's Teftament confirmed and ap- 
 proved of (according to the antient EngUjli-Saxon Cuftom of Succeflion) by the 
 common Confent of the great Council of the whole Kingdom; and yet not- 
 withftanding, after the Death of this William, Henry his younger Brother fuc- 
 ceeded him by the free Eledlion and Confent of the fame Council, and yet 
 that Duke ^o^frrfhould never in all his Life-time take upon him the Title of 
 King. Pray tell me likewife (if this Maxim had been then known) why 
 Maud the Emprefs, immediately upon the Death of her Father K\ngHenry 1. 
 did not take (nor yet her Husband the Duke of y4njou in her Right) the Title 
 of King and Qiaeen of England, tho fhe had had Homage paid her, and Fealty 
 fworn to her in the Life-tmie of her Father, as the immediate SucccQbr to the 
 Crown j and yet notwithftanding, theutmoft Title (he could aflume was that 
 oi Domino. Anglorum, Lady or Miftrefs (not Queen) oi the Englifl} ; whilft5fe- 
 fhen, who had no other Title but the Eleftion of the great Council of the Na- 
 tion, held both the Crown and Title of King as long as he lived ? As alfo 
 why ylrthur Dake of Britain, who, according to the now received Rules of 
 Succeflion, was the next Heir to the Crown upon the Death of King Richard I. 
 never took upon hirathe Title of King, unlefsit were that he very well knew 
 that his Uncle King >J^« had been placed in the Throne by the common Con- 
 fent and Eledionof the great Council of the Kingdom ? So likewife after the 
 Death of King John, why Henry his Son was not immediately proclaimed 
 King, till fuch time as the great Council of the Clergy, Nobility, and People, 
 had met and agreed to fend back Prince Lewis, whom they had chofen for 
 their King (tho not being crowned, he never took upon himfelf that Title) 
 and fo chofe Henry III. (then an Infant) for their King ? Laftly, Why all thefe 
 Princes, viz.. Henry II. Richard I. and Henry III. who according to your No- 
 tions were undoubted Heirs of the Crown, never took upon them the Title of 
 Kings of Enj^land, nor are fo ftiled by any of our Hiftorians, till after their 
 Eledtions and Coronations, if it had not then been received for Law, that it 
 was the Election of the People, and Coronation fubfequent thereunto, that 
 made them Kings ; and till this was performed (tho they might look upon 
 themfelves as ever fo lawful SuccelTors) the Throne was notwithftanding 
 efteemed jji Law vacant ? 
 
 Therefore as for your Inftance of K'mg Edward iWi immediately fucceeding 
 upon the Refignation of his Father (if you pleafe better to confider of it) 
 that makes agaiullyouj for it is plain from Th.Walftngham, and H. de Knygh- 
 ton, that Vv'incQ Edward fucceeded not to the.Crown by Succeflion, but the E- 
 leftion of the great Council or Parliament: the words are exprefs, Huic EUBio- 
 tti untverfm Populus confenjit. And this was alfo owned by Edward II. himfelf, 
 who when the Commiilioners of all the Ellates of Parliament came in all 
 their Names to renounce their Homage to him, yet in the raidft of all his Sor- 
 row he gave them Thanks, Qvod Filium fuum Edwardum pofi fe rcgnaturum cli- 
 gijfem % which plainly (hews, that the Parliament had then fuch a Notion of a 
 Forfeiture proceeding from his Depofition, for violating the fundamental 
 Laws of the Kingdom, that theeldeft Son and Succeflx)r could pretend no other 
 Right to it (even in the Judgment of the late King himfelf) but what pro- 
 ceeded from their Eleftion. 
 
 M. I cannot deny but what you have now urged from matter of fad, may 
 appear very plaufible to your felf, and thofe of your Notions ; yet if it be 
 
 looked
 
 Dialogue the Twelfth. 6oc^ 
 
 looked clofer into, I doubt not but the known Laws then received, and the 
 Kotions the People had then of a lineal Succefllon by Right of Inheritance, 
 will prove direftly contrary to the matter of Faft: For you know very well, 
 a fa£io ad Jus non valet confequentia •-, but that all the Princes you mentioned, 
 except the three lafl, were really Ufurpers-, and not lawful King?, I fhall Ice 
 you fee by evident Authorities from the Hiftorians of thofe times. For, in 
 the firlt place, tho I grant William Ruf us fuccceded to the Crown by his Father's 
 lalt Will, which was certainly unlawful (as being contrary to the received 
 Laws of Succefllon in Normandy diSVitWi^ England) yet it was not by Election 
 of the People, js you fuppofe, but by the Kindnefs of Archbifhop Lanfranc 
 his Godfather, and the Favour of the greater part of the Norman Barons, who 
 came over with his Father, as well as out of Hatred to DKikQ Robert his elder 
 Brother, that he was thus made King. So that William Rufus claimed as a tefta- B. H. s. fag. 
 mentary Heir, and by reafoaof that Claim was advanced to the Throne by 3^8. 
 the Afllftance of Lanfranch and the Bilhop's Faction, who then fwayed the No- 
 bility and People, but yet never owned any Eleftion from them ■■, fo that if 
 you rightly confider this Story, you cannot call it an Eleftion, but a Dcfigna- 
 tion or Nomination by his Father William the Conqueror, and confented to 
 by the major part of the Bifhopsand Lords of the Kingdom, but not by their 
 Eleftion or Decree as a Common Council, as you fuppofe. 
 
 But that for all this, Duke ^o^^rr his Brother, being a (lifted by O^o Bifhop 
 of Buyeiix, and the Earl of Kent his Uncle, as alfo divers other Norman Lords, 
 ■who, being fatisfied of his Right, raifed a War in England againlt William^ 
 and great mifchief was done on both fides, till at laft a Peace was made be- 
 tween them upon thefe Conditions, among others (as Matthew Weflminfter re- s. D. pag. 7. 
 lates it) That becaufe of the manifeft Right Duke Robert had to the Crown, F. 236. 
 he (hould have a yearly Penfion of three thoufand Marks out of the Revenue 
 of England-., and he, of the two Brothers, that furvived the other, if he died 
 without Children, Ihould be Heir to the Deceafed. And fo far were they from 
 thinkingthis Agreement flood in need of the Ratification of a great Council, 
 that there were but twelve of the principal Men on each fide fworn to fee it 
 duly obferved. 
 
 Bat if we come to confider the next putting by of Duke Robert from his 
 Right to the Crown, you will find it to have been done with a far lefs colour 
 of Right than the former •, for he being then abfent in the Holy Land., at the 
 time of Rufuih Death, Henry his younger Brother laid hold of the Oppor- 
 tunity, and aflembling divers of the great Men of the Kingdom, he promifed s.D. pag.j. 
 them to make a full Reftitution of all their anticnt Laws and Liberties, and 
 confirm them by his Charter, and abrogate fuch fevcre ones as his Father had 
 made ■-, thereupon they did unanimoufly confent to crown him King. Kow I 
 cannot fee how this (managed with fo much Artifice) Corruption can proper- 
 ly be called an Eledion, fince that ought to be a deliberate fedate Adlion, and 
 at which all the Perfons concerned ought to be prcfent. But this could not 
 pofiibly be-, fox K\\\%William v/as killed on the 2d of Augufi., and buried the 
 next day ^ and the day after, being Sunday, this pretended Eledion was 
 made: And the Saxon Chronicle tells us, '* That thofe great Men, who Anno 1 100, 
 *' were near at hand, chofc his Brother //f«ry King." So that this looks more 
 like the Combination of a Faftion of fomc Biihops, Lords, and great Men, 
 than the free Eleftion of a King ; fincc it was impoffible for all that were, or 
 oughtto be prefent from all Parts of the Kingdom, to have notice to allcirtble 
 anddifpatch that great Bufinefs in two days time. 
 
 But to let you fee that Duke Robert did not fit down contented with this U- 
 furpation upon his Right •, as foon as ever lie came from the Holy Land., he 
 ftrait made war upon bis Brother, and many great Men of the Normans took 
 his part. And this War was eagerly carried on for fomc time, and Duke 
 Robert landing in England with an Army, King Henry marched againft him 
 with all his Forces •, but (as the 5<iaw/ Chronicle alfo tells us) fonie principal ibiJ. 
 Men going between them, brought them to an Agreement, upon condition 
 that King Henry (hould pay Duke Robert three thouland Marks Penfion yearly, 
 and that he of the Brothers who furvived the other, fhould be Heir of all 
 England and Normandy., unlcfs the Party deceafed fliould have Children of his 
 own. So that tho I grant King Henry recites in his Charter in Matthew Paris., b. h.s. ;.j;. 
 
 that 3^9-
 
 6o6 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITlCA. 
 
 that he was crowned King by the Common Council of the Barons of England ; 
 yet his faying fo could give him no Right, and he muft fay this or nothing, 
 for no other Pretence or Title he could have. And there never was any o- 
 ther Ufurper in his Circumftances, but muft fay that, or fome fuch thing, to 
 make out a Title: and therefore to anfwer your Queftion, why Duke Rahert 
 tool; not upon himfelf the Title of King, neither upon the Death of his Father, 
 nor after that of his elder Brother ; I think this may ferve for an Anfwer, that 
 he parting with his Right to both his Brothers fuccelTively, he then looked up- 
 on it as needlefs to take the Title of King upon him, as not looking upon 
 himfelf then to be fo. 
 
 F. I confefs you have from your Doftor, together with fome Afliftance of 
 yburown, made a very cunning Glofs upon thefe two great laftancesof Vacan- 
 cy and Eleftion, to evade, if it were poflible, that Right which the great 
 Council of the Kingdom then challenged to themfelves j and therefore I Ihall 
 make bold ftriftly to examine what you have now faid. In the firft place, as 
 to the Title of King William Rufw, tho I grant it was founded upon his Fa- 
 ther's Teftament, yet you fee that this was not good alone, without the Con^ 
 fent and Approbation of the Common Council of the Kingdom. I think I 
 have fufficiently pfoved at our laft Meeting but one, when we difcourfed of 
 the force df the like Teftament made by King Edward the ConfelTor to King 
 William \. which according to the Englijh- Saxon Law (that was ftill obferved) 
 was never valid, until confirmed by the Confent of the Wtttena Gemote or Coun- 
 cil of the Wifemen j that he that had both thefe, whether next Heir by 
 Blood or not, was always efteemed as lawful King, as 1 have alfo proved 
 from the Teftament of King Alfred. And tho you will take no notice of it, 
 yet was this Teftament of King William I. then produced and read in the Com- 
 mon Council of the Bilhops, Earls, and Barons of the Kingdom, as appears 
 by all the antientHiftorians who treat of this matter. I ftiall only give you a 
 
 Pag. J51. tafte of them : Matthew Paris exprefly relates the Circumftances of it, in thefe 
 words j Optimates frequentes ad Wejimonafierium in Concilium convener e^ uhi loci 
 foft longam confultationem Culielmum Rufum Regem fecere. And Abbot Brampton 
 
 Col. 983. tells us, that it was done in a full Council, convocatis Terra Magnatibm 9 fo that 
 here was nothing wanting to a full Eledion or Confirmation at leaft of King 
 fF»7/»<j»j's Title, and till this was done, it is plain the Throne was vacant. 
 
 But as for the Claim that Duke Robert made to the Crown, tho I do not de- 
 ny but he might think himfelf to have a juft Title to it, by a received Cuftom 
 among divers Nations, by which the eldeft Son is looked upon to have a 
 Right before the younger •, yet that this is no Law of Nature, and eonfequent- 
 ly not Divine, 1 think i have fufficiently proved at our fecond Meeting. But 
 that this Right of Succeflion of the eldeft Son was no fundamental Law of 
 this Kingdom, I think 1 can fufficiently prove from our Englijh-Saxon Hifto- 
 ries, as well as Laws. And as for what you fay concerning thofe Norman 
 Lords and Bilhops who joined with Duke Robert^ after his Brother was crown'd 
 King, it is called no better than Treafon by all the Writers of thofe times ; 
 for Florence of Worcefier^ and Sim. of Durhamy both tell us, that the King there- 
 upon called together the EngUflj^ and opened unto them the Treafon of the 
 
 An. D. 10S7. Normans ; and the Saxon Chronicler, who feemed to have lived about that 
 time, compares the Treafon of Bifhop O^o to that of Judas Ifcariot agninft our 
 Lord. And tho 1 grant King ff/VA'^wa might make fuch an Agreement with his 
 Brother Bake Roberty as you mention i yet as for the three thoufand Marks 
 Penfion, which you fay he was to pay him, I very much doubt it ■■, lince no 
 Hiftorian but Matthew of Weftminftery who lived between two and three hun- 
 dred years after, makes mention of it : and therefore I think it is to be i eferred 
 to the following Agreement betwixt this Duke and his Brother King Henry^ 
 which the Saxon Chronicle exprefly mentions. 
 
 Having now examined and cleared the Title of King William Rufm, I come 
 next to juftifythat of King Henry I. to the Crown, notwithftanding all you 
 have alledged againft it, which yet is no more than what you faid before, that 
 Duke ^ot^rf had an Hereditary Right, and therefore he could not be put by, 
 which is to beg the Queftion: for you cannot prove to me that he had this 
 Right either by the Law of Nature, the Law of Englandy or the Law of AV- 
 mandy ; not by the two former, as 1 have already proved : for your Conqueror 
 
 himfelf
 
 'Dialogue the Twelfth. 607 
 
 liimftlf being a Baftard, bad no better Title to the Dutchy of Normandy than 
 his Father's laft Will, before lie went to the Holy Land.-., which was not good 
 without the Confent of the Nobility of that Dutchy, as appears by the Hif- 
 toriansof that time. So that the greateft Objeftion you have to make againft 
 King/Zirnrys being eleded in a true Common Council of all England, is this, 
 that the time was fo fhort between the Death of William Rufiu and his Eleftion, 
 that it was impofTible for all the Parties that had Votes to be there prefent, 
 which is a very bold Aflertion ; for how can you or your Doctor tell, that at 
 the time when King W^///<;i»j was kill'd, he might not then have held a great 
 QonncW it Winchefler (where he then lay) who might immediately upon his 
 Death chufe his Brother Henry for their King ? for it is certain the Eleftion 
 was there the Day before his Coronation at London i and therefore it was very 
 rafhly done to affirm, that this Eledion was not in a Common Council of the 
 Kingdom, when all the Hiftorians, and particularly W. Malmesbury tells us the l. V. /. 156. 
 manner of it, and the Difputes there were about it, viz.. t\\dii Henry was elec- 
 ted King as foon as King IVilUam's Funerals were over, uili<juantis tamen ante 
 Comroverfiis inter froceres agitatis, &c. And H. de Knyght on reciting the Caufe 
 why Duke Robert was fet afide, viz.. becaufe he had been always contrary and 
 unnatural to the Borons of England:, thtrcfore quod flenario confenfu & conjilio Col. 22' 'i- 
 totitu Communitatii Regni, ip/um refutaverunt, & pro Rege omnino recufavtrunt, & 
 Hcnricum fratrem in Regem erexerunt : which plainly Ihews, that it was the Opi- 
 nion of all the antient Writers, out of whom Knyghton took this PafTage, 
 that this Eledtion was made by the free Confent, and in a full Council of all 
 the whole Community of the Kingdom. Nor does the After-claim of Duke 
 Robert to the Crown at all alter the Cafe, for the Reafons already given, as alfo 
 becaufe the Agreement that was made between them, that he that furvived 
 Ihould fucceed the other, was never confirmed or agreed to by the great Council 
 of the Kingdom ; and therefore thofe Norman Lords that joined with Duke Ro- 
 bert hcxt'xa England., are juftly taxed by W^/B/^w of Malmesbury., and the Saxon Anno 1104. 
 Chronicle, with Infidelity and Rebellion. And tho 1 grant t^zt Matthew Paris 
 (^nr rzthcT Roger o{ Wendover J whom he tranfcribes) feems to condemn King 
 Henry's taking the Crown as unjuft, and contrary to Right, and that he there- 
 fore feared the Juftice of God, eo quod fratri fuo primogenito., cui jut Regni ma- 
 vifejle competehaty temere vfurpando injufie nimis abftulerat : yet this Author wri- 
 ting about the middle of the Reiga of King Henry III. who had fucceeded his 
 Father by a pretended Right of Inheritance as well as Eledion, it is no won- 
 der if he, who writ near a hundred years after this Tranfaftion, Ihould give 
 bis Judgment in this matter according to the common Opinion and Prejudice of 
 that Age, and muft certainly fpeak by guefs^ for how could he otherwife af- 
 firm (unlefs he had been acquainted with that King's Thoughts) as he doth in 
 the fame place, thithe felt Confcientiam fuam in obtentu Regni cauteriatam? fince 
 no other Writer, either at that time, or after it, does thus blame King Henry 
 for taking the Crown. 
 
 But as for the account you give why Duke Robert never took upon him the 
 Title of King, if the Throne had not then been looked upon as vacant, be- 
 caufe of the Agreement which he made with his Brothers, by which he parted 
 with his Right for a Penfion during his Life, it is not at all fatisfaftory : for, 
 in the firft place, neither of thefe Agreements were made till above a year af- 
 ter his pretended Title did accrue to him by the Death of his Father and Bro- 
 ther ^ and therefore he ought, if he had looked upon himfelf as true King, to 
 have immediately t„ken the Title upon him, which he never did. So likewife 
 the Agreement it felf makes wholly againft your Notion of any Hereditary 
 SuccelTion to the Crown to be then fettled, fince the main Claufe in both thefe 
 Agreements is, that the Survivor fliould be Heir to him that died firft, unlefs 
 he left Children of his own to fucceed him : which plainly (hews, that in the 
 Opinion of both thofe Princes, and of the great Men that fwore on either fide 
 to fee it obferved, they knew of no fuch fettled Right of SuccelTion in their 
 Heirs, which they themfelvcs could not part with, or elfe this Claufe had been 
 wholly in vain i fince both King William and King Henry's Children were to 
 have fucceeded to the Crown of England, by virtue of both thefe Agreements, 
 before the Sons of Duke Robert^ had his Son Wttliam (who was only Earl ot 
 
 Flanders') furvived him. 
 
 ^ But
 
 6o8 BiBLibTHECA Politic A. 
 
 Bat nowj if you pleafe, you may proceed with your other Exceptions 
 againft the reft of the Inftances I have here given you of the Vacancy of the 
 Throne, till fuch time as the Common Council of the Kingdom had agreed 
 whom to place therein. 
 
 M. As to what you have faid in defence of the Vacancy of the Throne, af- 
 ter the Death of King Henry h it carries lefs'fhew of Reafon than what you 
 urged in the former Cafes j fince all Writers agree that this was a manifeft 
 Usurpation in Stephen, who could pretend no fort of Title to the Crown 
 himfclf, as well as i^erjury in the Bifliops, Lords, and great Men of EngUndy 
 who having fworn Fealty to K\ngHenry\ Daughter Maud in his Life-time, 
 made Stephen Earl of Blots their King : therefore William of Malmesbury, and 
 all the Writers of thofe times, accufe Stephen of downright Perjury and Ufur- 
 pation-, and likewife relate, that he was advanced to the Crown thro the 
 power of the Londoners and Citizens of Wtnchefter. But yet all thefe Endea- 
 vours had been in vain, unlefs he had been aflifted by his Brother flenry Bi- 
 fhop of that City, and then the Pope's Legate in England., and favoured by 
 the Archbilhopof Canterbury ^ who crowned him : And yet for all this there 
 was but a very fmall Faftion of the Bifhops and Lords who were for his Coro- 
 L. I. p. 178. nation j {orW.Malmesbury teW'iWS., Coronatta eji ergo in Regem Anglia Stephanw^ 
 iribus Epifcopis pr<tfcntibus, nullis Abbatibus., paucijfimis Optimattbus. 
 
 And many of the Kobility and great Men of England were fo fenfible of 
 this, that being headed by Robert RixV of Gloucefier (the Emprefs's bafe Bro- 
 ther) they raifcd a War againft Stephen^ which after her coming over hither 
 was carried on with great Vigour. And tho 1 grant, that after divers Chan- 
 ges of Fortune the Emprefs was at laft forced to quit the Kingdom, yet her 
 bon Duke Henry did not fail to continue his Claim to the Crown in right of 
 his Mother i and coming over into £w^/<?«^, renewed the War againft King 5rf- 
 fhen^ which was at laft conipofed by an Agreement between them, which, as 
 M.PJr. /. 8d. Matthew Paris iud Matthew Wefiminfier relate it, was thus: " That King Ste- 
 U. Weft. 246. (( p^^„ acknowledged, in an AfTembly of Bifhops and other great Men of the 
 " Kingdom, that Duke Henry had an Hereditary Right to the Crown ; and 
 *' the Duke thereupon as kindly granted, that King Stephen fhould peaceably 
 " poflefs it during his Life." So that it is certain, till this Agreement (even 
 by his own Acknowledgment) he had no Right to it : and tho I grant that 
 the Emprefs Afaud, for fome Reafons we are not able to give a true account of, 
 never took upon her the Title of Q_ueen •, yet it is very certain that ftie afted 
 as fuch during all the time fhe was in England^ receiving Homage and Fealty 
 from thofe Lords and others who came over to her fide, and alfo granting 
 Charters and conferring Honours by the Title of Anglorum Domina i which 
 Ihews, (he looked upon her felf to be the fupreme Governefs of the Kingdom, 
 tho not under the Title of Queen. So that I think you can find nothing in this 
 .Tranfaftion that can fupport your Notion of Vacancy. 
 
 F. Pray give me leave to anfwer what you have now faid before you pro- 
 ceed farther : Firft, I cannot excufe either King Stephen for taking the Crown, 
 or the Bifhops and great Men that fet it on his Head, from Perjury and In- 
 juftice i fince the Emprefs Maud had been before, in a Common Council of 
 the whole Kingdom, declared the lawful SuccelTor, and that Fealty had been 
 fworn to her as fuch. All that I infift upon in this Affair, is this, that Quod, 
 fieri non debef., faUvm -valet : And tho this ought not to have been done, 
 yet when once done it did ftand good ^ and if whilft the Throne was vacant. 
 King Stephen, by the Eledion and Confent of the Biftiops and great Men of 
 England., was placed therein, he was therefore looked upon as true and lawful 
 King as long as he lived. And this was indeed the Reafon why the Emprefs 
 never took upon her the Title of Queen of England, no not when fhe had taken 
 King Stephen Prifoner, and one would have thought might have juftly done it as 
 a Conqucrefs : But yet fhe forbore it, becaufe that Title was not then to be 
 taken without the Confent of the great Council of the Kingdom, which I can- 
 not find flie ever held, her Party being not great enough to make one. And 
 tho I cannot deny but that fhe might in fome Particulars exercife fome Pre- 
 rogatives of Royal Power, yet this was only upon a pretence of her being 
 elefted and ftiled by this Title of Lady of the EngltJIi, in a Synod of the Cler- 
 gy at Winchefier., by the Procurement of Henry the then Bifhop of that See, and 
 
 the
 
 'Dialogue the Twelfth, 6op 
 
 the Pope's Legate, who was now turned againfl; his Brother King Stephen: For 
 fhe was never generally received nor owned as Queen, nor did fhe ever exercife 
 thofe great Prerogatives of Sovereign Power, viz.. calling of great Councils, 
 making of Laws, railing of Taxes, or coining Mony. 
 
 But whereas you reprefent King Stephen to have been elefted but by a very 
 fmall Party of the Bifhops and Noblemen of England, yet it is very much to be 
 doubted whether William of Mulmeshury (who dedicated his Hiftory to Robert 
 Earl of Glocefier, King Stephen^ greatefl: Enemy) being no Friend to his Ti- 
 tle, is to be altogether credited in this matter. For Henry of Huntington Pag. 384 
 (who lived not long after) tells us exprefly, t\\:iX. Omnes qui Sacrament um jura- 
 veranty tarn Prafules quam Confutes Cr Principes^ ajfenfum Stephana prabuerunt ^ ho- 
 minium fecerunt. And it isalfo as certain that the Earls of Glocefier and Chef- 
 ter (the two greatefl; Men of England) did then likewife fwear Allegiance to 
 him, and own his Title, tho they afterwards revolted from him again ; yet 
 could they do nothing confiderable againfl: him, till his own Brother the Bi- 
 fliop of Il^»«c/;f/?er revolted alfo from him, upon pretence that the King had 
 violated the Rights of the Church. And tho it is true that after the Emprefs's 
 Departure out of England, Duke Henry her Son came over and profccuted the 
 War againfl: King Stephen, yet could it not be in his own, but his Alother's 
 Right, who was then alive. Nor could the Agreement you mention be made 
 betweenthe King and the Duke, as having then a Right to the Crown in his 
 own Perfon, fince we read of no Conccflion the Emprefs his Mother had made 
 to him of it ; and therefore whatever Title Henry could claim thereunto upon '^'^''^•Hcn. 
 the Death of KingStcphen, it was wholly due to this King's adopting him for j^l^^^^,./*]'''* 
 his Son, and declaring him his Succeflbr, upon condition that he hinifelf (houldH.wilft.id.col* 
 enjoy the Crown during his Life : which Agreement was folemnly confirmed3r4.joh.de 
 and ratified, and that by Oath, in a full Affembly of all the Bifhops, Lords, Hag. />. 282. 
 and great Men of the Kingdom. Vox Ordericiu Fitalis, in his Annals^ pag. 9S9. 
 is very exprefs in the manner of this great Tranfaftion, in thefe words: Sic 
 tamen jn pmfentiarum ipfe Rex (^ ceteri potentes Sacramento firmarent quod Dux 
 pofi mortem Regis, fi tempore eum fuperviveret, pacifice & abfque contradiclione 
 Regnum haberet : therefore as long as the Emprefs Maud lived (who died after 
 her Son King //fwry's coming to the Crown) 'tis plain he could have no He- 
 reditary Right to it, notwithftanding what Matthew Paris and Matthew Weft- 
 minfier (who lived long after thefe Tranfadions) have faid to the contrary, 
 who therein are to be looked upon as Authors that fpeak their own fenfe, ra- 
 ther than that of the Writers of thofe times. 
 
 M. 1 confefs what you have urged in this matter, concerning Duke Henry''% 
 being admitted as Heir of the Kingdom during the Life of his Mother the Em- 
 prefs i^/4;/^, feemsto the purpofe : and there could be nothing faid againlt it, 
 but that this was done by the Conccflion of the Emprefs her felf, who fur- 
 rendred all her Pretenfions to her Son, tho we have no particular account of 
 it i or elfe (which is more likely in my Opinion) that the Government of 
 Women being then unknown in England and Normandy, and confequently 
 odious to the EngUj}} and Norman Nobility, and for which reafon chiefly they had 
 before fet this Emprefs afide, they thought they did ineflcdt perform their Oath 
 to her, when they acknowledged her Title in her Son Duke Henry, who is 
 faid, by the Hiftorians of thofe times, to have fucceeded Stephen Jure Haredi- 
 tario ; which could not at all agree with your Notion of his receiving his Title 
 from the Confent or Eleftion of the great Council. 
 
 But I fliall pafs over this, and come to your next Infl:ance of the Vacancy of 
 the Throne, which you pretend to have been upon the Death of K\ng Henry 
 the Second. Now your only Argument to prove this, is, that King Richard, 
 tho his eldefl: Son alive, was only called Duke of Normandy, and never King 
 of England, till after his Coronation •, whoever will but confidcr the Cir- 
 cumfl:ances of this matter, will find that he was indeed owned for King of 
 England before his pretended Elcftion or Coronation. For before his coming 
 into England to be crowned, Roger Hoveden tells us, " That every Freeman Pag. 373, 
 " of the whole Kingdom, by the Command of his Mother Queen Eleanor, 
 *' fwore, Quod fidem portabit Regi A>igli<c Richardo Regis Hen. Jilio :" which 
 plainly fliews, that he was then by common Intendment looked upon as King 
 before bis Coronation : Tho I confefs that this very Author alfo relates, that 
 
 I i i i all
 
 6lO BiBLIOTHECA POLITICA. 
 
 all the Eftates of the Kingdom were afrembled at London^ by whofe Counfel 
 and AITent the faid Duke was confecrated and crowned King of England \ 
 and tho Ralfh de Diceto, then Dean of St.?aul\ (who in the Vacancy of that 
 Church then fupplied the Office of the Bifhop at King Richard's Coronation) 
 
 Col. 647. hath this Pafl'age ; Comes itaque PiElavorum Ricbardus H<creditario Jure prxmo- 
 vendus in Regem^ pofi tarn cleri quant fopuli folemnem dr debitam elcBionem invo- 
 lutus efi triplici Sacramento, &c. Now what can this folemn and due Eledion 
 herefignify? Or what can it mean farther, than that ^/cW^, being King by 
 Hereditary Right, was fo owned and recognized by the Clergy and Laity ? 
 
 F. I defire I may reply to this before you proceed farther. I confefs 
 what you fay about the Emprefi A^aud''s Surrender of her Right to her Son 
 Duke Her2ry would be confiderable, if you had any Authorities from our an- 
 tient Hiltoiianstofupportit^ but fince you have not, I look upon it as no bet- 
 ter than a mere Surmife of thofe of your opinion, that the Crown was then 
 enjoyed by an Hereditary Right, without any Confent or Eleftion of the 
 People. And fo likewife is your other fancy, that becaufe Women were then 
 looked upon as uncapable to govern, therefore the Bifliops and great Men of 
 the Kingdom fuppcfed they had fufficiently performed their Oath of Alle- 
 giance to her, by acknowledging her Son Duke Henry for the right Heir of 
 the Crown. Now if this had been fo, pray tell me to what purpofe King 
 Henry 1. (Father to the Emprefs) fhould have made all the Eftates of England 
 fwear Fealty to his Daughter, if a Woman had been then looked upon as un- 
 capable to govern? Or to what purpofe Ihould the Clergy, in the Council at 
 
 Hov. />. io5. Winchtfter, chufe this Emprefs, as the King's Daughter, Lady both of Eng- 
 land and Normandy, as William of Malmeshury tells us exprefly that they did 
 and that he was prefentatit? Or how could the great Council of the Ktag* 
 dom believe that they had fufficiently fatisfied their Oath to the Daughter, in 
 conferring the Allegiance that was due to her upon her Son? I am fure no 
 Heirefs of the Crown would look upon that as a good Performance of their 
 Oath at this day. When you can anfwer me thefe Queries, I fliall be of youc 
 Opinion in this Point, but till then I beg your pardon. 
 
 But as to what you lay againft the Vacancy of the Throne upon the IJeath' 
 of King Henry W. till King ^«VW^ was elefted and crowned, Idelire no better 
 Authority to the contrary than thofe very Authors you have now cited for 
 your Opinion : For ^\x^ Hoveden^ in the very place you have quoted him, fays, 
 " That the Duke was to be [\n Latin, in RegemJi crowned King by^the Couu- 
 *' fel and Aflent of all the Parties there prefent." Now if I underftand any 
 thing of Grammar or Senfe, he was not King before, and therefore needed 
 their Aflent to make him fo. Likewife in the next Quotation from Ralph de 
 Diceto, the Duke is faid, Hareditariojure promovendm in Regem ', which words 
 being in the Future Tenfe, (hew he was not then, but was to be promoted to 
 that Dignity. Now if his Hereditary Right alone could have done it, then to 
 what purpofe are all thefe words foregoing ? So that tho this Right gave him 
 a fair Pretence to fucceed to the Crown, yet it is plain from both the Au- 
 thors you have quoted, that he did not till after the due Confent and Elec- 
 tion of the Clergy and People : So that after all, your Queftions (what can this 
 folemn and due Biedion fignify ? or what can it mean farther, than that Ri- 
 chard being King by an Hereditary Right, was fo owned and recognized by the 
 Clergy and Laity?) will receive a very eafy Anfwer from what has been al- 
 ready faid, till you can Ihew me out of any Didionary, that CoafiUum and Af- 
 fenfm (which are the words of Hoveden) and the words folemni^ & debita Elec- 
 tioy ever fignified an Owning or Recognition of an Hereditary Right. 
 
 I confefs the only colour you have for your Interpretation of thofe words in 
 Hoveden, which you have now cited, is Qiaeen Eleanor's making every Free- 
 man of the Kingdom fwear Fealty to Richard King of England, as to their 
 Liege Lord: from whence you would infer, that by common Intendment of 
 Law he was looked upon King of £«^/<i»<^ before he was crowned, and confe- 
 quently there could be no Vacancy of the Throne. Now admit that he was 
 commonly called King before he was crowned, or that the Queen his Mother 
 would make the People fwear to himasfuch^ yet that could not make him fo, 
 fince the fame Hiftorians alfo tell us, that Hubert Archbifhop of Canterbury, and 
 
 ' H'illiamEjrl Marefchal, made the People of England take a like Oath to Earl 
 
 John
 
 
 Dialogue the Twelfth. 6ii 
 
 'Johm% their Lord (not King) immediately after the Death of King Richard 
 his B'-other i and vet I fuppofc you will not affirm, that their fwcaring Fealty 
 to him as their fuperiour Lord, made him King, or gave him a jjft Title to 
 the Crown. Audi delire yop, or any iadifterent Man, to tell me which was 
 •fj0veiirnsOp\nioa, whether this fwearing Fealty was a fjfficicnt Declaration 
 of his being King, or elfe all thofe other Expreflinis which lignify the contra- 
 ry, when immediately before his Coronation he only ca\h h Ducem Rich.trdumj 
 qui coronundns erat in Re^em'-,,w\\'idt\\ think is as plain a Diftinftion of his be- 
 ing a Duke before he was crowned, and a King afterwards, as words can make, 
 
 M. 1 fee it is in vain to urge this Point any longer, and therefore I fhall 
 proceed to your next Inftance of the Vacancy of the Throne, after the Death 
 of King ^»c/;^r^, until King Jo/;« was placed therein. Now tho it is certain 
 that this Prince was an Ufurper upon his Nephew Duke jirthur^ yet whether he 
 was ever elefted in a Common Council of the Bifhops, Earls, and Barons of 
 the Kingdom, is very doubtful : Butfuppofe he were, it was done wrongfully, 
 and to the prejudice of Arthur Duke of Britain^ the right Heir to the Crown, 
 who being young and a Stranger, it is no wonder if he were put by, and his 
 Uncle, who was a Man, and better acquainted with England^ having the Inte- 
 reft of the Archbiihop of Canterbury, and mofl: of the great Men, got the Crown 
 from him ; and yet for all that Hoveden, who was alive at this time, fpeaks 
 not a word of his being elefted, but only that upon his coming into EngLtnd., 
 he was received by the Nobility, and crowned by Hubert Archbifhop of Can- 
 terbury. So that there is not one word there of any Eleftion by, but only a 
 SubmiflTion from, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal to King John, and a Re- 
 cognition that he was their King. Nor indeed could he need it, if it be true 
 what the fame Author tells us, " That when King Richard defpaired of Life, Hov. /. 445>. 
 " he devifed to John his Brother the Kingdom of England, and all his other 
 " Lands, and caufed all thofe that were prefent to do him Fealty." And this 
 is related by //oz/f^f», in ail probability an Eye-witnefs of thefe Tranfadions. 
 
 So that the firit Author we find to mention any thing of the Particulars of 
 this pretended Eleftion, is Matthew Paris, who has given us the Speech which Matt. PariC 
 the Archbifhop made at this fuppofed Eledion, and alfo recites the Arch-Z-i??- 
 bilhops, Bifhops, Earls, and Barons, and all others who ought to be at his 
 Coronation. The Archbifhop Handing in the middle of them, faid thus: 
 *' Hear all of you, your Difcretion fhall know, that no Man hath Right to 
 *' fucceed in this Kingdom, unlefs, after feeking God, he be unanimoufly cho- 
 *' fen by the Univerfity of the Kingdom:" (that is, thofe that are here faid 
 to meet at London.") The reft of the Speech needs no repeating, only he lays it 
 down for Law (which I think was never heard of before) " That if any of 
 *' the Progeny of the dead King did excel others, they ought more readily to 
 " confent to the Eleftion of him." And fo upon this Speech made in behalf 
 of Earl John, and full of a great deal of fulfome Flattery, he was declared 
 King. 
 
 But to let you fee what a fort of Man this Archbifhop Hubert was, take what 
 the fame Author tells us in the fame place ; that being asked afterward why he 
 faid thefe things, he anfwered, " That he guefTed, and was afcertained by cer- 
 " tain Prophecies, that John would bring the Kingdom and Crown into great Ibid. 
 *' confufion^ and therefore left he might have too much liberty in doing it, 
 *' he affirmed, he ought to come in by Eleftion, and not by Hereditary Succef- 
 *' fion." $<!ow tho this learned Doftrine of the Archbifliop alTcrts a Right of 
 Eleftion in the Convention of Bifhops, Earls, Barons, &c. yet by his own 
 Anfwer, when he was asked why he faid thefe things," it clearly difcovers it 
 to be only a Defign and Artifice in th^ Archbifhop, to caufc them to fet up and 
 make John King, and in which alfo he denies any fuch Right of Eleftion. But 
 lince Hoveden, nor any other of our antient Hiftorians make mention of this 
 Eleftion, but only of his Coronation, and the Bifhops, Earls, and Barons af- 
 fiftingat it, not giving their Confentsto it, it may very well be, that that Sto- 
 ry of an Eleftion, and this Speech of Archbifhop Hubert, might be only an 
 Invention of Matthew Parii, or rather of Roger of Wendover, from whom he 
 tookmoftof hisHiftory: but that this Doftrine of the Archbifhop, concern- 
 ing the Eleftion of our Kings, if meant according to the modern undciltand- 
 ing of it, was then new, Gervafcy a Monk of Canterbury in the year 1 122. 
 
 li i i 2 who
 
 6l2 BiBLIOtHECA PoLITlCA. 
 
 who alfo fpeaks of the Coronation of Henrj/ 1, fays, it was manifeft, and 
 known almoft to all Men, that the Kings ot England were only obliged and 
 bound to God for the PofTeffion of the Kingdom, and to the Church of Can- 
 Col 133S. terhury for their Coronation \ Manifefium eft aurem & emnihta fere notum^ Jie- 
 ^' 5°' ges AngltA foil Deo oUlgari & teneri ex ipftus regni adoptione, & Ecclefu Cantua- 
 
 rienfi ex Coronatione- 
 
 But that King John was looked upon as an Ufurper, is very certain, lince 
 befides fome of the honeft Englifi Nobility that took Duke Arthur'% part, the 
 King of France did alfo make war upon King John on his Nephew's acc6unt, 
 becaufe he looked upon him as true Heir to the Crown ; and therefore when 
 King John had privately made away his faid Nephew in Prifon, the King of 
 France fummon'd him, as Duke of Normandy., and Peer of France, to anfwer 
 for the Murder in an Aderably of the Peers of France at Paru ; where, for his 
 refufing to appear, he was condemn'd to death, and his Dukedom of Normandy 
 declared forfeited to the King of France. 
 
 F. I confefs you have faid as much as cau be, to prove that King John had no 
 Hereditary Right to the Crown, nor was fo folemnly eleded to it (as Matthew 
 Paris relates \) but yet for all this, I think I may very juftly oppofe all that you 
 have now faid upon this Head : for in the firll place, it was then very much 
 difputed (as it hath been alfo (ince that time) if an elder Brother died, and 
 left a Son a Minor, whether his younger Brother or his Son Ihould foeeeed. 
 ^ For tho the People of Anjou, and thofe of Guienne^ own'd Duke Arthur for 
 
 their Prince, yet the States of Normandy were of another mind, and by vir- 
 tue of King Richard^s Teftament, he was immediately after his Death invefted 
 with that Dukedom; nor was he then at all oppofed in it by the King of 
 France, tho fupreme Lord of the Fee : and as for England, befides his Brother's 
 Teftament, whereby he left him Heir of all his Territories, it was alfo thea 
 generally held in England as moft confonant to the ?int\fa\. EngUfli- Saxon Law 
 of Succellion, that the Uncle (hould fncceed to the Crown before the Nephew. 
 Therefore it is no wonder if Duke Arthur found fo fraall a Party here, not any 
 Bifliop, Earl or Baron (as I read of) owning his Title : and as for the King 
 of France, it is alfo as certain, that he did at firft own King John for Lawful 
 King of England, and Duke of Normandy, and entred into a Treaty of Peace, 
 and made a League with him as fuch; tho it is trne that afterwards, when he 
 had a mind to pick a quarrel with that King, he then fet up Duke Arthur''^ 
 Title. And tho this Duke was made away in the beginning of King John^s 
 Reign, yet did not the King or Peers of France ever take any notice of it, till 
 about twelve or thirteen Years after, when he had now an juftly conquered all A'tr- 
 mandy, and almoft all that King's other Territories in France ; and then wanting 
 a Title to keep them, he began this Profecution you mention againft him, and up- 
 on his Non-appearance he was condemned unheard. But that the King of France 
 himfelf, and all the great Men of that Kingdom, did look upon him to have 
 fol. 236. been lawful Km^ oi England, appears by that Speech vthxch Matthexo Paris re- 
 lates to have been made after King Jofc»'s Depofition by the Barons of England., 
 by a Knight whom Prince Lewis of France had made his Procurator, to treat 
 with the Pope's Legate about his coming over hither: " where, when he had 
 " recited that King John had been condemn'd by his Peers for the Death of his 
 *' Nephew Arthur, and that he had been alfo for his great Cruelties and other 
 ".Wickednefs depofed by the Barons of England; and farther reciting that the 
 " faid King, without the Aflent of his Nobility had refign'd his Kingdom to 
 " the Pope to hold it of- him at an annual Tribute of a thoufand Marks :" (the 
 i^eft I will give you m Latin, becaufe you your feif may tranflate it ) EtfiCo- 
 ronam Anglia fine Baronihtis alicui dare non fotvit, fotuit tamen dimittere earn \ 
 tjuamftatim cum refignaverit. Rex ejfe defiit, ^ Regnum fine Rege vacavit, vatans 
 itaque Regnum fine Baronibiu ordinari non debuit, &C. So that you may fee that 
 by the Order of Prince Lewis, and the Allowance of the King of France him- 
 felf, every one of our Opinions are maintain'd for good : Firft, That King 
 John was, before the Refignatioa of his Crown to the Pope, true and lawful 
 King. Secondly, That by that Refignation to the Pope, he did difmifs or 
 abdicate his Right to it ; (for fo I fuppofe the word dimittere Rtgnum is here 
 to be render'd.) Thirdly, That upon this DifmilTion of the Crown, the 
 Throne became vacant. Fourthly, That upon this Vacancy the Kingdom conld 
 
 t not
 
 Dialogue the Twelfth 6i'i 
 
 not be confer'd without the Confent of the Barons, that is, the great Council 
 of the Kingdom. 
 
 But let King Johns Right to the Crown have been what it would, it is cer- 
 tain, that he could not take it upon him, until fuch time as this Great Council 
 had both heard and aliow'd his Title : and that this was in the nature of aa 
 Eledion, notwithftanding his Brother's Will, appears by that Account which 
 Roger Wendovtr and Matthew Paris have given US of it; which tho Hoveden and 
 other Writers have omitted, yet doth it not therefore follow, that this was 
 all the pure Invention of Roger of Wendovery or Matthew Paris, fince the for- 
 mer, living near that time, might write from the Relation of fome that were 
 then prefeut ^ and as for the latter, I look upon him, tho a Monk, as a Man 
 of too great Integrity to invent any thing of his own head. And I confefs 
 the Account that Archbifhop Hubert gives, why he put King Johns Title rather 
 upon Eleftion than SuccelTion, looks very fufpicious; fince the Archbifhop muft 
 thereby have made himiclf a Knave and a Hypocrite, and feems alfo to con- 
 IradiA vihzt Matthew Paris had before faid, viz.. "That all thofe that heard 
 *' his Speech, dared not fo much as doubt of thefe things, knowing that the 
 '* Archbifhop had not thus judged of this matter without caufe." And there- 
 fore 1 grant that this part of the Relation, concerning the Archbifhop's vindi- 
 cating of bimfelf for thus giving his Judgment, might be a Story commonly 
 taken up, and being told to this Author, was by him infertcd in his Hiftory at 
 a time, when 1 grant the Crown of England began to be thought fuccefDvc, by 
 reafon that King Henry III. had fucceeded as the eldeft Son of his Father, tho 
 he was not for all that admitted without Eleftion, as 1 Ihall prove by and 
 by. But that King John was made King by Eledion, tho he claim'd it 
 from his Brother by SuccefTion, likewife appears from his own Charter, ftill to 
 be feen at this day in the Archbifhop's Archives at Lambeth j wherein he re- Vid. Charta 
 cites, that he came to the Crown, Jure hitreditario, & mediante tarn Cleri auam modeiationis 
 Pofuli vnanitni confenfu & favore. Where you fee plainly that he derives his ^*°.^,'. ^^S"" 
 Title from the Confent and Favour of the Clergy and People, as well as his own 
 Hereditary Right. 
 
 M. Notwithftanding what you have now faid, I cannot agree with you, that 
 by thefe Words you have cited from this Charter, is to be underftood any 
 formal Eleftion of the Clergy and People-, but that this unanimous Confent 
 mention'd in it, was rather their Acknowledgment of his Title, and SubmifTion 
 to him, than any thing elfe : for according to Hovedenh Relation of his com- 
 ing to the Crown (which I think the moft exaQ extant) the whole Nation 
 fubmitted, and fwore Fealty to him againft all Men, before he came over into 
 England. 
 
 But as for his Son Henry III. it is much more plain that he fucceeded by Succef- 
 fion, and not by Eledtion, as being the eldeft Son of the late King his Father, 
 as appears by the Relation of his Coronation in Matthew Weflminfter, who tells 
 us thus : HenricM Johannis primogenittu in Regem inunilits & folemniter coronatta Fol. 277. 
 ejt. And tho from the Speech which was made to the Clergy and Nobility 
 that were then atCloucefter by the Earl Marflully 'tis pretended, that Henry s.D. ^.fi' 
 was elected ; yet 1 dare fay, if any one do but impartially confider the Tenour 
 of it, he will find that the Defign of it was rather to perfuade all thofe then 
 prefent to return to their Duty, and acknowledge him for their King, whom 
 God and Nature had defign'd for that great Charge : for the Earl begins his 
 Difcourfeto them thus, (as it is in Knighton) EcceRex vefter! (which certainly 
 could not then be true, if an Eleftion was neceffary to make him fuch) but 
 amongft the reft of his Arguments, he urges this i Hunc igitur Ubeat Regem cdi, 2^16. 
 diccre, cut iffum Regnum debetur j Tou ought to chufe him, to whom the Kingdom is 
 due : (which furely it can be to none, if it be not Hereditary.) And what puts 
 all out of doubt, that the Kingdom was not then (and if not then, I am fure 
 never fince) Elective, is the Anfwcr of Hubert de Burgh to Lewis, when he 
 fummon'd him to deliver up £)«i;«-Caftle to him, fince his Mafter, for whofe 
 ufc and fervice he held it, was dead : but fee his Anfwer, " If my old Mafter, 
 **• fays he, be dead, he has left behind him Sons and Daughters to fucceed him." 
 A thing he never would have alTertcd, had he not thought there had been a 
 Divine Right fomewhere clfc than in the People. 
 
 F. Before
 
 6i4 
 
 BiBtlOTHECA PoLfriCA; 
 
 F. Before 1 fpeak any thing to King Henry the Third's Ekftion, give tne leavie 
 to reply to what you have faid agaiiift the exprefs Woids of King John's Char- 
 ter i tor if Favor and ConfenCus does not fignify foinewhat more than a Kare 
 Acknowledgment and Submiflion, 1 underftand neither Etgl'jh nor Latin. Kor 
 is this any Anfwer to the exprefs Teftimony of Roger cf IVinduvty and Mutt. 
 Ttiris to the contrary. And as for Roger Hoveden^ he does not fay he was not 
 eledkd, but only omits the manner of it, as divers other Hiftorians do. So 
 that (at the beft) this is but a negative Argument j aind yet that Hoveden him- 
 felf did not look upon him as King even after the whole Nation had fworn 
 Fealty to him before his Coronation, may appear from this Pafldge a little 
 before his coming over : Willielmm Rex Scotorum mi/it nuncici ad J.)i)unnem 
 Ducem Nortnandia^ &c. where you fee ■ he calls him no more than jjuke "of 
 Normandy. 
 
 But to come to the Election of his Son Prince Henry ^ if this be all you have 
 
 to prove a Divine Right of SuccefTion in Henry HI. 1 doubt it will do yoj but 
 
 little fervice •, for according to your own Principles it muft have btt;. I-dged 
 
 fomcwhere clfe than in this Prince : for when King ^ofcw his Father didt. Eled- 
 
 ncr, the Sifter of Duke >4rr/)«r, was alive, and died not till the ^'^\.\^^^^it 
 
 Mat. Paris, of King Heney% Reign, a clofe Prifoner in £r»/?o/-Caftle, as Matthew tuns re- 
 
 /• 574' lates. So that it is apparent he could have no fuch Divine Hereditary Right 
 
 as you fuppofe ; and therefore perhaps his Father, to ftrengthen his Title,- and 
 
 to recommend him the more to the Peoples Favour, appointed him bis SuC- 
 
 Mat. Faris, ceflor by his laft Teftamcnt : and Matthew Paris., and Matthew Wefiminfter t€ft 
 
 /•2S8. us, that when King John died, Henrtcvm Primogenitum fvum Regni confiituit 
 
 Mat. Weftm. ^^^^^^^j,, go that it feems there was then no fuch plain Hereditary Right ; for 
 
 ^ ^ * if it had, what need had there been of this Teftament ? .>..)<■ 'I : ■■ nion. 
 
 But for all this Right, 1 do not find that this poor Princefs Etednbr had any 
 
 cf the Bifhops or great Lords to take her part, but all the Difpute then was 
 
 at this great Convention at Gloucefter., whether they Ihould abjure Prince Lexois^ 
 
 whom raoft of them had before chofen for their Lord, and adhere to Prince 
 
 P. 145. Henry., there prefent before them, as Matthew Paris tells us •■, Erat autem ea 
 
 • tempefiate inter Optimates Anglid flu^uatio maxima., cui fe Regi committerent j Jw 
 
 venine Henrico^ an Domino Lvdovico ? So that it feems, by the Relation oni: 
 
 Hiftorians give us of this matter, it was not from any great fenfe that the 
 
 Clergy and Nobility had of the Juftnefs of Prince Henry % Title, • that made 
 
 them agree to chufe him King^ but the Hatred they then bore to Prince Lewisj 
 
 when they found he had broken his Contraft with them, and put all theftrong 
 
 places of the Kingdom into the hands of Frenchmen., and treated the EngUfli 
 
 Nobility with Scorn and Contempt: and therefore no wonder if they prefer'd 
 
 an innocent young Prince of their own Nation, who had never been guilty of 
 
 his Father's Faults, before a Stranger, whofe fraudulent Dealing with them they 
 
 had found not to anfwer their Expeftations. And therefore 7l/<jf. Wefiminfier 
 
 tells us, that omnes Nohiles Term in brevi tpji juveni Regi Henrico., qiti nihil culpe 
 
 verfui eos meruerat., fideliter adhaferunt. 
 
 But to prove farther, that this King came in by Eleftion, and not by Suc- 
 cefTion, appears by what our Hiftorians relate concerning the manner of it. 
 Col. Henry de Knyghton, in his Chronicle, tells us, that on the Feaft of St. Simon and 
 
 Jude., Henry, Son of King John., in Regem erigitur viribus, & induftria Gualonis 
 Papa. Legatt ; which plainly fliews that he was not King before : and I defire 
 no better an Authority than your own Author, Matthew Weftmir.fter, who fays, 
 that he was in Regem inuKUm, anointed to be King-, which fhews that he 
 thought him net fo before his Coronation. And tho 1 grant Mat. Paris makes 
 the Earl Aiarjhal to begin his Speech with thofe words, EcceRex vcfier ! as you 
 relate them ^ yet this was no more than an Allulion to that place in St. Johrt.^ 
 Chap. 19. Behold your King ! it bting ufual in thofe days to begin their Speeches 
 with a Text of Scripture. So that the Earl did not intend to be underftood 
 literally, for then he fhould have in this Speech cootradided what he had faid 
 before : for tho to prepoftefs their Minds, he fays of the young Prince there 
 prefent. Behold your Ktng ! yet it is plain, that how much foever he thought the 
 Kingdom his Right, yet that it could not be conferred upon him without their 
 choice ; as appears by thefe words, which you your felf have made ufe of, -viz.- 
 Tou ought to chufe him^ to whom the Kingdom is due. And it is evident by the 
 
 AfTent
 
 Dialogue the Twelfth, ^15 
 
 Aflent which the whole AlTembly give to the Reafons declared by him in this 
 Speech, that it was their Choice alone that made him King, their Votes being 
 j^iven ill thefe words, Ftat Rex'^ which had been altogether needlefs,' had they 
 looked upon him as King already. And therefore the Speech o{ Hubert de Burgli^ 
 which you mention, may very well be reconciled to this Hypothecs, of fup- 
 pofing a Neccffity of an Eledtion and Coronation to confer a full and legal Right 
 in thofe times : for when he faid, Tkit the King^ if dead, had yet left behind 
 him Childre/i who ought to fucceed him, this, if ftridly taken, is altogether 
 falfe : for Eleanor, the true Heirefs of the Crown (according to your Rule of 
 Succttlion) was then alive : but, if taken in a limited fenfc, is true, that is, the 
 Children ought to fucceed if the great Council of the Nation thought fit j 
 without whofc Confent, tho they might have Jm ad rem., yet had they not^w* 
 in r< ; this Eleftion and Coronation being then looked upon, as Livery and 
 Seilin at this day is to an Eftate in fee, without which, tho the Writings are 
 fcaleU and delivered, the Land will not pafs. 
 
 To conclude : 1 pray anfwer me that Qi'^ftion I have fo long put, tho with- 
 out any Reply, t/iz,. Why, before this Eleftion and Coronation was perfornl'd, 
 none of thofe Princes that came to the Crown by your fuppofed Right of Suc- 
 celHon, are calJ'd by any higher Title than Dukes of Normandy, or Earls of 
 Poi^ou ? So that from what has been here faid, 1 think it plainly appears, 
 that no lefs than feven of the eight Princes from your William the Conqueror 
 (reckoning him for one) to King Henry III. have owed their Title to the Crown, 
 not to any Right of Succeflion, but either to the Eledion of the People alone, 
 or elfc to the Will or Defignatioo of the laft King, confirm'd by the general 
 Confent of the People given thereunto ; and without which it would not have 
 been good, according to the antient Cuftoin of the Englijl) Saxons before your 
 Conqueft : where, belides the Teftament of the King deceafed, there was alfo 
 required the Confent or Election of the great Council. So that you fee here 
 was no alteration made in the Form of our chufing our Kings after your Con- 
 queft from what it was before, for no lefs than feven or eight Defccnts: And 
 when you can anfwer this, I Ihall then come over to your Opinion. 
 
 M. In anfwer to your Queltion, I fhall not deny but that our Hiftorians 
 give all the Kings you mention no higher Titles than Dukes of Normandy, or 
 Earls of Po«i?o!/, before their Coronations: .which tho I fuppofe they might 
 do from a foolilh Superftition of that Age, which made them fancy that none 
 weie properly to be called Kings until they had been anointed, and folcmnly 
 crown'd by a Bidiop j yet that they looked upon them as Kings indeed, appears 
 in that they ordered and difpofed of all publick Affairs, conferred Offices and 
 Bilhopricks, as if they were lawful Kings before your pretended Elcftion, or 
 the Ceremony of their Coronation •, and alfo had Ambafladors fcnt to them 
 from foreign Princes, as appears from your own Quotation out of Hoveden, 
 of thofe that were fent by the King of Scots to King John before he was 
 crowned ; tho it is true he there ftiles hira no more than Duke of Normandy. 
 And this alfo may frfrthcr appear by that PalFage 1 have cited out of the fame 
 Author, that King Richard had Fealty fworn to him as King of England by all 
 the Freemen of England before he was crowned, and you your felf acknow- 
 ledge the fame Oath to be taken by the fame Perfons to King John before he 
 came over to take the Crown. 
 
 And laftly, to make it yet plainer that there was no Vacancy or Interregnum 
 in all thefc Succeffions you have mention'd, confult what Chronologcr you 
 pleafe, or look into the moft antient Tables of the Succeflion of our Kings of 
 England, or into our old printed Statutes or Law-Books, and you will ftill find 
 the Reign of the fucceeding Prince to commence from the Death of his next 
 PredccelTor, without any Vacancy or Interregnum between. And thefe I think 
 to be a great deal furcr Marks of their fucceeding to their Royal Dignity, by a 
 pretence at leaft of a Right of Inheritance from the Father or Brother, rather 
 than this Fancy of yours that you lay fo much ftrefs upon. That becaufe of 
 their not being Ililcd Kings by our Hiftorians till their pretended Eleiftion and 
 Coronation was over, they were not fo indeed. And I hope this may ferve 
 to fatisfy this mighty Objection. 
 
 b\ I muft beg your pardon if I ftill declare my felf not fatisfied with your 
 Anfwers: for tho 1 grant, that if this Argument of the Hiftorians not ftiling 
 
 thcni
 
 6i6 BiBLioTHEcA Politic A. 
 
 them Kings, had ftood fingle, without any thing elfe to fupport it, your 
 Anfwcrs might have fignified fomcthing ^ yet if you pleafe to confider it, you 
 will find that none of thefe Princes (taking in William your Conqueror) claimed, 
 as your felf muft acknowledge, by any Hereditary Right, but by the Tefta- 
 ment of the deceafed Predeceflbr •■, and if fo, where was your fettled Right of 
 Succeflion by Right of Blood ? Secondly, it is likewife as plain, that thefe 
 four were never admitted or afted in England as lawful Kings, till thofeTefta- 
 ments were confirm'd by the Eleftion of the great Council, before whom they 
 declared their Rights : and till this was done, how the Throne could be other- 
 wife than vacant, 1 cannot conceive. But as for two of them (whom you 
 call downright Ufurpers) viz,. Henry I. and King Stefhen, it is certain they 
 could have no colour of a Title till their Eledtions ; and if not till then, and 
 that neither your next Heir of the Crown, nor yet they themfelves took upon 
 them the Title of Kings, was not this a Vacancy of the Throne in the meaa 
 time ? fuppofc that time to have been but for the fpace of three or four days, 
 as it was after the Death of King William Rufiu. 
 
 In the next place pray confider, that upon the Death of every one of thefe 
 Princes, we do not find the great Council of the Kingdom, which ftill affembled 
 to elect the Succeflbr, was ever call'd in their Names, but met by their own 
 inherent Authority j for how could they be furamon'd by the King before he 
 took that Title upon him, which, as your felf are forced to acknowledge, he 
 never did till after his Coronation ? 
 
 L.aftly, pray remember farther, that whoever was thus elected and confirm'd 
 by the great Council, whether he was next Heir by Blood or not, was always 
 looked upon as lawful King, and has always paded for fuch in all our Chro- 
 nicles and Laws, and not thofe that claimed as the right Heirs by Blood. 
 And if this be not fufficient to prove that thefe Princes had no true and com- 
 pleat Right to the Crown till this Eledtion was paft, I defire you would Ihew 
 me my Miftake. 
 
 Thefe things premis'd, I think it will be very eafy to reply to every one of 
 thofe Anfwers you pretend to have made to my Query : Therefore as to your 
 firft, That they were really Kings before their Election or Coronation, becaufe 
 they ordered and difpofed of all publick Affairs, I do not deny but that fome 
 of them, who fucceeded either as Heirs byTeftament, or by Right of Blood, 
 might do many publick ASs, by reafon that they looked upon themfelves as 
 Heirs apparent to the Kingdom, and whom the great Council, I grant, could 
 not without high Injuftice fet afide: and upon this account they might alfo 
 receive Ambafladors from foreign Princes, in Affairs relating to Peace or War, 
 that they might know how to deal with them, or what to exped from them 
 after they were fettled in the Throne : yet that they fent not to them by the 
 Title of Kings, appears by that Paffage I cited out of Hoveden. But I defy 
 you to fhew me any one Inftance that any of thefe Princes above-mention'd 
 ever took upon them to exercife any of thofe Prerogatives of Sovereign Power j 
 fuch as making War or Peace, enading Laws, coining of Mony, before their 
 Eleftion and Coronation \ which tho in fome of them was done both at once, 
 yet in others it appears plainly to have been at different times, and not upon 
 the fame day, as it happen'd in the cafe of Henry \. whofe Ele£tion was at 
 Winchefier upon Saturday^ and his Coronation was not till the next day : as 
 alfo that of Henry \\\. whofe Eleftion was upon St. Simon and Jude's day, but 
 his Coronation upon the day after. 
 
 But as for your next Reply, which I grant to have been the ftrongeft you 
 have made, that King Richard I. and King John had both of them Homage 
 and Fealty fworn to them as Kings, by all the Freemen of England, before they 
 were crowned : This were a material Argument if it were made out, as I think 
 it cannot be^ for in the firft place, the bare fwearing of Homage and Fealty 
 to a Prince doth not make him immediately King, tho 1 grant it might give 
 him in that Age a Right to be looked upon as Heir apparent to the Crown. 
 Thus Henry I. made all the Lords and great Men of England to fwear Homage 
 and Fealty to Prince William., his Sonj and fo after his being drowned, to the 
 Emprefs Maud, his Daughter, which was the true reafon why fhe looked upon 
 her felf afterwards as Heirefs to the Crown. So likewife King Stephen, a little 
 before his Death (at the great Council I have mention'd) caufed all the great 
 
 Men
 
 Dialogue the Twelfth. 6if 
 
 Men of the Kingdom to fwear Homage and Fealty to fJenry Duke of Anjouy 
 as his immediate auccellbr. So that you fee this fwearing of Fealty was in thofe 
 days often perform'd before ihe Perfons that received it were Kings indeed ; and fo 
 I believe it was done ia both thofe Inftanccs you now give me : for tho I grant 
 that Hoveden (as you cite him) relates that Homage was made, and Fealty 
 fworn to Richard I. by the Title of King, yet it is very much to be doubted 
 whether this was not only by a Prolepfis^ or perhaps a flip of the Pen in thi» 
 Author, lince he writ this Hiftory long after King Richardh Death ^ and there- 
 fore unlefs we had the very words of this Oath, there is no certain Conclu- 
 lion to be drawn from thence. And I think we may as well credit the Chro- 
 nicle of Abbot Brampton, who likewife lived about the fame time, and recites 
 all this Affair almoft in the fame words with thofe ia Hoveden ■■, but there the 
 Oith doth not run exactly in the fame words as in this Author, but thus : 
 Ouod unvfcjuiftjue liberoruhi hominum totim Regni juraret quod fldem port aret Domino 
 Richardoy Domino Auglia, filio Domini Regis Henriciy &c. Jicut legio Domino fua 
 contra omnes mart ales. Where you fee the Oath is not made to King Richard 
 as King, but only as Lord of England ; and that there is a great deal of diffe- 
 rence between thofe two Titles, not only in Name, but in Subltance, I have 
 already proved, when I fpokc of the Emprefs Maud\ {tiling her felf Domina^ 
 and not Regina j4nglorum; tho fhe had Homage rendred, and Fealty fworn to 
 her, not only in her Father's life-time, but alfo after her coming over again 
 into England, in the Reign of King Stephen^ by all that owa'd her Title. And 
 that Hoveden himfelf meant no more than this, appears by that Paffage I have 
 already taken notice of, viz- That Hubert, Archbiftiop of Canterbury, and Wd' p. 793. 
 Uam, the Earl AIarfl)al, being fent over to keep the Peace, made all the Men 
 of the Kingdom, as well of Cities as Boroughs, with the Earls, Barons and 
 Freeholders, Jurare fidelitatem & pacem Johanni Normannorum duct, filio Henrici 
 Regis, filii Alatildis Imperatricis, contra omnes homines : where you fee the Oath is 
 taken to him only as Duke of Normandy, and not as King at all ; and therefore 
 you are miftaken to fay that Hoveden mentions the like Oath to be taken to 
 Duke John, as it was before to King Richard. 
 
 But I come now to anfwer your laft Argument, whereby you would prove 
 that there was no Vacancy or interregnum in this Age ; which is, becaufe that 
 our Chronicles and Tables of Succefiion do ftill begin the Reign of each King, 
 from the day of the Deceafe of his Predeceflbr, without any Vacancy or Inter- 
 regnum between them. To which I reply, Ihat none of our antient Chro- 
 nicles or Hiftorians reckon thus, as I know of, but rather acknowledge a Vacancy 
 of the Throne to have been between each Succefiion j and as for the Tables of 
 the Succefiion of our Kings, when you can ftiew me one more antient than the 
 time from which I grant the Crown of England began to be looked upon as a 
 Succefilve, and not an Eledive Kingdom, i fliall be of your opinion. But ad- 
 mit it were fo, lince the Succefiion to the Crown had been for the moll part 
 mixed, partly Eleftive, and partly Hereditary, our Kings might, to maintain 
 the Honour of their Title, ftill reckon their coming to the Crown immediately 
 from the Death of the lafl: Predeceflbr, tho there have been oftentimes feme Days 
 and Weeks between the one and the other, as I have now proved, and fliall prove 
 further by and by ; which being but fmall Fraftions of Time, are not taken no- 
 tice of in the whole Account, which may be notwithftanding very agreeable to 
 Law , for both my Lords Dyer and Anderfon in their Reports do agree, " That 
 " the King, who is Heir orSuccefibr, may write and begin his Reign the fame 
 *' day that his Progenitor or Predeceflbr dies." 
 
 M. It wifl be to no purpofc to difpute this Point with you any longer, fince 
 1 mufl: confefs that there were fo many Ufurpations in the Succefiion of molt 
 of thofe firft Kings after the Conqueft, that it is a difficult matter to prove 
 any fettled Rule of Succefiion to have been then obferv'd in England; and 
 therefore I only defire you to take notice, that tho it is true, King Henry HI. 
 was an Ufurpcr tor the fiift twenty five Years of his Reign, yet for afl the reft 
 of it, which was near thirty more, he was a true and lawful Prince: ioi Elea- 
 nor his Coufin being dead in Prifon without Ifiue, and there being no more of 
 that Line left, her Right wholly devolved upon King Henry, and he and his 
 Children are to be from henceforth rcckon'd to have a true Hereditary Right to 
 the Crown without any Competitors. 
 
 Kkkk And
 
 6l8 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTlCA. 
 
 And that this was fo, will plainly appear from the Tellament of King 
 iienry III. (a Copy of which I have by me) where, tho he bequeaths a great many 
 of his Jewels to the Queen, and a great deal of Mony to charitable Ufes, yet 
 for this Kingdom, and other Territories in France and Ireland, he makes no 
 Bequeft of them at all, either to Prince Edward his eldeft, or to Edmund his 
 yoongeftSon, tho his Father King John had bequeathed the Kingdom to him 
 by his Will (as you have already fhewed :) and what could be the reafon of this ? 
 but that there being now no Title left to conteft with his Son, there was no 
 need of it. And therefore tho Prince Edward was abfent in the Holy Land when 
 his Father died, yet a great Council being call'd in his Name at Z-Ww, he was 
 there only recognized and acknowledged to be their natural Liege Lord, and 
 Lawful SuccefTor to his Father's Throne. Pray read the words as they are in 
 r. 49. Waljingham% Life of this King, Edwardum ahfentem Dominum fuum Legium re- 
 
 cognoverunt, paternique fuccejforem honoris ordmaverunt- We meet not here with 
 any thing like Eleftion, which no doubt we fhould not fail to do, if there had 
 been any fuch thing praftifed. 
 
 So likewife upon this King's Death, his Son King Edward II. by the like Right 
 fucceeded as Heir to his Father ; and tho this Prince, by fuffering himfelf to be 
 too much guided by his Minions, fell at length into fuch irregular Courfes, as 
 procured him the Hatred and Ill-will of his Subjefts to that degree, that by the 
 difloyal and ambitious Praftices of his lafcivious Queen, he being made a Pri- 
 foner, a Parliament was call'd in his Name, who took upon them to depofe 
 him for his Mifgovernment, contrary to all Law and Right : and tho his Son 
 Prince Edward had hitherto join'd with his Mother againft his Father, yet is 
 he herein fo far to be commended, that tho the Crown was offered him by Elec- 
 tion of the Great Council, yet the fame Author tells us, he fwore that with- 
 out his Father's Confent he would never accept it. Whereupon divers MefTen- 
 gers or Delegates being difpatched from the Parliament to the King, then Pri» 
 foner at A'fWf/worrfc-Caftle, v/ho telling him what had been done and concluded of 
 at London., required him to refign his Crown, and permit his Son to reign in 
 his ftead ; which with fome reluftance he at laft agreed to : and thereupon 
 Prince Edward took the Crown, not by Eleftion, as you fet forth, but by the 
 CefTion and Refignation of his Father, as appears by the account which this 
 King gave of it to the Sheriffs of all the Counties of England within a few days 
 after his taking upon him the Crown ; which Writ or Letter is ftill to be feen 
 among the Rolls in the Tower, and is alfo publifhed in Walfngham as a Pro- 
 clamation i which becaufe it will give very great light in this matter, I pray 
 B.H. 5.^.38 1, now read it at length: RexyVicecom. Ebor. Salutem; Quia Domlnus Edwardus nu- 
 p \}' q' per Rex Anglix pater nefier de communi confilio & ajfenfu Pralatorum, Com. Baron. &■ 
 Part of 'it is ^Hor- Magnat. necnon Communicat. totius Regni prddiEl. fpontanea voluntate fe a- 
 /i//2>;»Walfing- movit a Regimine diEli Regni volens & concedens., ejuod nos tanquam ipftus primoge- 
 ham, /. 1 26. nitus d" h<£res Regni guhernationem & regimen ajfumamus, nofque ipfius patris nofiri 
 ^* 'jO* beneplacito in hac parte de confilio (^ avifamento Prelator. Com. Baron. Magnat. C^ 
 
 Communicat. pradiii. annuentes gubernacula fufcepimus di^i Regni j (^ fidelitates 
 Cr Homagia ipforum Prelator. & Magnat- recepimus., ut eft moris, tefte Rtge apud 
 Weftmonaft, 29 Jan. So that you here fee this King takes no notice of the De- 
 pofition of his Father, or the Eledion of himfelf, but only that by the common 
 Counfel and Affent of the Prelates, Earls, Barons, &c. the King his Father 
 had, by his own free Will, removed himfelf from the Government of the King- 
 dom, and that therefore he had, by the Good-will of his faid Father, and by the 
 Counfel and Advice of the faid Prelates, Earls, &c. taken the Government of 
 the faid Kingdom upon him. 
 
 But ¥Jin^Edward\\\. being dead, his Grandfon Richard 11 fucceeded him, 
 having been before recognized by Ad of Parliament, as Heir apparent to the 
 Crown in his Grandfather's life-time, immediately upon the Death of his Fa- 
 ther Edward the Black Prince ^ fo that he fucceeded to the Crown, tho an In- 
 fant, and had great and powerful Uncles then aliye : but by his ruling too 
 arbitrarily, and being too much governed by Flatterers, he became hated 
 of his Subjeds, and thereupon gave occafion to Henry Duke of Lancafter (whom 
 he had before banilhed) to come over and take the Kingdom from him with- 
 out ftriking a ftroke j who having taken the King Prifoner, call'd a Parlia- 
 ment in his Name, who took upon them moft unjuftly to depofe King Ri- 
 
 chardf
 
 Dialogue the Twelfth 619 
 
 chard, tho 'tis true he alfo made a folemn Rcdgnation of it by his own feem- 
 ing Confent : but it is certain it was forced from him, for fear of worfc Ufage 
 if he refufecl it. 
 
 F. Pray give me leave to anfvver what you have now faid, before you pro- 
 ceed farther in this Hiftory of the Succedion. In the firft place, I (hall not de- 
 ny but that from the Reign of King Edward I. the Crown has been always 
 claimed (tlio not conftantly enjoy'd) by Right of Blood ; yet that the Cuftom 
 was otherwife before, 1 think the Inftances 1 have given from the time of your 
 Conqued:, are more than fufficieat: it is likewife as certain that this Succeflion, 
 by Right of Blood, v as never fettled by any pofitive Law, and therefore muft 
 be purely derived from that tacit Confent of the People called Cuftom. Se- 
 condly, That -the two Houfes of Parliament have often, notwithftanding this 
 Claim, placed or fixed tlie Crown upon the Heads of thofe Princes, whom tliey 
 very well knew could have no Hereditary Right to it. Thirdly, That fuch Princes 
 have been always obcy'd, and. taken for Lawful Kings, all their Laws ftanding 
 good at thiiiday, without any Confirmation by their SuccelTors, tho they pre- 
 tended to' a better Title. Now if I prove every one of thefe three Propofi- 
 tions, I ^thi;i1< the cafJ'will be very plain, that tho the Crown has been claimed 
 and often enjoyed by Rygat of Blood, yet hath it been held near as oftea 
 otherwife fince that time : To that the SuccefTion to it hath been jlill de- 
 clared to be under the Direction and Limitation of the prefent King and 
 Parliament. 
 
 This being premifed, I fhall proceed, in the next place, to anfwer what you 
 have faid'COficerning King Edward the Firft's being only recognized, and not 
 elefted King by the Parliament. It is plain from this Hiftory, that the Great 
 Co?fticil ftill maintain'd their antiait Right of allbmbling upon the Death of 
 the'King, and of judgi'bg wflo ftioTid be his Succcftbr, and that without any 
 Summons from him : which will ferve to juftify (as do all the other Inftances 
 aforegoing) that the late Conventioa meeting, and fettling the Crown without 
 ^ny Writs or Authority derived from King Jamesy was no new thing i but that 
 they have therein done no more than what hath been antiently praftifed in 
 like cafes : antt tho ('tis true) the word in Watfwgham is recogmverunt, yet 
 there a»e alfo other words which fecm to intimate, tliat it was then in the 
 power bf the Great Council whom to declare for lawful SuccelTor. The words 
 are, P.uerni^ue Succijfomh honorii ordlnaverunt ; that is, they ordain'd or decreed 
 him Succefibr of his Father's Dignity : which fure is fomewhat more than a 
 bare Declararion of an undoubted precedent Right. .And what Power the 
 Great Council was then looked upon to have in the ordering of this Kingdom, 
 appears by that Writ of Dedimm, for all Mens taking the Oaths of Allegiance 
 in the Country \ which is ftill to be feen in the clofe Rolls, and begins thus: 
 Quia defiitiElo jam Celebris memoria Domino Henrico patre flofiro, ad nos Regni Gu- 
 bernacvlum fuccejfione Hxreditaria Procerum Regni voluntate Cr fidelitate nobis pr<ef- 
 tita ft devolutumy C"c. Where, befides .the Hereditary Succcfllon, the Good- 
 will acd Fidelity ot the Great Men is reckon'd as one of the meaus by which 
 the Kingdom came to him. And that this Courfe was alfo obferved upon the 
 Acceflion of his Son Edward II. to the Crown, feems likcwife as evident from 
 the fame Author, who tells us in the beginning of the Life of this Prince, that 
 he fucceeded his Father King Edward, nonfam jure Hereditaria, quam vnanimo 
 confcnfu Vrocerum & Magnatum: Which Obfcrvation had been altogether need- 
 Icfs, Had an unalterable Hereditary Right to the Crown been then Icttled. 
 
 But as to ^hdt you fay of King Edward the Third's Right, whilft his Fa- 
 ther was living, that it was wholly due to his Reiignation, tho the place I 
 cited out of Waifmgham be cxprefs in this point j yet againlt this you urge a 
 . - Writ or Declaration, as alfo a Proclamation of this King's, wherein he thus 
 fets forth his Title, viz.. " That by the voluntary Rtfignation of King Ed- 
 *' ward his Father, and by the Counfel and Advice of the Prelates, Earls, and 
 " Barons, c!rc, he had taken upon him the Government of the Kingdom :" 
 and co.ifequently that fucccedkig immediately upon his faid Father's Rcfigna- 
 tion, there could be no Vacancy of the Throne. To which I anfwer, that I 
 do not deny that after this King was once fettled in the Throne, he might 
 think it moft to his Honour, and the Independency of his Title, to rely 
 wholly upon his Right of ijuctcflion as eldeft Sou and Heir, without taking 
 
 K k k k 2 any
 
 , 620 BiBLIOTHECAPoLITI C'A. . 
 
 any notice of the Parliament's Eleftion of him-, tho this be alfo covertly ex- 
 prcfled in thefe words, which are in this Writ and Proclamation, viz.. " That 
 *' confcnting to his faid Father's pleafure, he had taken the Government de 
 *' conftlio 07" advifamento Tmlator. Com. Baron. Magnat. & Communiiat. pradic}." 
 which tho you tranflateby the Counfel and Advice of the Prelates, Earls, Barons, 
 and Commonalty, yet I do fuppofe that by ConfUo is here meant not Counfel, 
 but Confent, as I have already proved the word Cotifdium often fignifies in our 
 antient Statutes \ for otherwife if this word mull here fignify Counfel, it would 
 be a plain Tautology, for Advice and Counfel are the fame thing. 
 
 But to Ihew you alfo that there mult needs have been a Vacancy of the 
 Throne, either upon the Depofition or Refignation of Edward II. (take it 
 which way you will) it appears from matter of Fad •■, for it is plain, that when 
 Prince Edward refufed the Crown upon the Parliament's eled^ing him, unlefs 
 his Father would willingly refign it, he did at their Requeft refign his Title to 
 it, by certain Commiffioners fent down to him to^^wf/iporr/.-Caftle to take it. 
 >low that Place being at leaft two days Journy from London., it is certain 
 there rauft be as many days Vacancy of the Throne, if not more, before the 
 faid Commiffioners couldget to Lo«^ff«, and that Prince f^w^?-^ had agreed to 
 take the Crown upon his Father's Refignation ^ for till then the Throne was 
 vacant, fincetill the Prince had declared his Affent to take it, he might have 
 chofen whether he would have accepted it or not, as not being fatisfied whe- 
 ther his Father's Refignation was voluntary, and not by conftraint. Now if 
 there were a Vacancy of the Throne in this cafe, tho but for two or three 
 days, it ferves to prove tlj,e matter in queftion, as well as if it had been for two 
 
 years. 
 
 So likewife let the Reign of King Henry IV. begin either from the Refigna- 
 tion or Depofition of King Richard ll. (take it which way you pleafe) there 
 muft have been a Vacancy of the Throne, as appears by the Parliament-Roll 
 ftill extant: For it is there plain, that after the Inftruments of King /JtVW^i's 
 Refignation and Depofition were folemnly read, the Throne continued void 
 for fome fpace, till fuch time as Henry Duke of Lancafter ftood up and 
 made his Claim to it, in that form of words which ftands to this day to be 
 feen upon the Parliament-Roll ^ and that the Archbifhop of Canterbury^ taking 
 the Duke by the hand, had led him to the Throne, and placed him thereon. 
 
 M. I cannot deny, but as you have fet forth the matter of Faft, there mult 
 have been a Vacancy of the Throne in thefe two Cafes j but fince the Depoli- 
 tions of both thefe Kings were contrary to Law, and their Refignations ex- 
 torted from them by conftraint whilft they were^in Prifon, they are neither of 
 them looked upon as valid, or to be urged as Precedents in future times. But 
 however the Throne might feem then to be vacant in point of Faft, yet in 
 Law it was otherwife i ior Edmund Ezrloi March onght to have immediately 
 fucceeded upon the Death or Refignation of King Richard, as being lineally de- 
 fcended from Philippa, only Daughter and Heir to Lionel Duke of Clarence., 
 third Son of King Edward III. , ..r 
 
 "But to let you fee that Henry Duke of Lancafier (as much an Ufurper as 
 he was) was fenfible that the Crown could not be then enjoyed by Elec- 
 tion but by Right of Blood , and that the Parliament alfo thought them- 
 felve's in Duty bound to fubmit to him, to whom by Right of Blood the 
 Crown did belong, will appear from this Duke's manner of laying Claim there- 
 unto • which fince you have not particularly mentioned, I will : For no fooner 
 was the Throne vacant, by the pretended voluntary Refignation of King Ri- 
 Vid Rot Pari chard, but Duke Henry, having fortified himfelf with the fign of the Crofs, 
 ,o Hen. 4. 20." ftood up, and made his Demand of the Crown in his Mother-Tongue in this 
 form of words (as 1 have extrafted them out of the Parliamenc-RoU) 
 
 In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft. 
 
 Henry of Lancafter challenge tljiji Keatome of Inglonde, anD t^e Co?onc, 
 I toith all the SBcmbers! ano appurtenances -, alfo tl)at 31 am ticrcenliit ipKigljt 
 iJine of the mm, tompng fro tDc guoe %m Sitng Henry t^e €|itD : Ann 
 t^o20l)ctl)atKiBl)t, tiat eoDof W <0?acE ^at^ fent m,pmt\itW\f o^mp 
 
 I
 
 Dialogue the Twelfth. 621 
 
 tepn, aito of m-j .f dctt^s to cecobcc it ; Z[)z tD:;tc^ Hcalame tosiS in poput to 
 be unOJri f^\ DJfatllCOf Gjveriuir-eaadimdoya^ot the gude Laws. 
 
 " And after which Challenge and Claim (fays the Record, which I render 
 «* out of LMin) as well the Lords Spiritual as Temporal, and all the States 
 " there prefent, being all feverally interrogated, what they thought of the 
 *' aforefaid Challenge and Claim ; the above-named States, with all the Com- 
 " monalty, without any Difficulty or Delay, unanimoufly agreed, that the 
 *' aforefaid Duke Jhould reign over them." Where you may fee, that this 
 whole Parliament admits the Duke's Claim for good, without proceeding to 
 any formal Election of him. 
 
 And by virtue of this fliam Title, and claiming as Heit of Earl Edmund^ 
 (firnamed Crouch-back) Brother to King £^m<«r^ I. (whom he falfly pretended 
 to have been the eldeft Son to K'la^ Henry III. and put by for his Deformity) 
 not only Hoiry IV. but alfo his Son Henry V. and his Grandfon Henry VI. (tho 
 Ufurpers) did fucceed as right Heirs to the Crown, till the 39th year of Hen- 
 ry VI. when Richard Duke of Tor^did in a full Parliament lay Claim thereunto 
 in right of his Mother, being only Sifter and Heir of Edmund Earl of March. 
 And becaufe the Judgment of the Parliament in this Cafe is very remarkable, 
 pray read this part of it, as it ftands recorded in the Parliament-Roll : 
 " Whereupon confideration of theAnfwer, and Claim of the Duke of 2V(^, Vid. Rot. Pari. 
 *' it was concluded and agreed by all the Lords, that his Title could not beB'H^"''^- 
 " defeated i and therefore for efchewing the great Inconveniences that may en- 
 *' fue, a Mean was found to fave the King's Honour and Eftate, and to ap- 
 " peafe the faid Duke if he would ^ which was, that the King (viz.. Henry 
 " VI.) fliould enjoy the Crown during Life, the Duke to be declared the true 
 " Heir, and to poflefs it after his Death, c^c." And note, that all this was 
 done after a folemn Hearing of all that could be faid on both fides. 
 
 F. Iconfefsthe matter of Faft, concerning King Henry the IVth's coming 
 to the Crown, is truly recited by you from the Parliament-Roll j yet for all 
 that it doth not follow, that the Parliament allowed this King's feigned and 
 falfe Claim to be good, by their not contradifting it. For tho the Record 
 fays, " That upon the hearing of this Challenge or Claim, all the Eftates 
 »' of the Kingdom being then asked their Judgments feverally, declared, 
 *' without any Difficulty or Delay, and unanimoufly agreed that the faid 
 " Duke fhould reign over them : " Yet confidering the Duke's great Power, 
 it was not fafe telling him to his face, that he had no true Right by In- 
 heritance j therefore they only declared in general words, without e.Kprefly 
 denying or affirming his faid Claim, 'V}at he fliould reign over them: which 
 words do rather amount to an Election of him to be King, without declaring 
 what Title he had to befo. And this they thought they might very well juf- 
 tify, not only for his having delivered them from the Tyranny of King ^«- 
 ch,ird^ but alfo becaufe they then looked upon it as their Right, not only to de- 
 pofe the King in cafe of an apparent Violation of the fundamental Laws of the 
 Kingdom, but alfo to place in his ftead any of the Blood Royal, tho not next 
 Heir by Blood ■■, according to the Meflage the whole Parliament had formerly 
 fent to K\n^ Richard^ in the beginning of his Reign, by the Archbifhop of H. Knyghton, 
 Canterburyt.dindi his Uncle the Duke of Glocefier, which I gave you at our ninth "'• 265J1. 
 Meeting (as I remember.) And pray take notice the words were, Et propin- 
 ijuiorem aliquem de ftirpe Regia-, loco ejus in Regni folio fublima'-e ; where ob- 
 
 fcrve, that the words were not the next of Blood, but fome near Kinfman of 
 the Blood Royal. 
 
 And tho it is true that King Henry V. and VI. might both feem to fuc- 
 ceed to the Crown by Right of Blood, yet I do rather attribute their Right 
 of SuccefFion to an Aft of Parliament made in the feventh, and confirmed in Vid. 7Hen.4. 
 the eighth year of Henry IV. whereby the Crown was entailed upon all his Sons "p- 2. 
 by name, and the right Heirs of their Bodies ^ by virtue of which Settlement, 
 both Henry V. and VI. fuccceded thereunto. For if he had thought his own 
 feigned Hereditary Title to have been fufficient, he would never have troubled 
 himfelf to have procured the Crown to be fettled upon himfelf and his Chil- 
 dren by Aft of Parliament. 
 
 M. All
 
 622 BiBLIOTHECA POLITICA. 
 
 At. All this fignifies nothing i for 1 have already fufficiently proved, that 
 in the 39th year of Henry VI. upon a folemn hearing before the i'arliament 
 of the Claim of Richard Du^c of York to the Crown, the faid Act was fet a- 
 lide ^ and it was there exprelly declared, " That the faid Duke's Title could 
 " no ways be defeated." And this Agreement is Hill on Pvccord, between Hi»' 
 ry, the then PoHeflbr of the Crown, and the faid Duke (whofe Right it was) 
 B. H. s. />45. and the Judgment of the Parliament was then given in behalf of Proximity of 
 3^6' Blood, as to have always been the Foundation and Ground of SuccelTion to the 
 
 Crown of EngLmd^ and of taking it from the'Son of Henry W- and reltoriag 
 it to the Duke of IV/and his Idue as right ^'eirs thereof ; as appears by the 
 Title and Pedcgree of the faid Duke, fet down at large in 'the firft Article of 
 this Agreement confirmed by Parliament ; that is, by King Henry V\. himfelf, 
 who was then King de F,iHoj tho not de Jure. 
 
 F. I will not deny the matter of Faft to be as you have fet forth j yet if you 
 will but pleafe to confider the time when this Declaration and Agreement was 
 obtained, and the manner how it was done, you will quickly find, that it was 
 rather got by Force and Conftraint upon that poor Prince Henry VI. than by 
 any real Right the Duke of York had to the Crown, after its being fettled for 
 three Defceiits in the Houfe of Lancafier. 
 
 For the pioof of which 1 defueyou, in the firft place, to take notice, that 
 at this time the whole Kingdom was under general Difcontent, not only for the 
 loiS of all our Conquefts in France^ but aKo for the great Mifmanagement of 
 Affairs at home, by reafon of the exorbitant power of the Queen, and her 
 two Favourites, the l^akcs of. Somcrfet and Suffolk, who made the King a mere 
 Cypher, and had, without his Copfcnt, nuds a.vi£i^ Humphry Dake of Glocefier 
 (the King's only Uncle then living) contrary to Law. So that Affairs being in 
 this ill Pofture, it was very eafy for the Duke of York and the Earl of /{V- 
 wick to procure a fulficient Int^reftin the Nobility and great Men of the King- 
 vid. Grafton':; dom, to raifc an Army, on pretence at firft only of reforming the Grievances 
 chromdc. qj." ^^g Kingdoni, and bringing the faid Dukes to Juftice ; the Iffue of which 
 War was, thi^t the Duke not being ftrong enough at firft to oppofe the King's 
 Forces, was forced to furrender himfelf ^i and to obtain his Pardon, took a fo- 
 lemn Oath never to rebel againft the- King again. But being afterwards at- 
 tainted at a Parliament held at Cowarr^ for new Confpiracies, he then again 
 rebelled, together with the Earl of Warmck : and then King Henry being 
 carried to head his Army, was by the Duke c^' Tork taken Prifouer in the Bat- 
 tle near Northampton \ and being thence by him brought up to London^ a Par- 
 liament was called in the King's Kaate (tho without his Con fen t) wherein the 
 Duke of Torh had the Confidence tp feat himfelf in the Royal Throne, and to 
 v\L Record, make that Challenge of the Crown you have recited. And under how great a 
 39 H. 6. n. Terror all the Friends and Servants of this poor Prince were at that time, ap- 
 11,12,13. pears plainly from this, that neither the King's Attorny, nor any of his Coun- 
 cil durft undertake to plead his Caufe before the Parliament, nor yet would 
 the Judges give their Opinions in a matter of fuch great moment ; but they all 
 anfwered, '' That this Matter paffed the Learning of the Juftices, and alfo 
 " that they durft not enter into any Cotnniunication concerning this Matter, 
 " and befought alltheLoidsto have them cxcufed for giving any Advice or 
 " Counfel therein j but the Lords would not excufe them : and therefore, by 
 " their Advice and Affiftance, it was concluded by all the Lords, that the Ar- 
 " tides following Hiould beobjefted a^ainft the Claim and Title of the Duke." 
 So that youfeefrom theR,ecord it felt, that the Judges were with much ada 
 prevailed with to objeft any thing againft the Duke's Title. 
 
 Therefore confidering the Contempt the King's Perfon was then under by 
 reafon of his Weaknefs, and the great patted and VVearinefs the Nation had 
 then of the evil Government of the Q,ueen and her favourites, it was no more 
 diiEcultfor the Dukeof JV/^ to procure this Judgment in Parliament in favour 
 of his Title, than that Henry IV. (hould, after he had put Richard 11. in Pri- 
 fon, get him depofed, and make his own Title to be allowed for good. And 
 certainly if it were Rebellion for the Duke of Lancafier to take up Arms a- 
 gainft King Richard II. and to depofe him, I cannot fee why (according to your 
 own Principles) it (hould not be the fame Crime in the Duke of Tork to take 
 ■ up Arms againft King //fw>VL to whom he had more than once fvvorn Faith 
 
 and
 
 Dialogue the Twelfth. 62^^ 
 
 and Allegiance i and having taken him Prifoner, to call a Parliament without 
 his Confenr, whereby himfelf was declared Frotedor of the Kingdom, and 
 the Son of King f/fwrydifinherited after a quiet pofreflTion in three Defcents, 
 during the ipaceof above fixty years : which if it will not give a thorow Set-? 
 tlement, after two Acts of Parliament to confirm it, I know not what can. 
 
 M. 1 confefs you have given me a more exad account of this Tranfaftioa 
 than ever I yet had^ and I (hould very much incline to be of your Opinion, 
 were it not that 1 am fatisfied that our Kings have a Right to the Crown by 
 God's Law as well as Man's, as alfo by the Law of Nature. And that more than 
 one Parliament have been of my Opinion in this Matter, I fliall fhew you from 
 feveral Statutes and Declarations of Parliament; which tho not printed, are 
 yet to be feen at this day upon the Parliament-Rolls. For after that //fw)/ VI. 
 or rather his Queen for him, had broken the aforefaid folemn Agreement made 
 between this King and Duke in Parliament, whereby it was accorded, that if 
 King Henry made war again upon the Duke of York., he (hould then forfeit 
 his prefent Right to the Kingdom during Life i Q^ittn Margaret., and her Vid. Grafton'$ 
 Son Prince Edward, who would not fubmit to this Agreement, renewed chronlcU. 
 the War, and fighting another Battel at Wakefield., the faid Duke was flain. 
 But tho he did not live to enjoy his Right, yet his Son Edward Earl of March 
 again recovered it ; and having in the fecond Battle of St. Albans taken King 
 Henry Prifoner, triumphantly marching to London, he there declared himfelf 
 King. And having immediately called a Parliament, it was therein declared, 
 " That all the Proceedings againft King ^/VW<i II. are repealed, and the tz\i- Parl.Roiii^ 
 *' ing him Prifoner by Henry Earl of Derby was declared againfl: his Faith iEdw.4.n.8j 
 " and Allegiance, and that with Violence he had ufurped upon the Royal Power ?» *°> «'> 12, 
 *' and Dignity, o-c- and that he had by cruel Tyranny murdered anddeftroyed g^^^g go 
 »' the faid King ^/erW^, his Liege and Sovereign Lord, againlt God's Law, ' ' '^ 
 *' and his own Oath of Allegiance." 
 
 And then they proceed further to declare in thefe words : " That the Com- ibid. 
 *' mons of this prefent Parliament having fufficient and evident Knowledg of 
 *■"■ the faid unrightwifc Ufurpation and Intrufion by the faid //wry, late Earl of 
 " Derby, upon the faid Crown of England ; knowing alfo certainly, without 
 »' Doubt and Ambiguity, the Right and Title of our faid Sovereign Lord Qviz.. 
 *' King Edward IV.) thereunto true, and that by God's Law, Man's Law, and 
 *' the Law of Kature, he, and rone other, is and ought to be their true, 
 «* rightwife, and natural Liege and Sovereign Lord, and that he was in Right 
 ." from the Death of the faid noble and famous Prince his Father, very jult 
 *' King of the faid Realm of England, and will for ever take, accept, and re- 
 " pute the faid King Edward IV. their Sovereign and Liege Lord, and him 
 *' and his Heirs to be Kings of England, and none other, according to the 
 " faid Right and Title. 
 
 " And that the fame //f«>-^ unrightwifely, againlt Law, Confcience, and the ibid./. 389, 
 " Cuftoms of the faid Realm of England, ufurped upon the faid Crown •, and 
 ** that he, and Mo Henry, late called King HfwryV. his Son, and Henry, late 
 *' called Henry V]. his Son, occupied the Realm of England and Lordftiip of 
 *» Ireland, and exercifed the Governance thereof by Unrightwife, Intrulion, 
 *' Ufurpation, and no otherwife : That the Amotion of Henry, late called 
 *' King Henry VI. from the Exercife, Occupation, Ufurpation, Intrufion, 
 " Reign and Governance of the faid Realm and Lordfhip, done by our Sove- 
 " reign Lord King Edward IV. was and is rightwife, lawful, according to the 
 *' Laws andCuItomsof the faid Realm, and fo ought to be taken, holden, 
 " reputed and accepted." 
 
 I have been the larger on this Point, becaufe it is a full and free Declaration 
 of the whole Parliament, not only againfl all paft as well as future Parliaments 
 having any thing to do in the Difpofal of the Grown, but is alfo as exprefs a 
 Declaration as words can make, againlt any Vacancy of the Throne upon the 
 Death of the Predecellbr ; and therefore 1 hope you will pardon me, if I have 
 been a little too tedious in reciting thefe Records. 
 
 F. I cannot blame you for being very exadt in this Point, becaufe the whole 
 ftrength of your Caufc depends upon it: But yet 1 doubt not but to (hew you, 
 that this Parliament was as much awed by King Edrvard^s Power, being now 
 Conqueror, as c\'er thofe Parliaments were that depofcd Edward and Richard 
 
 the
 
 624. 
 
 BiBLlOTHECA PoLlTlCA. 
 
 the Second ^ for you your felf have fufficiently fet forth the manner of it, 
 that it was not till after a great Viftory obtained againft King Henry W\. And 
 I never found, in all my reading, that a viftorious Prince ever wanted power 
 enough to get a Parliament called to fettle himfelf in the Throne, and declare 
 his Competitor an Ufurper, as I (hall fhew you more fully by and by. But 
 this Aft of Parliament, which thus pofitively declares Edward IV. to be 
 their Sovereign Lord, by God's Law, Man's Law, and the Law of Kature, I 
 think can no ways confift either with Scripture, Reafon, or Matter of Faft. 
 For, in the firft place, I think 1 have fufficiently proved, that there is no Di- 
 vine Right of Succeflion for the Heirs of Crowns, any more than of other 
 Inheritances, either by the Law of God, or that of Nature : and as for Man's 
 Law, I think I have here alfo proved, that the Succeflion to the Crown, by 
 Right of Blood alone, was never eftabliflied by any poiitive Law, nor yet fet- 
 tled by any conftant or uninterrupted Cuftom, when this Declaration was made j 
 for the Crown had then never defcended from Father to Son for above two 
 Defcents without a Depofition, or poflefTed by thofe who claimed by Right of 
 Blood, without any other Title. For as for the three Kings of the Houfe of 
 Lancafier^ I have already proved (and you your felf muft alfo own it) that 
 they could have no Title to the Crown, but from the Afts of Entail of the 7th 
 and 8th of //f wry IV. above-mentioned j fo that according to Man's Law (that 
 is, Cuftom) and alfo the Statute-Law of this Kingdom, the Houfe of Lancafter 
 had all that time the better Title. 
 
 But to fhew you what uncertain things Parliaments are, when King Edward, 
 IV. had reigned ten years, he was driven out of the Kingdom by the Earl of 
 Warxvick\ turning fuddenly againft him, and in his abfence he replaced King 
 Henry VI. upon the Throne, who had been all this while kept in Prifon. And 
 Vid.JGrafton'f the firft Aft this King did, after his Reftoration, was to call a Parliament, 
 chronicle. which revoked all the former Statutes and Declarations of the 39th of Henry VI. 
 and I ft of Edward IV. and then entailed the Crown anew upon the IfTue of 
 King Henry^ the remainder to the Duke of Clarence^ who then took part with 
 King Henry againft his own Brother. 
 
 'Tis true indeed, that King £^rp/?r^ I\^ returning again not long after into 
 England^ and regaining the Crown from King Hemy VI. the faid King was not 
 only murdered, together with his Son Prince Henry^ but in the next Parliament 
 was alfo attainted of Treafon, with all others of his Party. And to let yoa 
 fee that this very Adt is now null and void againft King Henry VI. and his Son 
 Prince Edward., fee an Aft of Parliament of the ift of Henry VII. (not printed) 
 which becaufe it is not commonly known, I will read it almoft verbatim : 
 Rot. Par. I H." The King, our Sovereign, remembring how againft all Rightwifenefs, Ho- 
 7. n. 16. Re-u nour,Nature, and Duty, an inordinate, feditious, and flanderous Aft was made, 
 fexa"°^^'"'" " ^g^i'^ft ^^^ ^^°^ famous Prince of blelTed Memory, King Henry V\. his Uncle, 
 " at a Parliament holden at Wtfiminfter the 4th day of November,, the i ft year of 
 *' the Reign of EdwardW. late King of England,, whereby his faid Uncle, con- 
 *' trary to the due Allegiance and all due Order, was attainted of High Trea- 
 " fon-, wherefore our fame Sovereign Lord, by the Advice and Aflent of the 
 *' Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in this prefent Parliament af- 
 *' fembled, and by Authoritys of the fame, ordaineth, enafteth, and efta- 
 " blifheth, that the fame Aft, and all Afts of Attainder, Forfailure, or Dif- 
 '* ablement made or had in the faid Parliament, or elfe in any other Parlia- 
 " ment, of the faid late King Edward againft the faid moft bleffed Prince 
 *' King Henry, or againft the right famous Princefs Margaret^ late Queen of 
 " England,, his Wife, or the right viftorious Prince Edward, late Prince of 
 " Wales, Son of the fame blefl^ed Prince King Henry and Margaret, &c. are 
 *' void, annulled, and repealed, and of no force nor efFeft." So that by vir- 
 tue of this Aft, the Title of the Houfe of Lancafter was again declared to be 
 good. 
 
 But to conclude •, I cannot but take notice of one Miftake you have fallen in- 
 to, by faying, that all Proceedings againft King Richard II. are repealed by 
 that Parliament of the ift of £^ip^r^ IV. which is not fo: for tho I grant 
 that the Dealings of Henry Earl of Derby (as he is there called) in imprifon- 
 ing the faid King, and ufurping the Royal Power, is there exprefly condemned, 
 and hismuideringof him faid to be againft God's Law, and his own Oath of 
 
 Allegiance
 
 Dialogue the Twelfth. 625 
 
 Allegiance (as certainly it was •, ) yet the Depofitionof the faid King Richard 
 by Parliament is no ways repealed by this Aft, for then all the Records there- 
 of would have been quite cancelled and taken ofT the Rolls, whereas they ftill 
 remain to be fcen at this day. And you fee by this Aft 1 have now recited, 
 *' That the Attainder of King Henry VI. is declared contrary to due Alle- 
 *' glance and all due Order, and all Forfeitures and Difablements of the faid 
 *' King and Prince arc quite annulled and made void." 
 
 M. Imuftconfefs you have fo ftaggered me with this Aft, that I know not 
 what to fay to it, but that it was made in the firft Parliament of King Henry 
 Vll. and before he had married the Princefs Elizabeth, and confequently had 
 no good Title to the Crown himfelf ^ therefore till then I look upon him as an 
 Ufurper. But I fhall now proceed to Ihew you, that that very King, nay 
 even Richard III. himfeU, chiefly relied, not upon any Parliamentary Elec- 
 tion, but upon their own pretended Title of being right Heirs by Blood : 
 for after the Death of Edward IV. his Son Edward V. was proclaimed King, 
 and might have quietly enjoyed it, if his ambitious Uncle Richard Duke- of 
 Clocefter had not plotted to defeat him of it \ knowing well that he had no way 
 to bring it about, but by inciting a corrupt Party of the Bifhops and Lords, to- Vid. Grafton'^ 
 gether with the Lord Mayor oi London, and fome of his Party in the City, to *^^'■'""'"• 
 fct forth by way of Petition to the Duke, then Proteftor of the King and 
 Realm, " That all the Children of King Edward IV. were Baftavds, fuppoling 
 *' that King to have been contrafted with a certain Lady called Eleanor Bote- 
 *' lery before he married Queen Eliz.abeth \ moreover, that the Blood of his 
 *' elder Brother George Duke of Clarence deceafed was attainted, fo that none 
 *' of the lineal Blood of Richard Duke of York could be found uncorrupred 
 *' but in himfelf." And there was, at theCondufion of that Roll, an Addrefs 
 to him from the Lords and Commons of the Kingdom, that he would take the 
 Government upon himfelf. This fine Artifice, afllfted with his feigned Excu- 
 fcs, which induced the Icfs-thinking fort of People to believe he defired not 
 the Royalty i and prompted on the other fide with the fear of his power, « 
 
 procured his AccefTion to the Throne : fo that at lafl: he and his Wife u4nne 
 were folemnly crowned King and Queen at Weftminflcr ■^ and by thefe fteps 
 did that inhuman Prince, who had no Title to the Grown either by Defcent or 
 by Merit, afcend the £w^/;//; Throne. IsJow you fee that not by Eleftion, but 
 by pretence of Blood, and by baftardizing and attainting his Nephews, he fet 
 himfelf up for the true Heir of the Crown •, and therefore in the Parliament 
 he called immediately after his Coronation, when they had declared almolt 
 the very fame things as were before in the faid Petition, they proceed further, 
 « to declare that the Right, Title, and Eftate which King RkhardlW. had to vid.o//a%» 
 *' and in the Crown and Royal Dignity of the Realm of England, with all of Records, 
 «' things thereunto, within the faid Realm and without it, annexed and ap- ^ R'chaiJs- 
 *' pertaining, w^as juft and lawful, as grounded upon the Laws of God and 
 *' Mature, and alfo upon the antient Laws and laudable Cuftoms of this faid 
 " Realm, as alfo taken and reputed by all fuchPerfons as were learned in the 
 *' abovefaid Laws and Cuftoms." And they proceed farther thus : " There- 
 *' fore at the Requeft, and by the Allent of the three Eftates of this Realm (that 
 *' is to fay, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons of this Land) 
 " artembled in this prefent Parliament, and by the Authority of the fame, it 
 *' is pronounced, decreed, and declared, that our faid Sovereign Lord the 
 »* King was and is the very undoubted King of this Realm of England, with 
 " all things thereunto belonging within the laid Realm, and without it, uni- 
 " ted, annexed, and appertaining, as well by Right of Confangui^nity, and 
 *' Inheritance, as by lawful Eleftion, Confecration and Coronation.". 
 
 So that you fee tho they put in his Eleftion, as alfo his Coronation, as means 
 of obtaining the Crown ; yetthe pretended Hereditary Right ot Blood was the 
 main ground of his Eftablifhment. But as for King HenryMW. tho he could 
 claim the Crown by no true Right of Inheritance, yet would he never own it to 
 be an Eleftion by Parliament : for as foon as King Richard was llain in the Battel 
 of Sofworth, the Lord Stanley put his Crown upon Henrfs Head ; who imme- Vid. /.<.,./ B.v 
 diately ftiling himfelf King, as well by Rii^htof Conqueit, as by being fole Hur ^"';,^„^-^'f^ 
 Male of the Houfc of Lancafter, he as fuch, caufcd himfelf to be trown d ^^;_ ^^ X 
 King; and tho he afterwards call'd a Parliament, in which he procured his 
 ^ L 1 1 1 Title
 
 626 BiBLioTHECA Politic A. 
 
 Title to be recogniz'd i yet, as my Lord 5rfco» well obferves, he was afraid to 
 take the Crown (l)y his only true Title) in " right of the Lady Eliz.aheth\i\% 
 " Qijeen, for fear he fhould only be King by Courtefy, and muft upon the 
 " Queen's Death have refign'd it again ^ and fhould he take it by Eleftion, 
 ** he knew there was a very great difference between a King that holdeth his 
 *■'• Crown by a Civil Aft of the Eftates, and one [jmrnd that) that holdeth it ori- 
 *' ginally by the Law of Nature, and Defcent of Blood: and therefore .upon 
 *' thefeConfiderations, he refolv'd to reft upon the Title of the Houfe of Lan- 
 *' caj}(r as his main Right ■■, and thereupon he caus'd an Aft of Parliament to 
 " pal's, wherein his Title was acknowledg'd (as my Lord 5<?co« there tells us) 
 " not by way of Declaration, or Recognition of Right, as on the other fide 
 *' he avoided to have it by a new Law of Ordinance, but chofe rather a kind of 
 " a middle way, by way of Eftablifhment, and that under covert and indiife- 
 *' rent words i that the Inheritance of the Crown fhould reft, remain, and 
 " abide in the King, &c.'" which words might be equally applied, that the 
 Crown fhould continue to him ^ but whether as having former Right to it 
 (which was doubtful) or having it then in Fad or PofiefTion (which no Man 
 denied) was left fair to Interpretation either way. 1 fpeak not this to juflify 
 all his Aiftions, but to let you fee that he chiefly inlifled upon his Right of Inhe* 
 ritancc, and abfolutely difown'd any Title by EleSion from the People. 
 
 F. 1 cannot deny the matter of Fad concerning King Richard llVs depofing 
 his Nephew, and ufurpingthe Crown, to have been very wicked, and contrary 
 to the receiv'd Law of £«^/;»«^ concerning the SuccelTion at that timej and 
 likewife that by baftardizing his Brother the late King's lllue without due courfe 
 of Law, and by attainting the Blood of his other Brother the Duke of Cla- 
 rence, he would have made the World believe that he was lawful Heir by Right 
 of Blood : yet you cannot deny but that for all this, he was fo fenl.blc of tl e 
 weaknefs of his Title, that tho (it is true) his Right by Blood is declar'd in 
 the firlt place in that Aft of Recognition, yet it is plain he would not rely 
 upon that alone ; and therefore you fee the Parliament there alfo infills upon 
 his Right by Eleftion and Coronation, which they would never have done, had 
 it not been that they look'd upon it for good Law, that whoever was crown'd 
 King, andcall'd a Parliament, and had his Title therein recogniz'd and con- 
 firm'd, was thenceforth true and lawful King to all intents and purpofes. There- 
 fore tho you have omitted it, I fhall proceed to fhew you, what this Statute 
 alfo farther declares: For after they had declar'd the faid King's Title, 
 as grounded upon the antient Laws, and laudable Cultoms of the Realm, 
 according to the Judgment of all fuch Perfons as were learned in them ; 
 they proceed thus: " Yet . neverthelefs, forafmuch as it is confider'd, that 
 " the moft part of the People is not fufEciently learned in theaforefaid Laws 
 " and Cuftoms, whereby Truth and Right in his behalf, of likelihood may 
 " be had, and not clearly known to all People, and thereupon put in doubt and 
 *' queftion ^ and over this, how that the Court of Parliament is of fuchAu- 
 " thority, that a Declaration made by the Three Eftates, and by the Autho- 
 " rity of the fame, maketh before all other things moft faithful and certain 
 " quieting of Mens Minds, and removeth the occafion of Doubts, and feditious 
 " Language ■■, therefore they alfo declare that he was the undoubted King." 
 Whence 'tis evident, that the Reafon of this Law fuppofeth that the Subjefts in 
 general are not capable of underftanding the Laws and Cuftoms upon which the 
 Titles of our Kings depend ■■, and that the beft Satisfaftion that the generality of 
 the People can pofFibly have in thofe high Matters, was to reft on the Judgment 
 and Determination of the Kingdom, declar'd by Aft and Authority or Par- 
 liament, and therein to acquiefce for the preventing Sedition : therefore what 
 1 faid before in the Cafe of King Stephen, is alfo true in this, ^tiod fieri non de- 
 butt, failum valet ; and all the Afts made in the Reign of this King Richard^ 
 tho a horrid Ufurper, were never repeal'd, butftand good at this day. 
 
 As to what you fay concerning the manner of King Henry Vll's coming to 
 
 the Crown, it is alfo true •■, but as for his Title to it by Right of Succelfion, that 
 
 v?as certainly falfe: for his Mother the Countefs of Richmond was then alive, 
 
 by whom he claim'd the Crown, and liv'd divers Years after he was King. So 
 
 Hot. Pari. that tho I grant that it is recited in the Parliament-Roll that he claim'd the 
 
 I Hen. VII. Crown in Parliament, tamper jujium titulum h<ereditanti<ty quam per verurn Dei 
 
 judicium^
 
 "Dialogue the Twelfth. 627 
 
 judicium^ in tribuendo fibi vi^ori.im de Inimico fuo in c.itfipo. Tho the latter of 
 
 thefe Titles inay be true, viz.. the Conqueft of King ^/ci^r^, efpecially whea 
 
 once he was conhrm'd and rccogniz'd in Parliament, yet that the former could 
 
 not be fo, is plain from what I have now fiid , fo that it is certain that King 
 
 fjenry VIl's belt Title was neither by Inheritance nor Marriage with the Princefs 
 
 Eliz.ubeth, but by the Aft of Parliament, as appears by the unprinted Statute ic 
 
 felf, ftil) upon the Roll ^ which fince you did not repeat, 1 will : the Title is 
 
 Titulus RegU., and it runs in thefe words •, " To the Plcafureof Almighty God, vid. BuckV 
 
 *' the Wealth, Profperity, and Surety of this Realm of England, to the (in- H'ftonof&i' 
 
 ♦' gular Comfort of all the King's Subjects of the fame, and in avoiding of all ^'^^^'^ "^" 
 
 *' Ambiguities and Queltions, be it ordained, eftablifhed, and enaftcd by Au- 
 
 *' thority of this prefent Parliament, that the Inheritance of the Crowns of 
 
 " the Realms of Engl.md and of France., with all the Pre-eminence and DigniLy 
 
 " Royal to the fame pertaining, and all other Seignouries to the King belonging 
 
 *' beyond the Sea, with the Appurtenances thereto in any wifedue or pertain- 
 
 *' ing, be, reft, remain and abide in the moft Royal Perfon of our now Sove- 
 
 *' reign Lord King Henry the Vllth, and in the Heirs of his B^dy lawfully 
 
 *' coming perpetually, with the Grace of God fo to endure, and in none other." 
 
 Now this was done fome time before he married with the Princefs EUz^abeth; 
 for as foon as this Aft was made, " the Commons requefted the King to marry 
 " Elianbeth, the Daughter of King fi^rr^r^ the iVth, that by God's Grace there 
 ** might be Iflue of the Stock of their Kings," (as their own words were.) 
 That this was rather to preferve the Blood- Royal, than to give any new Con- 
 firmation to his Title, appears from hence, that there was never any other 
 Aft after the Marriage to declare the Right of the Crown to be in the King 
 and Queen, or fo much as to entail it on the IfTue of their Bodies : fo that it is 
 plain he enjoy'd it not in his Wife's, but in his own Right, fince he held it af- 
 ter her Death by virtue of this Statute ; which plainly (hows, that (in the Judg- 
 ment of that Parliament) the Houfe of Lancafier was looked upon to have tlie 
 better Title. And tho it is true that the King procured the Pope's Bull, now 
 in the Cotton Library, to ftrengthen his Title, threatning all thofe with Excom- 
 munication that (hould offer to rebel againft him ; yet even that Bull (tho his 
 Right by inheritance and Conqueft be (irft mentioned) concludes with his Title B.H.S./.391. 
 by the Eleftion of the Prelates, Nobility, and People of England, and the De- 
 cree or Statute of the three Eftates in their Convention, called the Parliament, 
 as this Bull it felf exprelTes it. 
 
 M- 1 muft confefs you have told me more of thefe matters than I ever heard 
 of before, for I always thought that there had been no Aft of Settlement upon 
 Kmg Henry the Vllth, until after his Marriage with the Pnnctk Elizabeth ; for 
 till then 1 look upon him as an Ufurper upon her Right, as he was alfo after 
 her Death upon his Son's fuccefllvely: fo that if you will have my Opinion, I 
 conceive that this Statute, being made before he had a lawful Right to the 
 Ctown, is wholly void, as is alfo that of the Repeal of the Attainder of King 
 Henry the Vlth, for the fame reafon. 
 
 But let his Title be what it will, it is certain his Son, King Henry the Vlllth, 
 fuccceded to the Crown, as Heir rather to his Mother than his Father, and fo 
 was in by Remitter ; but as for King Edward the Vlth, he was undoubted Heir 
 by Right of Blood, as being the only Heir Male to his Father : and tho it is 
 true, that King >/^m)-;' made divers Statutes, whereby he alter'd the SucceflTion 
 of the Crown, as to his two Daughters Mary and EUz^abeth, fometimes de- 
 claring them both illegitimate, and then again giving them a Right to fucceed 
 by Aft of Parliament ; yet thefe Afts of SuccelTion were obtain'd purely by the B.H.S./.393. 
 King's Solicitation and Command. And tho at lalt he got himfelf impower'd 
 to make a Will, whereby he might fettle and entail the Crown on whom he 
 pleafedi yet all thefe Afts of Parliament, as alfo this, hgnified juft nothing 
 after his Death : for tho his faid Dinghters, Queen A^ury and Elizabeth, did 
 one after another fucceed his Son, King Edrvard the Vlth, yet was it not by 
 virtue of any of thefe Afts of Parliament, or by the aforefaid U^ill, but by 
 pure Right of Inheritance (or colour of it at leafti) and therefore in the firll 
 of Q^^etn Mary, there is au Aft declaring " the Q^ieen's Highnefs to have been ' ^"'■y» '•'^' 
 •' born in moft juft and faithful Matrimony, and alfo repealing all Afts of Par- 
 ** liament, or Sentence of Divorce, made or had to the contrary-'' 
 
 Llll 2 Kow
 
 628 BiBLlOTHECAPoLltlCA. 
 
 Kow certainly the Intention of this Aft was to declare her Succeflion to be 
 Inheritance by Right of Blood i fo like wife in the firfl: of Elizabeth^ the 
 *' Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons, do declare and confefs 
 I Eliz. c. I. tc that Qijeen Eliz.abeth is in very Deed, and of mere Right, by the Laws of 
 " God, and by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm, their mofl rightful and 
 *' lawful Sovereign Queen, and that flie was rightly, lineally, and lawfully de- 
 " fccnded and come of the Blood-Royal of this Realm of England ." All which 
 (whether it were true or not in her) yet the lineal and lawful Defcent of Queen 
 Elizabtth^ was the ground upon which flie was declared to be their rightful and 
 lawful Queen. 
 
 And tho I grant that King Hemy theVIlIth had by his lafl: Will and Tef- 
 tament poltponed all the l(lue of his Sifter Margaret Qneca of Scots^ and pre* 
 ferrcd the Children of his younger Sifter, the Qncen Dorvager of France (whom 
 fhe had by Charles Duke of Suffolk) before them-, yet was this Will afterward 
 cancelled, and torn off from the Rolls in Chancery, where it was recorded, 
 B.H.S. 594. and that by order of Qaccn Mary (as is fuppofed.) So that James the Vlth, 
 King of Scotland, was by Right of Blood declared and proclaimed King of Eng- 
 land immediately upon the Death of Qpeen Eli/^abeth, as right Heir of the 
 Crown : And in the firft Parliament after his Coronation, his Title is by them 
 particularly recognized in the word?, which I defire you to read with me; 
 " where after fetting forth his Pedegree, as lineally defcenJed from the Lady 
 *' Margaret., eldeft Daughter of King Henry the Vllth, and Queen Eliz.abeth his 
 »' Wite, Daughter of King Edward the IVth, they farther acknowledge King 
 " James their Lawful and Rightful Liege Lord and Sovereign j and farther 
 " fay, as being bound thereunto both by the Laws of God and Man, that they 
 «' do recognize and acknowledge, that immediately upon the Diflblution and 
 " Deceafe of EUz.abeth, late Queen of England., the Imperial Crown of the 
 " Realm of Englandy and all Kingdoms and Dominions belonging to the fame, 
 *,*.did by inherent Birthright, and lawful and undoubted Succeflion, defcend and 
 *"* come to his moft Excellent Majefty, being lineally, lawfully, and juftly next 
 *' and fole Heir of the Blood Royal of this Realm j and thereunto they do 
 *' moffc humbly and faithfully fubmit and oblige themfelves, their Heirs and 
 « Pofl:erities for ever, until the laft drop of their Blood be fpent." I have 
 been the more particular in the Recital of this Adf, becaufe it ftands not only 
 as a perpetual Declaration of the fenfe of the Reprefentatives of the whole 
 Isation for an Hereditary Succeflion of the Crown, without any Vacancy or 
 Eleftion, but alfo becaufe it contains their folemn Engagements for themfelves 
 and their Pofterities for ever to King Jarves and his llTue, and confequently 
 to his right Heirs for ever. So that nothing can be more direftly contrary than 
 this Aft to the late Proceedings of the Convention, firft in declaring the Throne 
 vacant, and then placing the Prince and Princcfs of Orange therein. 
 
 f. I will not deny but that King Henry the Vlllth, and Edrrard the Vlth, 
 both fucceeded by Right of Inheritance j but whether the former claimed it as 
 Heir to his Mother or his Father, is much to be doubted, fince being Heir to 
 both of them, he never declared by what Title he held the Crown : but as for 
 his two Daughters, Queen Mary and Queen Eliz.abeth, it is certain their belb 
 Titles were from thefe A£ts of Parliament : for as to Queen Mary, it is plain, 
 that at her coming to the Crown, fhe could not be looked upon as Heir by 
 Chap. 22. Right of Blood, becaufe by the Statute of the 25th of Henry the Vlllth, his 
 Marriage with Queen Catherine her Mother was declared unlawful, and the 
 Crown fettled upon the King, and the Heirs of his Body lawfully begotten oa 
 Queen Jnne Bvllen : and befides all this, fhe was but Sifter by the half Blood to 
 Kin^Edmard the Vlth, and fo could not inherit as Heir to him. And tho in 
 the firft Year of her Reign, the Parliament ('tis true) took off her lUegitima- 
 tion, and repeal'd the Aftsof the 25th and 28th of /:/w^ the Vlllth, where- 
 by fhe was declared illegitimate •, yet in this, the Parliament feems rather to 
 provide for the Honour of her Defcent, than (as you would have it) to declare 
 iier Succeffion to be Inheritance by Right of Blood ; becaufe the Statute of the 
 35th of Henry the Vlllth, whereby the Crown was fettled upon Prince £^ip<jr^ 
 and the Heirs of his Body, the remainder upon the Ladys ;i/<ery and Eliz-aheth, 
 and whereby the King had alfo power given him of difpofing the Crown by 
 Letters Patents, or by Will, was not at all repealed : and for which a memo- 
 rable
 
 Dialogue the Tivelfth, 62^ 
 
 t-able Reafon is gWeii in both thefe Afts, *' left if fjch Heirs (houlcl fail, and 
 *' no provifion made in the King's Life who fliould rule and govern this Realm 
 •' for lack of fuch Heirs, that then this Realm fliould be deftitutc of a law- 
 " ful Governour." Whereby it feems plain, that the Parliament then e- 
 fteemed no Heirs to have a Right by Law farther than had been dcclaeed by 
 thefe Statutes. 
 
 So likewife for Qtieen Eliz.abeth, her Title was more apparently by Aft of 
 Parliament: and that fhe looked upon her felf fufficient to have fucceeded by 
 virtue of the Limitation of the Statute of the 35th of Henry the Vlllth, laft 
 mention'd, appears in that fhe never procured her Mother's Marriage to be de- 
 clared good, and confcquently her own lllegitimation to be taken off. So that 
 take it which way you will, it is certain that either Queen Mary^s or Qiieen 
 Eliz.deth's Title muft have been only b/ Aft: of Parliament, fince fhe was born 
 whilft Queen C.itherine, King He nry\ firft Wife, was living: and therefore 
 when the Parliament you mention, in the firft Year of Queen Eliz.al>eth, de- 
 clared, " That fhe was rightly, lawfully, and lineally defcended, and come of 
 *' the Blood Royal of this Realm i" thefe words can only be underftood 
 of fuch a lineal and lawful Defcent as is here declared to be fo by virtue of 
 this, as well as the former Statute, and not according to any Hereditary 
 Defcent at Common Law, fince it is very well known, that as long as the 
 Pope's Difpenfation for King Henryh Marriage with the Princefs Citherine^ his 
 Brother's Wife, was allowed for good, as it was till the latter end of Henry 
 the VUth's, and all the firft twenty five Years of Henry the Vlllth's Reign, 
 the Princefs Mary was looked upon as the only prefumptive Hcirefs of the 
 Crown. This I tell you, not to invalidate Qijeen Elizabeth's Title, but to let 
 you fee that Afts of Parliament, if they declare that which is apparently falfe 
 in matter of Law or Faft, are not to be credited, unlefs you will give them 
 more power than God himfelf, who cannot (as all Divines agree) make that 
 to have been done which was never done, or that not to have been done, which 
 hath once come to pafs. 
 
 I come now, in the laft place, to examine the Aft of Recognition of King 
 Jtmes the Firft's Title to the Crown, which I will not deny to have been by 
 Kight of Blood, fince none of the Defcendants of King Henry the Vllth could 
 have any Title before him : for tho it is true it was otherwife ordained by 
 King Henry the Vlllth's Will, yet that (as you your felf Ihow) was not only 
 cancelled in Queen M.tryh time, but was alfo void in it felf. For whereas by 
 the Statute of the 35th of Henry the Vlllth, there was d power given him to 
 difpofe of the Crown, either by his Letters Patents, or elfe by his lift Will 
 iigaed with his Hand ^ yet was this Power never legally executed : for thofe 
 that have argued againft this Will, have told us, that he never figned it in vid. Lethlng. 
 his life-time, but that a ftamp of his Name was put thereunto after his Dc- ^°<^'' ^"'er u 
 ceafe ; as manifeftly appeared by open Declaration made in Parliament of this ^iSj-.^^^'* 
 matter by the Lord P<?^ff and others, that King /-/fw>-;/ did never fign it with fhe 2d'vol'.''of 
 his own hand ■■, as was alfo proved by the Pardon obtain'd for one WUl'um Gierke, the Hifiory of 
 for putting the Stamp upon the faid Will after the King was departed. So ''■" ^'fonn-^- 
 that tho 1 grant that King James had a very good Title to the Crown of £«»•- """' '"'• ^'*?- 
 land by Inheritance, yet whether it was from Kiag Henry the Vllth alone, or 
 from Queen £//;^..t^«/; his Wife, is not there declared ; only that he was law- 
 fully defcended oi Lid'j Margaret, eldeft Daughter to King Mwr;' tiic Vllth, 
 and Q^ieexi Eliz.abeth his Wife, eldeft Daughter of KingEdw.trd thelVth^ and 
 therefore, " that they are bound both by the Laws of God and Man to re- 
 " cognize his Majefty as fole Heir of the Blood Royal of this Realm." All 
 •which is fo far true, if by the Laws of God, and Man's Law, you will thereby 
 underftand fucn Laws as God impowcrs the King and Parliament to makc^ for 
 otherwife, there is no more heed to be taken of this Declaration, than that 
 which was made before to ^/Vfo^r*/ the Third, which alfo declared him to have 
 a good Title to the Crown by the Laws of God and Nature, and the LrJwsand 
 Cuftcms of this Realm. So that I fee nothing in all this Aft of Recognition 
 that at all contradifts my Notion, that King 7<»'W"'s Title is wholly derived 
 from the Aft of Settlement made on King Henry the Vllth, from whom he was '" 
 lineally defcended-, therefore tho his Pcdcgrce be alfo derived from Qjicen E- 
 hz.abeth, eldcit Daughter to King Edward the IVtb, yet this was only ex abun- 
 dant i. 
 
 to
 
 630 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTlCA. 
 
 danti^ to fhow that he had every way a Title to the Cicwn •, and if flie her felf 
 had any Title, it was wholly by virtue of thofe Afts of Parliament of the 39th 
 of Henry the Vlth, and ift of Edward the IVth, which veiled the Crown in 
 Ekhard Duke of Tork^ and King £^ir.t?-^ the IVih, his Sen, and which lad Adt 
 firft declared that the three Henrys of the Houfe of Lancaficr were only Kings 
 in Deedy and not of Fight ^ for before that time I defy you to fliow me in all 
 our Hiltories or Law-Books any fuch Diftinftion. in all foregoing times, he 
 that was folemnly anointed and crowned King in Deed, was alfo lool^ed upon 
 fo to be in point of Right : and therefore let thofe Statutes you fo much infilt 
 upon, talk ever fo much of any King's being fo, by ar,y fundamental Here- 
 ditary Right, precedent to, and independent from the Power of the two Houfes 
 of Parliament j I am very well fatisned that fuch a Declaration muft be void 
 in it felf, fince I have already proved that there was no fuch Lav/ of Sacceflion 
 ever fettled by any general Cullom, or Common Law, and it hath been near 
 as often broken as obferved : and as for any politive or Statute- Law, enafting 
 any Hereditary Right of Succcffion, you do not fo much as prctciid to Ihow it. 
 So that I think I have fufSciently proved the three Propolitions 1 laid down, 
 viz.. That ever fince the time of Edward the Firft, iho the Crown has been 
 claimed by Right of Blood, yet has it not been very often eiijoytd by Piiiices 
 who had no juft pretence to that Title. Secondly, That the twoVloufcs of 
 Parliament have often, notwithftanding that Claim, placed, or at lead fixed 
 the Crown upon the Heads of thofe Piinces, who thi?y very well knew could 
 have no Hereditary Right to it. Thirdly, That I'uch Prinzes have btea always 
 taken for Lawful Kings, all their Laws ftaading good at this day, without any 
 Confirmation by their Succeflbrs. So that all the modern ^€ti of Parii-^ment 
 for entailing the Crown, being made and ordained by the Cooofel and Alleut 
 of the Lords and Commons, are fo many plain Declarations, and evident Re- 
 cognitions, what the fundamental Conftitution of the £a'^/»^ Government was 
 in that grand Point. 
 
 M. I did not think that you, who were fo great an Admirer of the tvyo 
 Houfes of Parliament, Ihould now be fo much againft their Power, in joining 
 with the King to declare what the true Right of Succeffion to the Crown is, 
 and hath ever been from time beyond memory ; but 1 fee Afts or Declaraticns 
 of Parliament fignify nothing with you if they are againft your Hyporhefis, or 
 elfe you would never go about thus to expofe thofe Ads of Parliament of 
 King Edward the IVth, and King James the Firft, whereby they are declared 
 both by the Laws of God and Man undoubted Heirs of the Crown. And the 
 laft Aft I cited, viz.. that of King Ja7?tes the Firft, doth fufficiently confute 
 your Kotion of a Vacancy of the Throne •, where it is exprelly declared, 
 *' That immediately upon the Deceafeof Queen Eliz.abeth, the Crown of £»^- 
 " land, with all the Dominions belonging to the fame, did by inherent Birth- 
 *' right, and lawful and undoubted Succeffion, defcend and come to his Ma- 
 *' jefty King James" So that if there then were no Vacancy of the Throne, 
 I cannot fee how there could be any fuch thing now, the next Heir to the 
 Crown (be he who they will) being certainly not fo far removed from King 
 Jamesl. as himfelf was from King Henry VII. under whom he claimed. 
 , F. I muft ftill confefs my felf to have a great Veneration for the folemn 
 Declarations of King and Parliament, made by any Statute^ yet not fo as to 
 idolize them, or to look upon all their Declarations as infallible. 1 grant in- 
 deed, that whofoever is by them declared and recognized for King or Qjjeen of 
 England, is to be acknowledged and obeyed as fuch by all the Subjedts of this 
 Kingdom, without farther queftioning his Title. But if not content with 
 this, they will alfo take upon them to declare that fuch Kings or Queens have 
 an undoubted Hereditary Right, by the Laws of God and Nature, when I plainly 
 find from the Holy Scriptures, as well as the Hiftory of matter of Faft, and 
 the Knowledge of our Laws, that they have no other Title than what the Laws 
 of the Land have conferred upon them ; they muft excufe me, if I do not 
 acquiefce in fuch Declaration. Nay, yo« your felf cannot deny but that 
 it was grofs Flattery in the two Houfes of Parliament to declare, that ^z- 
 fW^ the Third (for example) had a true and undoubted Right to the Crown, 
 by the Law^s of God and Mature, and alfo by the Laws and Cuftoms of this 
 Realm, when you know he was a notorious Ufurper upon the Rights of his 
 
 Brother
 
 Dialogue the Twelfth, {^^t 
 
 Brother, King Edward'% Children. Now how can I be alTured that the like 
 Declaration made to King James the Firft, was not likewife a piece of Court- 
 fliip of the Reprefentative of the Kingdom to this King, then newly fettled in 
 his Throne? (ince we find the People of this Nation, when they are in a kind 
 fit, never think they can fay or do too much for their Princes: And therefore 
 I rauft freely tell you, that it is not the bare Declaration of a Parliament that 
 this or that has been always the Law or Cuftom of this Realm, when we can 
 find from Hiftory that it has never been fo held for above four hundred Years 
 at leaft, and therefore not beyond the Memory of Man (as you fuppofe) fince 
 that muft be before the Reign of Richard the Firft, as I have already proved 
 to you at our Eighth Meeting. 
 
 But to anfwer your Objeftion againft the Vacancy of the Throne, I do freely 
 grant, that as often as the Crown defcends by lineal SuccelTion, there can be no 
 Vacancy of the Throne, as it did in the Cafe of King James the Firft \ yet 
 doth it not therefore follow, that there can never be any fuch Vacancy in any 
 Cafe whatfoever, fince certainly it may fo happen, that all the Heirs Male of 
 the Blood-Royal may fail, as it happen'd in the Cafe of Scotland^ when John 
 BaLol and Robert Bruce contended for the Crown, which not being to be de- 
 cided by the Eftates of the Kingdom, they were forced to refer it to our King 
 Edward the Firft: and as alfo happen'd inFrance-f when Philif of Faloii^ and 
 our Edward the Third, both claimed the Crown, which was decided by a great 
 Aflembly of the States of France in the favour of the former, who claimed as 
 Heir of the Male Line, againft King Edward, who was defcended by a Woman. 
 And if King J^jwi-A Abdication or Forfeiture (call it which you will) is good, 
 pray give me a fufRcient reafon why the Convention of the Eftates of England 
 fhould not have as much Authority as thofe of France or Scotland \ this being as 
 much or more a limited Kingdom, than either of the other ever were. 
 
 M. I do not deny that, but pray (hew me any fufficient Reafon why the Con- 
 vention fliould now vote a Vacancy of the Throne, fince there was certainly an 
 Heir apparent not long fince in England, and I hope is now fafe in France, who 
 ought to fill it ; or at leaft there ftiould have been fome fufRcient Caufe alledged 
 againft him, to prove that he was not the true Son either of the King or Queen ; 
 and till this was done, they could not with any Right or good Confcience place 
 any other Relation of his in the Throne, fince every Perfon ought to be efteemed 
 the Son of that Father and Mother that publickly own'd him for fuch : for it 
 is a Maxim in our, as well as your Law, FUiatio non potefi probari. 
 
 F. How this could be performed without firft declaring the Throne vacant, 
 I cannot apprehend ; for you your felf muft grant, that there have been great 
 Doubts and Sufpicions of the Reality of this Prince of Wales : and therefore 
 that being one great reafon of the Prince of Orange's coming over, the Truth 
 of this Child, whether he was really born of the Body of the Qiieen, is firfi to 
 be examined and determined, before he can be declared King of England in the 
 room of his fuppofed Father, whom we will alfo fuppofe civilly (tho not na- 
 turally) dead. And till this be done (unlefs you would have had him been de- 
 clared King without ever examining the Truth of the matter) the Throne muft 
 have continued vacant till it could be decided, whether he, or his half Sifter tiie 
 Princefs of Orange, were to fill it : and if h, while the Convention remain'J 
 in this fufpence, they could do no other than vote the Throne vacant, till they 
 were fufficiently fatisfied who had the beft Right to it. 
 
 But to anfwer your Argument, that unlefs fomething could have been pre- 
 fently alledged againft this Infant, to have proved him not to have been born 
 of the Body of the Qiieen, he ought to have been declared King : The Maxim 
 you mention may be well allowed in the cafe of common Inheritances, but not 
 in that of Crowns ; for in thofe we have read, that common and violent Pre- 
 fumptions have been looked upon as fufRcient Proofs to fet afide a fuppofed 
 Heir of the Crown : as for example, fomething above two hundred Years fince, 
 Henry King of Cafiile, Called the Impotent (becaufe he was not able to get his vid. Mailana'j 
 Queen or any other Woman with Child) did out of hatred to his Sifter Ifa- Hijlory of 
 beJla, permit a Favourite of his to lie with his Q;iccn, and get her With Child: ^P-"'"* 
 fhc was brought to bed of a Daughter, but the Eftates of the Kingdom would 
 by no means admit her for Legitimate, becaufe the Queen had before declared 
 her Husband to be impotent ; and therefore they did not only proteft againft 
 
 her
 
 63^ BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICAs 
 
 her Legitimacy in the King's life-time, inan AfTembly of the Eftatcj, but alfo 
 as foon as he died, they fet this pretended Pi incefs quite afide, and declared 
 the Sifter of the late King, Queen of Cafiile, who was married to Ferdinand 
 King of Arragon. Kow though I will not fay, that either the Sufpicions or 
 Proofs againft the prefent Prince of Wales zxt as pregnant as thofe againft that 
 Princefs, yet certainly they were fufficient to debar him from being placed in 
 the Throne, till fuch time as it fhall be made apparent that he is really Son to 
 the Queen. 
 
 M. If the Convention had gone this way to work, 1 grant there might have 
 been feme colour for what they have done : but then they ought, before they 
 had placed any body elfe in the Throne, to have firft examined the Truth of 
 the Queen's being with Child, and her being truly delivered of this Prince, be- 
 fore ever they had declared the Prince and Princefs of Orange King and Queen ; 
 and till this had been done, certainly the Throne fhould have ftill continued va- 
 cant: therefore I doubt your Convention have made more hafte than good fpeed 
 in this matter, which certainly required much more Deliberation. 
 
 F. Come, 1 will for once admit that they ought, in the firft place, to have 
 examined your Prince's Title, but this is ftill to be underftood, as far as it was 
 poflible for them to do it, as it ought : now pray tell me how this could be 
 done, when the Infant was not only carried away into a foreign Kingdom, but 
 alfo the Midwife, the Nurfe, and feveral other of the Queen's near Servants and 
 Attendants went away along with him ? who if they had been here, to' have 
 been crofs-examined, might have declared the Impollure (if it be one.) 
 
 M. But pray, Sir, are there not Proteftant Ladies enough left behind, who 
 have already depofed before the Council (as appears by their Dcpofitions pub- 
 lifhed by the King's exprefs Command, and enrolled in Chancery, in perpetuam 
 Ret memoriam) not only that her Majefty was with Child, but that alfo fhe was 
 really delivered of this Prince ? fo that the Prince of Orange and the Conven- 
 tion ought to have in the firft place fummoned thofe Witnelles you mention to 
 be now in France, to have appeared before them, and if they had not come, then 
 to have proceeded as the matter had required. 
 
 F. You muft then grant that the Proteftant Witnelles alone, who are now 
 \:i.England, were not fufficient;, for if they fhould have depofed that this Child 
 had been an Impoftor, I fuppofe you would not have refted fatisfied that they 
 had fpoke nothing but the Truth, fince the Witnelles now in France (who belt 
 know the matter of Fad) might have fvvorn the contrary : but as for fending 
 any Summons for them into France, it was altogether in vain, and that which 
 the Convention were not at all obliged to do, becaufe neither King James nor 
 his Queen did ever own the Power of the Convention to hear or determine 
 this Affair, and therefore would not have let the WitneOes come over. For 
 after the Throne was declared vacant, the King muft, by fending thofe Wit- 
 nefles, have tacitly owned the Authority of the Convention, in declaring him- 
 felf to have abdicated the Throne, as alfo that they might place his Son there- 
 in : fo that any fuch Summons would certainly have been only rejefted with 
 Scorn, and we ftiould have gained nothing but the lofs of fo much time, and 
 hindred our prefent Settlement and Defence. Kor was the Convention ob- 
 < liged to do it, fince the Parliament it felf is not bound to take ^gnizance of 
 any Perfon or Thing that is not within the Kingdom of England, or the Ter- 
 ritories belonging to it ; and therefore it was not their bufmefs to enquire 
 (unlefs it had been brought before them) what was become of this Infant, 
 whether he was legitimate or not, or whether he was alive, or elfe had been 
 caft avyay at Sea, or taken by Pirates ; any of which might very well have 
 been. And therefore indeed this bufinefs could never have been decided, unlefs 
 the Infant himfelf were aftually prefent, and fufficient proof made, not only 
 that this was the fame Child that was born of the Queen, but which was alfo 
 carried away into France ; all which could never have been examined as it ought, 
 without the Child's perfonal Prefence here, which I fuppofe yon will grant that 
 King James and his C^ueen would never admit of, as things now ftand. There- 
 fore fince a thorow Examination into this bulinefs was inipoffible to have been 
 performed, the Convention have done no more than what can be juftified, in 
 firft declaring the Throne vacant, and then who Ihould fill it. 
 
 M. Well,
 
 Dialogue the Tivelfth. 600 
 
 M. Well, but admit the Cafe were fo as you have put it, the Kingdom ought 
 however to have remain'd without a Ring, till the SuccelTion had been duly fettled j 
 fince according to the Aft of Precognition to King J^wfj I. " The Nation did 
 " not only oblige themfelves, but their Pofterity (that is, we that are nowalive) 
 " to that king and his Right Heirs." And therefore till this Prince's Right had 
 been determin'd, either the Convention Ihould have govern'd, or elfethey oughn 
 to have made the Prince of Ok^jm^c only Governour or Regent of the Kingdom, 
 and not to have plac'd him and his Princefs on the Throne, till the young Prince 
 had died, or elfe had been prov'd to be an Irapoftor. 
 
 F. I doubt not but I can fhew you not only the Unreafonablenefs, but alfo 
 the unprafticablenefs of this Suppofition. Firft, Its Unreafonablenefs, fince you 
 are very much miltaken to alledge that the whole Nation, by that Adt of Re- 
 cognition toKingJ^Jwe;, oblig'd themfelves, and their Pollerities, to him and 
 his right Heirs by Blood. 'Tis true they there tell him, " That they made 
 '* that Recognition as the firft Fruits of their Loyalty and Faith to him, and 
 *' his Royal Progeny and Pofterity for ever: And alfo when they have acknow- 
 " ledg'd him to be juftly and lawfully next and fole Heir of the Blood Royal 
 *' of this Realm, and that they thereunto fubmit and oblige themfelves, their 
 *' Heirs and Pofterities for ever : i&'c." there is no more meant or exprefs'd 
 in all this, than that the whole Nation did by their Reprefentativcs in Parlia- 
 ment oblige themfelves and their Children to King ^amet and his Pofterity for 
 ever. And I think that this part of the Recognition is fufficiently perform'd, 
 by placing two of his Great Grandchildren in the Throne : for as to the words 
 rightful or lawful Heirs, they are not to be found in all this Statute. 
 
 But as for your Notion of a Regency, it is plain it could fignify nothing, 
 either for our prefent Security, or future Settlement j not to the former, 
 fince this Regent (be he whom he would) muft have govern'd in the Right of 
 fome body or other, fince 1 never read of a Regency in England^ during a Va- 
 cancy of the Throne \ therefore I will at prefent admit that the Vote for King 
 Jameses Abdication had never been made, only that the Prince of Orange had 
 been declar'd Regent of the Kingdom, tiU fuch time as King James would have 
 given the Nation fufficient Satisfadion of his reforming all paft Mifcarriages, 
 and that his future Government (hould be according to Law. Now I would 
 very fain know how it can be juftity'd, according to your Notion of the King's 
 abfoluce irrefiftible Power, to place a Regent over the Kingdom to govern in 
 bis ftead, whether he will or not, when it is certain he is neither a Minor, 
 an Idiot, nor a Lunatick : fo that then he muft have return'd again to the 
 Government whenever he had pleas'd, or elfe the Convention muft have been 
 Judges whether the Security or Satisfadfion he ofFer'd was fufficiently fatisfac- 
 tory or not •■, for if he himfelf was to be fole Judge in this Cafe, I fuppofe you 
 will grant this Regency would quickly have been at an end. But on the other 
 fide, if this Right of judging had been left in the Convention, whether the 
 King's Propofals were fatisfaftory or not, they might alfo have voted thera 
 not tobefoi and till this was done, they might very well have juftify'd their 
 keeping him out of the Kingdom by Force. Now how that could have confifted 
 with your Doftrine of the King's irrefiftible Power, 1 defire you would fatisf/ 
 mc if you can. So that by this Regency, the King muft either have been de- 
 priv'd of his whole Power, or he muft not ; if the former, that would have 
 been as bad as depodng him from being King, and had left him no more than 
 the bare Viile: and whether this had not been a great deal worfe (as more 
 hypocritical) than the Convention's declaring him to have abdicated the Govern- 
 ment, I leave it to any indifferent Perfon to judge. 
 
 But if you will fuppofe that this Regent muft have govern'd in the name of 
 your Prince of Waksy as being declar'd King, that would have been to have 
 granted his Title to be good without hearing of it, and had been indeed to have 
 given up the main Point in difpute. 
 
 • M. I fee you would tain find out any (hiftsfor this pretended Vacancy, and 
 placing thofe in the Throne to whom it doth not belong ■■, yet tho I grant that 
 the word Right Heirs is not exprefly recited in this Aft of Recognition to 
 Kin^ James I yet for all that, it is implied : for the Oath of Allegiance is e- 
 nafted by Elizabeth I. to be taken to the Queen, her Heirs, and lawful Succcf- 
 fors-, and by the Oath of Supremacy (enafted in the IVth of King James) we 
 
 M m ra m arc
 
 (534- 
 
 BiBLlOTHECA PoLITlCA. 
 
 are likewife oblig'd to fwear, that we will bear true Allegiance to his Mjje/{y, 
 tils Heirs, and Succeflbrs. Now who thefe Heirs are, this very Ad of Recog- 
 nition doth fufficiently declare, vit. the next Heir by defcent'of Blood i for 
 PS King James is hereby acknowledg'd to be Heir by inherent Birthright, fo 
 when they oblige themfclves, and their Pofterities to King James^ and his Pro- 
 geny, it is to be underftood (by parity of Reafon) that they oblige themfelves 
 and the Nation, for all future Generations, to him and his IfTue in that fenfe ; as 
 that their Allegiance fl-.ould be only due to him, or her, who fhould be lawful 
 Heir to their Father, Brother, or Uncle, according to thofe Rules of Succefllon, 
 that had been commonly receiv'd for above four hundred Years laft paft : that is 
 to fay, the eldeft Son, Brother, or Daughter, being ftill to be prefer'd before 
 the younger, and Sons before Daughters, and the fame Rule mull alfo hold for 
 their Defcendants i fince upon this ground it was, thet the Title of the Houfe 
 of Tork was prefer'd by Parliament before that of Lancafter ; and the Title of 
 the King of Scod, who was defcended from the eldeft Sifter, before that of the 
 Houfe of Sujfolk^ who came from the younger. And this being never alter'd by 
 any fubfequent Statute (or if it had, I think it would not have been good) the 
 Convention ought either to have declar'd the Prince of !4/ales King immediately, 
 oratleaftto have continu'd the Throne vacant, let the DifEculties or Inconve- 
 niences that yoH fuppofe might have followM, be ever fo great : and there- 
 fore it was their Duly to have fought out King James wherever he had been, 
 and to have defir'd him to have lent over the Prince, together with the Wit- 
 nefles that went away with him. And till this had been abfolutely refus'd. or 
 elfe that upon a fair hearing this Prince had been prov'd an Impoflor j I'fay 
 till one of thefe had been done, the Throne ought ftill to have continu'd vacant 
 (if it were fo at all; nor till this had been dear'd could they have juftified the 
 placing any body elfe upon the Throne, tho ever fo nearly related to the 
 King •, whom I will fuppofe for Difcourfe-fake, to have really abdicated the 
 
 Kingdom. ^ - ^ 
 
 F. I will not deny that the legal and common courfe of Succelhon ought to 
 be inviolately obferv'd, according to the Rules you have now laid down, when- 
 ever it may confift with the publick good and fafety of the Kingdom ; and yett 
 for all that I cannot believe, that the King himfelf, much lefs any other, that 
 only pretends as next Heir to him, can have fuch an abfolute Right to the King- 
 dom, as that no Confiderations whatfoever can make them lofe or forfeit their 
 Right thereunto : therefore 1 look upon the Government of a Kingdom not to 
 be like that Intereft which a private Man hath in an Eftate, which is his Right 
 let him be what he will, or let him manage it how he will. VVhereas in the. 
 Right to a Kingdom, I take it to be a true Maxim, That the Reprefentatives of 
 a Nation (as the Convention was) ought to have more regard to the Happinefs 
 and Safety of the whole People, or Commonwealth, than to the Dignity or 
 Authority of any particular Perfon whomfoevcr, or howfoever nearly related to 
 the Crown i when it is evident the advancement of fuch a Perfon to the 
 Throne, will prove deftrudive to our Religion, Civil Liberties and Proper- 
 ties. ... 
 
 Now give me leave to apply what I have faid to the Pomt in queftion : 
 Let us therefore at prefent fuppofe, that your Prince of IVales h true and law- 
 ful Son to King James and Queen Mary j and let me alfo farther fuppofe, that 
 in his late Paflage over Sea, he had been taken by the Pirates of Algiers, or 
 T«Kt$, and by them carried to one of thofe places, and bred up in the Ma- 
 hometan Religion i and after he had been circumcifed, and fully grounded in 
 that abominable Superftition, the Grand Signior, together with the Kings of 
 Algiers and Tunis, fhould fend this Nation word, that if they would not admit 
 him quietly for their King, and allow all thofe Priefts he fhould bring with 
 him a free Exercife of their Religion in England, they would then make War 
 upon this Nation with all the Forces they could raife. I ask you what we 
 ought to do in this Cafe, whether we ihould receive him for our King, or keep 
 
 him out? ...... ... 
 
 M. I rauft confefs it is a nice Qiieftion •, and fince it is a thing that never did 
 yet, nor 1 hope ever will come to pafs, I think I may freely anfwer you. That 
 fuppofing this Prince could be prov'd to be the very fame who was carried away 
 fo many Years ago, we ought, notwithftanding his falfe Belief, to receive him 4 
 
 efpecially
 
 Dialogue the Twelfth, 605 
 
 cfpecially if he would folemnly fwear, only to worfliip God in private after 
 his own way i and that he would fwear 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 \ fince, as you your felf have already ac- 
 knowledg'd at our third Meeting, the fupreme Powers are not to be refifted, bc- 
 caufe 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 Maho- 
 metan and Heretical Princes, than the Church of Rome, who have decreed, 
 Th It no Prince ought to be teceiv'd as right Heir to a Crown, who is a Pagan, 
 Turk^ or Heretick j and upon this ground it was, that the States of France, 
 during the time of the League, by the Pope's Decree, refos'd to own Henry 
 King of iV.tv.irre for their Sovereign i and alfo, that the Papiftsof the Nun- 
 cio-Party in Ireland during the late Rebellion, refus'd to own the late Duke of 
 Ormond for Lord Lieutenant of that Kingdom, becaufe the King was a Pro- 
 teftant. 
 
 But pray anfwer me a Queftion or two further : Suppofe this Prince refus'd 
 to promife thefe things, or elfe if he did proraife, and fwear them •, pray 
 tell me how could we be afTur'd, that according to the Principles of that Reli- 
 gion he had been bred under, and thofe Arbitrary Notions he had learn'd con- 
 cerning the abfoiute Power of Kings in Barhary, and which he would believe 
 due to himfelf, as being as abfoiute a Monarch as any of them : I fay, how fuch 
 a Prince ever could be trufted ? Since if he had the whole Power of the Militia 
 in his hands, he might bring in what number of Turki/h or Moori/h Guards he 
 fhould think fit, who might eafily fet up that Religion and Government too, 
 in this Nation ■■, fince, according to your Principles of Paflive Obedience and 
 CJon-vcfiltance, no Man ought to lift up fo much as a Finger againft him, tho 
 he went about to make us all Turks and Slaves. 
 
 M Well, fuppofing all this, as long as it is his Right he ought to have it, 
 let the Confequencebs what it will. 
 
 F. You have faid enough, I defire no more -, but I hope every true Prote- 
 ftant and Engli/hman will be of another mind if ever fuch a cale fliould happen. 
 But indeed it appears very ftrange to me, that a natural Difability, fuch as 
 Idiocy or Lunacy, fliould be elteem'd fufficient in all Kingdoms to debar the 
 Tiext Heir from the Government, and yet that a Moral or Religious Difability 
 Piould not have the fame efFedt : and tho I grant that a King ought not to be 
 rcbellvd againll, or refilled, merely becaufe he is of a different Religion from 
 that of his Subjects, for I was never for refilling King James merely upon that 
 fcore ■■, yet it is another thing when a Prince is not adlually poflefTed of the 
 Throne, but is to be admitted to it upon fuch Conditions as may appear fafe for 
 the Religion and Civil Conftitution of a Kingdom. In this Cafe, if a Prince 
 be certainly infefted with fuch pernicious Principles, either in relation to Reli- 
 gion or Civil Government, it is much otherwife : as for example, That no 
 Faith is to be kept with Hereticks ^ That his own Religion is to be propagated 
 by Arms, Blood, or Perfecution •, That no Government can be fafe for the 
 Prince, or in which he can appear Great or Glorious, but as an abfoiute Mo- 
 narch : let fuch a Prince be either a Chriftian or a Mahometan, I think it would 
 be a certain Ruin to a Kingdom to be oblig'd to receive fuch a Prince, when 
 they were morally fure, 'that he would not only fubvert their Fvcligion, but 
 defti oy the very Profeffors of it j and not only thofe, but alter the Civil Con- 
 ftitution too, by turning it from a limited Kingdom, into an abfoiute defpotick 
 Tyranny. 
 
 To conclude, I Ihall only deftre you to conlider, into what a Country your 
 Prince of Wales is carry'd, and what Inftrudtors 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 fuch a Religion, and fuch Principles, and the fame, if he had been 
 carried away by Pirates to Algiers^ as I at firft fuppos'd ? 
 
 At. 1 his is a very invidious Comparifon^ for tho 1 do not approve of the 
 Roman Catholick Religion, yet fure there is a great deal of dilference between 
 that which profcffes all the Articles of our Creed, and in which wc of our 
 Church own Salvation may be obtained, and the Mahometan Superftition, which 
 
 M m m in 2 denies
 
 636 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 denies tbat fundamental Article of our Creed, viz.. That Jefus Chrift is tifel 
 Son of God. And as for Civil or Political Principles, I hope the King his Fa- 
 ther will take care to have him inftrudted by fome of thofe fw^////? Noblemen 
 or Gentlemen who are now with him, in the Cuftoms and Gonftitutions of the 
 £Mg////3 Government, and wherein it differs from the French; as we read Chan- 
 vid. Tortefate ceiiot Fortcjcue did Prince Henry, Son to Henry V. and I hope he will come 
 deLaud.Le^ over again to prad^ife them in his own Country before he comes to be infefted 
 "°"'"^'°^'"' with the Arbitrary Principles of the T^rewcb Government. But as tor thofe of 
 not keeping Faith with Hereticks, and propagating his Religion by Perfecu- 
 tion ■■, 1 doubt not but the King his Father will take care not to commit his Edu- 
 cation to any of thofe who are infefted with fuch Principles : and 1 amtlie more 
 inclin'd to believe it, becaufe it is very well known that his Majefty's Tender- 
 nefs and Moderation in matters of Religion, and not perfecuting any body for 
 the Belief or bare ProfelBon of it, as it was the greateft Caufe of his late De- 
 claration of Indulgence, lb it was the main Original of all his late Misfor- 
 tunes. Nor can I fee any reafon why a King by being a Roman Cathoiick, muft 
 neceilarily be a Tyrant and a Perfecutor, fince you cannot deny but that we have 
 had many good and juft Kings of that Religion, and it is from thofe Princes that 
 profelled It that we derive our A<fag»aCharta, and raoft of the Privileges we 
 now enjoy. 
 
 F. Tho 1 would not be thought to affirm, Ihat the Romifti Religion is every 
 way wortcthan the Mahometan J yet this much 1 may fafely alErm, that there 
 is no Doiff rine in all that Superftition, fo abfurd and contrary to Senfe and Rea- 
 fon, as that of Tranfubltantiation, held by the Church of Rome, in which the 
 far greateft part are certainly Idolaters, which can never be objeQed againft 
 the Turks : and therefore tho I will not deny but that aMan may be fav'd in the 
 Communion of the Romilh Church, yet it is not for being a Papift, but only as 
 far as he pradlifes Chrift's Precepts, and trufts in his Merits, that he can ever 
 obtain that favour from God. 
 
 But as for thofe evil Principles both in Religion and Civil Government, 
 which you cannot deny but are now commonly believed and praftifed in France^ 
 and which you hope King James will take care that the Prince his Son Ihall be 
 bred to avoid ; 1 wi(h it may prove as you fay : but if you will confider the Men 
 that are like to be his Tutors and Inftrudtors in matters of Religion, vix.. his 
 Father's and Mother's ConfelFors the Jefuits j and for Civil Government, thofe 
 Popilh Lords and Gentlemen of notorious Arbitrary Principles and Practices, 
 who are gone over to King James; you will have fmall reafon to believe, that 
 there is ever a Fortefcue now to be found among the Englifhmen in France^ or 
 who is likely toinltil into him thofe true £w^///7; Principles you mention. 
 
 And tho 1 do not affirm, that every Popifh Prince mull: needs be a Perfecutor, 
 yet lince that wholly depends upon thofe Priefts that have the management of 
 their Confciences, Ihew me a Prince in Europe who has a Jefuit for his Confellbr, 
 and tell me, if he hath not deferv'dthat Character. 
 
 But tho lam fo much of your Opinion, that King J^wex owes the greateft 
 part of his Misfortunes to his Declaration for Liberty of Confcience ; yet was 
 it not fo much to the thing it felf, as to his arbitrary manner of doing it, by 
 afluming a difpenling Power contrary to Law : and you may be very well af- 
 fur'd by the little oppoiition which the late Afts met with for taking off the Pe- 
 nalties againft Conventicles, and not coming to Church, inrefpeft of all Dif- 
 fenters, except the Papifts, that King James might have as ealily obtain'd a like 
 Adt to pafs in refped of thofe alfo, as to the free Profefllon of their Religion, 
 and having Mafs in their Houfes ; which is more than the Papifts will allow 
 the Proteltants in any Country in Europe. And therefore 1 muft beg your par- 
 don if I ftill find great reafon to doubt whether King James\ Tendernefs 
 towards thofe that difFer'd from him in matters of Religion, and the Indul- 
 gence he gave them, were purely out of Conlideration of tender Confcience?, 
 and not rather thereby to deftroy the Church of England eftablifh'd by Law ; 
 fince the Difpute began between King James and his Parliament, was not about 
 Liberty of Confcience, but thofe Offices and Commands which the King was 
 refolv'd to beftow upon the Papifts, 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 Profetfion of his own Religion, and the Power and Benefit of 
 
 having
 
 Dialogue the T'welfth. 6'rf 
 
 having all the chief Imploymentsof Honour and Profit in the Commonwealth. 
 But that the Indulgence of Popifh Princes towards thofe thatdilfent from ihem 
 in matters of Religion, may not always proceed from pure Tendernefs and 
 Companion, appears from a Manufcripc Treatife of F. Parfons, (that great 
 Jefuit in Queen Eltz.alsth's time) which I have been told was found in King 
 James's Clolet after his Departure. This (if you can fee it) will fhew you, 
 that the fubtle jefuit doth there direct his Popifli Succeflbr, in order to the 
 more quiet introducing the Roman-Catholick Religion, to grant a general To- 
 leration of all Religions, out of a like defign. Thus did Julian the Apoftate 
 long ago tolerate all the Sefts and Herefies in the Chriltian Religion, becaufehe 
 thereby hoped utterly to confound and deftroy it. 
 
 But as to what you alledge concerning y^/di^w<» Charta\ being granted by Po- 
 pilh Piinces, and that there has been many good Kings of that Perfuadon •, as 
 1 will not deny either the one or the other, fo I defire you to remember with 
 whit ftruggling and great difficulties this Charter was at lirfb obtain'd, and 
 afterwards preferv'd, tho it was no more than a Declaration of moll of thofe 
 antient Rights and Liberties which the Nation had always enjoy'd. And you 
 may alfo remember that they were Popilh Princes, who more than once obtain'd 
 Ihe Pope's Difpenfation to be difcharged from thofe folemn Oaths they had ta- 
 ken to obferve thofe Charters ; and tho there i\ave been divers good Princes 
 before the Reformation, yet even the very beft of them made the fevereft Laws 
 againft Protcltants, and were the moft cruel in their Perfecutions , witnefs King 
 Hemy IV. Henry V. and Queen Mary. And indeed, it is dangerous to rely 
 upon the Faith of a Prince, who looks upon it as apiece of Merit to dcftroy all 
 Religions hut his own^ and when he finds it cannot be done by Law, will not 
 ftick to ufe any arbitrary means to bring it about. To conclude, pray con- 
 fider whether the ftricl obferving or violation of .A/a^Kii Charta and his Coro- 
 nation-Oath, hath been the caufe of King Jarnesh Abdication. Pardon this long 
 Difcourfe, which your Vindication of the Opinion and Pradices of Popilh Princes 
 hath drawn from me. 
 
 /J/. Pray, Sir, let us quit thefe invidious Subjeds, which can do no good, (ince 
 Princes muft be ovvn'd and fubmitted to, let their Principles and Pradices be 
 ever fo Tyrannical ^ and let us return again to the matter in hand. I will 
 therefore at prefenf fuppofe the Prince of Wales to have been either dead, of 
 juftly laid aiide. Now make it out to me how you can juftify the placing 
 the Prince and Princefs of Orange in the Throne, when the Crown is reall/ 
 her Right after the Prince of Waks^ and not her Husband's •, as alio the 
 putting the Government folely into his hands : fince this can no ways agree 
 with the Aft of Recognition to Kmgjames], which you your felf cannot deny 
 but ought to beobferv'd, when it may be done without any apparent hazard or 
 prejudice to the Proteftant Religion, and the Conftitution of our Government j 
 which I think might have been as well, if not better fecur'd, by letting it have 
 gone in the right Line, than by placing the Crown upon the Head of a Princcj 
 who, of the Blood- Royal by his Mother, yet being a Foreigner, is a mere Stran- 
 ger to our Government and Laws, and has been bred up' in Calv'mifltcal ?x\r\c\' 
 pies; and upon that fcore is not like to have any good Intentions towards the 
 Government and Ceremonies of the Church of England^ as appears by his late 
 agreeing to abolifli Epifcopacy in Scotland^ upon his accepting that Crown from 
 the Presbyterian Convention. 
 
 F. If thefe be all the Objeftions you have to make againft placing King Wil- 
 liam and Queen M.try on the Throne, 1 hope they will not be of any great 
 moment to your felf, or any other confiderate Man : for if upon the Abdica- 
 tion of King James, and the inipolFibility of determining your Prince of IValcs^s 
 Title (if it be one) a Regency was imprafticable and unfafc for the Nation aC 
 that Conjunfture of time, when we wanted a King to hold a Parliament, as well to 
 raife Mony to defend us againft the Power of France, as alfo to make new Laws 
 for the Eafe and Reformation of the Kingdom ■■, all which a Regent's adting 
 without Royal Authority could never do, by the Conftitution of this Kingdom : 
 then there was a neceflity of placing fome body in the Throne, for the com- 
 mon Good and Safety ot the whole Commonwealth ; and I think you your felf 
 cannot but acknowledge, that the Princefs of Orange had an Hereditary Right to 
 the Crown i and if her Highnefs had, the Prince her Husband alfo ought to 
 
 govern
 
 638 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTlCA." 
 
 govern the Kingdom in her Right during her Life. And thofe who deny King 
 ^tmyVU. to be Lawful King before his Marriage with the Vrlncek Etizabethy 
 will yet grant he was fo in her Right after his Marriage : and this has not been 
 only the Cuftom in England, but alfo in other Kingdoms of EuropCy as I can 
 give you feveral Inftances- For upon this ground it was that Ferdinand King of 
 u^rragon, by marrying with Ifak/la Queen of Cajlile, govern'd that Kingdom 
 during his Life : fo a\^o Anthony Duke of Bourbon marrying with Jane Queen of 
 Navarre, did in her Right adminifter the Government of that part of it, 
 which was left unconquer'd by the Spaniards : and here at home PhtUp Prince of 
 Spain, by his Marriage with Queen Mary^ had certainly in her Right govern'd 
 this Kingdom, and had enjoy'd iomething more than the bare Title ot King, 
 had he not by the Articles of Marriage, confirm'd by Aft of Parliament, been 
 exprefly debar'd from it. 
 
 M. Admit all this to be true, yet this was only the Enjoyment of a bare Ma- 
 trimonial Crown, and held no longer than during the Lives or Marriage with 
 thofe Queens you mention. But pray tell mc, how can the Convention, accord- 
 ing to the antient Conftitution ot this Kingdom, jullify the Settlement of the 
 Crown, not only on King William during the Qiieen's Life, but for his own 
 Life alfo, to the prejudice not only of hisown Iffue (if ever he have any by the 
 Princefs) but alfo of the Princefs of Denmark and her Heirs ? 
 ' F. I doubt not but to (hew you, tliat this may be eafiiy juftify'd by the Con- 
 
 ftitution of the Kingdom, and former Precedents of what hath been done in 
 the like Cafes. Firft, As to the Conftitution, I have already prov'd that upon 
 the Depofition of a King (which is all one with a Foifeiiure of the Crown) the 
 Great Council or Parliament have taken upon them to eleft or admit either the 
 next Heir by Blood, or fome Prince (tho more remote) of the Royal Family, to 
 the Crown. Thus King Henry [V. upon the Depoftion or Refignation ot King 
 KichardU. was plac'd in the Throne by the Archbifhop of Canterbury, afier the 
 two Houfes had voted and confcnted he Ciould reign over them ; tho 1 grant 
 that by Right of Blood, Edmund Enxl of March ought to have fuccecded to it : 
 but he being then a Child, was pafs'd by unmention'd ; Duke Hemji being thea 
 powerful, and having delivered the Kingdom from the Tyranny and evil Go- 
 vernment of Richard II. 1 (hall pafs by Richard Ml becaufe 1 own his Govern- 
 ment to have begun by Ufurpation, and to have been eftablifli'd by the Murder 
 of his Nephews. But as for Henry VU. I have already fliew'd you, that the 
 Parliament before his Marriage with the Princefs Elizabeth, fettled the Crown 
 upon him, and the Heirs of his Body, by virtue of which he held it all his 
 Reign : whereas there is no fuch thing done in the prefenc Cafe of King Wil- 
 liamy fince he hath only the Crown fettled upon him during his own Life, with 
 the remainder after his deceafe, without Iflue by the Queen, to her, and not: 
 bis Right Heirs ; and as for fuch Children as he may have by her, it is agree- 
 able toReafon, that he fliould hold the Crown by that which we call the Cour- 
 tefy of England during his Life, and not from a King become a Subjeft to his 
 own Children, in cafe he Ihould defire to live here after her Majefty's deceafe, 
 which I hope God will prevent. 
 
 M. I confefs you have dreft up a pretty plaufible Title for King William \ but 
 yet all that you have faid amounts to no more than this, That becaufe other 
 Kings have been Ufurpers, he may be fo too : for as to all the Inftances you have 
 brought, they have been only from Depofitions or manifeft Ufurpations, both 
 which our Laws have condemn'd as abfolutely unlawful \ as I have fliew'd you 
 hath beendeclar'd by two Afts of Parliament, againft the Title of Henry IV. 
 and his Defcendants. But fince yoa will not infift upon the Right of Richardlll. 
 I pafs to that Aft of Henry VII. which, as I told you before, fo I muft repeat 
 it again, that it was done upon his fuppos'd Right by Blood, as Heir to the 
 Houfe of Zaw^y^er, and upon that pretence he claim'd the Crown as his Right, 
 in his Speech to the firft Parliament he call'd : belides, the Princefs Elizabethy 
 the Queen c/ff Jure, made no claim to the Crown, and fo did tacitly refign it, 
 which fcem'd to make him de Jure as well as de Failo King j and if it were 
 done otherwife, I look upon that whole Aft as void in it felf, becaufe made by 
 him before his Marriage with that Princefs, and whilfl; he was an Ufurper upon 
 her Right. So that certainly it is no Argument that fince Parliaments have 
 a(flcd illegally, therefore your Convention may do fo too ; for it is a known 
 
 Maxim
 
 Dialogue the Twelfth, 62^ 
 
 Maxim in our Civil Law, a failo ad Jus non valet confequuntia : therefore what- 
 ever they have done toward creating a good Title to King William in refpeft of 
 the Queen his Wife, and his Iflue by her, yet this no way cxcufes the wrong 
 done to the Princefs of Denmark and her Iflue, in cafe they furvive your King. 
 
 F. 'Tis very wonderful to me, to fee how ingenious feme Men are in finding 
 faults with the prefent Settlement of things, tho ever fo much for the beft, if 
 not done exaftly to fuit with their Humour, or Hypothefis, when indeed 
 there can no fault be jaflily found with it : for you agree that if the Queen 
 hath a Right, King William hath fo alfo, during his Life •, and whether the 
 Princefs of Denmark and her IITue may furvive the King, is yet uncertain : but 
 if either (he or they (hould happen to furvive his Majefty, yet fince Ihe hath 
 made no Claim or Proteftationin the Convention, againit the King's holding 
 the Crown after the deceafe of the Queen, 1 cannot fee why this fhouid not pafs 
 for a tacit Refignation of her Right, as well as in the cafe of the Princefs 
 Eliz.abetb you but now mention'd. 
 
 But admit his prefent Majefty, according to the late receiv'd Rules of Succef- 
 fion, hath not a Title byDefcentj yet according to thofe Principles 1 have 
 already laid down, he certainly has a Right to the Crown, from that in- 
 herent Power which I fuppofe doth remain in the Eftates of the Kingdom, as 
 Reprefentativcs of the whole Nation, to beftow the Crown one very Abdication, 
 or Forfeiture thereof, on fuch Prince of the Blood Royal, as they ih^W think 
 beft to deferve it : and upon this account I conceive there is none of the Blood, 
 that canftand in competition with his prefent Majefty for Prudence, Valour, 
 Moderation, and all other Royal Virtues , and therefore it is not at all to be 
 wonder'd at, if the Convention hath in thii Cafe exercifed that Original Power, 
 which the People referv'd to themfelves, at the firft Inftitution of Kingly Govern- 
 ment in this llland. 
 
 Therefore 1 cannot but here take occafion to vindicate his prefent Majefty from 
 thofe Exceptions you have made againft his Country, and Civil as well as Reli- 
 gious Principles. Firft, As to his Country, 'tis true he is a Foreigner ; yet 
 that can be no Exception againft his admillion to the Throne, fince it was none 
 againft his Great Grandfather King James : and I doubt not but his Majefty 
 may underftand as much, if not more of the Engli(h Conftitution and Govern- 
 ment, than his faid Grandfather did, when he firft came to the Crown. 
 
 But as for his Principles in Religion, I cannot fee any reafon to fufpeft him 
 more inclinable to the Church-Government of Holland, than that of England^ 
 lince he was bred up under a Mother, who was always firm to the Religion and 
 Difcipline of our Church •, and ever fince he was married to the Princefs, he 
 hath always (hew'd a very great Refpeft to its Liturgy and Ceremonies, by his 
 fo conftant frequenting his Princefs's Chappel. So that befides his Majefty's 
 Intereft to maintain Epifcopacy, as raoft agreeable to the Monarchy and anti- 
 ent Conftitution of this Kingdom ; it is likewife (if he were able) not in his 
 power to deftroy the Church of England, fince the main Body of the Clergy, 
 Nobility, and Gentry of this Nation is fo zealous for its Prefervation •■, that if 
 he had any fuch Inclinations, it would not be eafy for him to effcd it, and he 
 is too wife a Prince to let others perfuade him fo vifibly againft his own Intereft, 
 and having fo late an Example before his Eyes, that it was King James's Ruin 
 to attempt it. 
 
 As for what you fay of Scotland; 'tis true, Presbytery is for the prefent fet 
 up there, but it is uncharitable to impute this to the King's Inclinations : 
 for 'tis notorious, that of them who call themfelves Epifcopal in that King- 
 dom, the greater number did either out of prejudice to the Prince's Caufc, 
 or in contempt of his Power, refufe to be chofen Members of the Convention -, 
 or clfe after they were chofen, did fo far adhere to King Jamcs\ Intereft, as to 
 defertit; as did my Lord Dundee, and many others, and by that means gave 
 the Presbyterian Party an advantage to carry all things as they pleas'd : and 
 this Party finding the King not well fettled here, and the Irijh in hcland'm Arms 
 againft him, took hold of that opportunity to put the abolilhingof Epifcopacy 
 into the very Inftrument of Government, and to prefs it upon him at a time 
 when an unavoidable neceflity and the obftinacy of too many of the Epifcopal 
 Party forc'd him to confent to it. Wherefore this noway (hews his Majefty's 
 Inclinations to fet up Presbytery even in Scotland ; much left doth it prove he 
 
 would
 
 640 BiBLIOTHEGA Po LI TIC A. 
 
 would fet it up here, where the Circumftances are quite different : for here 
 the main Body of the People hate that Government, and will be fo far from de- 
 firing it, that they will never endure it. So that as to this, your fears of King 
 William ate as vain, as your hopes of l^\ng James. 
 
 I Ihall conclude with a few words in anfwer to your reply againft thofe Ex- 
 amples, wherein I have Jhewn you that the Crown hath always been under fuch 
 a Difpofition as the two Houfes of Parliament (hall appoint; to which you have 
 nothing elfe to objeft, but that their AdmifTion of Henry IV. to the Crown was 
 condemn'd as unlawful by two Afts of Parliament, which 1 have already an- 
 fwer'd, by fhowing you that thofe Afts were obtain'd by ^^/V/^dr^/ Duke of ror;J, 
 and Edward IV. his Son, by aftual Rebellion, and by as great a force upoa 
 King Henry VI. as ever wasufed againft King Richard U. by Henry IV. And as 
 for the Statute of the firft of Henry VII. you have found out a very eafy way 
 of anfwering if, by affirming that it was done whilft he was an Ufurper, and 
 before his Marriage, or that he had any right to be King. But by this way of 
 arguing, no Aft he ever palled would be good, fince it is certain he didnevec 
 take upon him to govern in right of his Queen, as all thofe that have writ his 
 Life do acknowledge i and therefore if the Parliament would then fettle the 
 Crown upon him and his right Heirs, without any refpeft to his Queen, or her 
 Ilfue or Sifters, in cafe Die fhould die childlefs, 1 cannot fee why the Conven- 
 tion may not as well now fettle the Crown upon King William and Queen Mary 
 and their Iffue, with remainder to himfelf for Life : efpecially fince he hath 
 alfo another Title of his own to confirm it, viz.. that of a Conqueror over 
 King James, and our Deliverer from his Arbitrary Government. 
 
 M. I fhall not go about to derogate from King William's perfonal Virtues, 
 which you fo highly extol ■■, only 1 wifti I may not prove too true a Prophet, 
 fince that is not the main queftion between us. I fhall only take upon me to 
 anfwer in the firft place what you have urged on the behalf of King IViliiam's 
 pretence to the Crown as a Conqueror over King James., and Deliverer of the 
 Nation j for whatfoever he may pretend to in refpeft of the latter, I am furc 
 he cannot juftly pretend to the former ; fince fure he can never have any righe 
 by Conqueft, who exprefly fets forth in his firft Declaration, that he only 
 came to obtain a Free Parliament, and to redrefs our Grievances. Much lefs 
 can he be properly call'd a Conqueror, who never overcame his Enemy in any 
 pitch'd Battel, but by falfe Stories made the King's Army defert him ; and 
 then, when this was done, having forc'd the King to leave the Kingdom for 
 fear, he has in the day of his Power by thefe means obtain'd the Crown : 
 and as for a Deliverer, you muft pardon me, if I cannot think him fo, fince 
 1 am not yet fatisfied that the worft of King James's Oppreflions ever deferved 
 that the Prince of Orange fhould take the pains to come over to redrefs them. 
 
 And therefore your parallel between your King's Title, and that of Henry 
 IV. and HemyVU. doth not at all agree, fince both of them claim'd not fo 
 much by Conqueft, or force of Arms, as by a pretended right of Inheritance, 
 as you may fee by both their Claims. And as for Henry IV. 'tis plain, he 
 look'd upon his Title by defcent of Blood (having been allow'd in Parliament) 
 to be fo good, that for the firft feven Years of his Reign, he never thought 
 it worth while to pafs an Aft for the Settlement of the Crown upon himfelf, 
 and his Ifi'ue : but for Richard \U. and Henry VU. they were fo far from own- 
 ing their Titles to any Aft or Declaration of Parliament, that they firft clap'd 
 the Crown upon their own Heads, and after they had done it, they imme- 
 diately call'd their Parliaments ; which tho they recogniz'd their Titles, yet 
 did not make them Kings, but found them fo : whereas the Convention has 
 by their fole Authority, made the Prince of Orange, and the Princefs, King 
 and Queen of England, to the prejudice of the right Heirs of the Crown. 
 
 F. 1 doubt not, but what I have already faid, may very well be defended, 
 notwithftanding the urmoft you have now argued againft it. In the firft place, 
 as to what you fay againft King William's Title, as a Conqueror over King 
 James, it is very trivial : for tho it is true, the Prince declar'd before he came 
 over, that his coming was for no other end but to obtain a Free Parliament, 
 redrefs Grievances, and to remove evil Counfellors from King J<«w« ; yet that 
 is ftill to be underftood, that the King would agree to thofe reafonable demands 
 the Prince then made : for if by his own obftinacy he would bring things to 
 
 that
 
 Dialogue the Tvjelfth. 64.1 
 
 that pafs, as that indead of redreDing thofe Violations he had made upon our 
 fundamental Laws, he raifed an Army to fupport himfclf in them \ and when 
 he thought this Army would net fight in his fo bad a Caufe, he then disbanded 
 it, and by that, as well as the Defertion of the Throne, owned himfclf van- 
 quifhed. Can any body deny the Prince of Orange a Right of making what ad- 
 vantage he could of his Succeflcs i" And therefore I doubt not but that the 
 Prince might, if he pleafed, have taken upon him the Title of King immedi- 
 ately upon King 7'^wfj'sfirll: Departure, and have fummoned a Parliament to 
 recognize his Title, as Henry Vil. did after his Victory at Bofworth-Field j nor 
 would this have made him a Conqueror over the Kingdom, fince he never made 
 war againft it, but came to deliver it from Tyranny and OpprefTion. Nor did 
 W';/7/<?OT the Conqueror himfelf, byhisViftory over King //^ro/^, ever pretend 
 to a Right by Conqueft over the whole Kingdom, but only over the Eftates and 
 Perfons of thofe who had fought againft him, as I have fully proved at our 
 tenth Meeting. Kor did //twry VII. in- the firft Speech he made to the Parlia- 
 ment after his taking upon him the Crown, claim a Right to it by Conqueft over 
 the Kingdom, as his own words were in that Speech you mention to his firit 
 Parliament, but only " by the juft judgment of God in giving him the Vic- 
 •' tory over his Enemy in the Field ; !' and he then farther declared, '* That 
 *' all hisSubjefts, of whatfoever State and Condition, fhould enjoy their Lands 
 " and Goods to them and their Heirs as they did before, except fuch Perfons 
 *' who were to be attainted by Aft of Parliament." 
 
 Nor isitany Objeftion againit his Right by Conqueft, that he obtained no 
 Viftory in a pitch'd Battel •■, fince I never heard or read, that to make a 
 Prince a Conqueror, it is neceilary that fo many thoufand Men fliould be 
 killed upon the fpot : for admit the adverfe Prince againft whom he fights will 
 thro Cowardice defert his Army, or that his Army will defert him, either 
 thro fear, or afenfeof the greater Juftice of the adverfe Prince's Caufe, or an 
 Affeftion to his Perfon, fo that it never comes to a Battel ^ yet it has been in 
 all Ages looked upon as all one with a Vidory, as I can ftiow you from feveral 
 Examples in Hiftory ; and particularly in. Plutarch, concerning Pyrr/j/w King in vita Pyrrhi. 
 of EpirM^ who making war againft Bemetrim then King of Macedon^ and both 
 Armies being incamped near each other, the Army of the latter forfook him 
 and went over to Pyrrhus^ as well out of hatred to him, as efteem for his Ene- 
 my : fo that £)fWft>-//« being forced to fteal away indifguifc, Py/-?-fc»M thereupon 
 was immediately in the field proclaimedKing of Af^cf^e;/. And I doubt not 
 but the Prince of Or^w^e might have done the fame, had it not been for his 
 
 i^reat Moderation, and left it might give his Adverfaries occafion to traduce 
 lim, that became over for no other end than to drive the King out of his 
 Kingdom j and therefore he chofe rather to owe the Crown to the free Aft of 
 the Nation, than to his Right by Conqueft over King James. Bit yet I do not 
 think he hath at all loft that Right, tho he doth not think fit (for fear of giv- 
 ing offence) to infiftupon it i and therefore certainly the Convention might 
 very well juftify the fettling the Crown upon his Highnefs during his Life, not 
 only as a Conqueror over King ?.?»»«, but a Deliverer of the Nation from his 
 OpprefTion, tho the Prince was pleafed to accept it upon thofe Terms expreffed 
 in the late Declaration of the Convention, and upon his free Promife to pre- 
 ferve our Religion, Laws, and Liberties, which he has fince alfo confirmed by 
 his Coronation-Oath. 
 
 But as to what you fay, that the Prince made the King's Army defert him, 
 and wrought the People into Hatred of his Perfon by lying Stories and mean 
 Arts, it is altogether untrue ■■, fince I know of no Reports he made of the 
 King, or his Government, but what are in his firft Declaration : and that is 
 certainly true in every part of it, as has been juftified by the exprefs De- 
 claration of the Convention in every Particular, except that concerning the 
 Prince of Wules, which I confcfs is ftill left undecided i becaufe (as I have al- 
 ready proved) it is impofFible to give any certain judgment in it, unlcfs the 
 Witneffcs as well as the Infant himfclf could be brought over hither. Nor 
 doth the Prince in his faid Declaration fay any more concerning thatBufinefs, 
 " than that there are violent Sufpicions that the pretended Prince of Wales 
 " was not born of the Queen." But for tiic Report of the fccret League with 
 France^ for the Extirpation of the Proteftant Religion, as there is no fuch 
 
 N n n n thing
 
 642 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTlCA. 
 
 thing in his Highnefs's Declaration, fo the fpreading of it cannot be laid to 
 his charge, fince he'never gave it out as 1 know of j yet there are certainly 
 great Prcfumptions, and too much caufe of Sufpicion that it maybe fo, as I 
 proved at our laft Meeting. But tho you will not allow the Prince the Title 
 of our Deliverer, yet I am fure the grcateft part both of the Clergy and Laity 
 of the Church of England vfcxc once of Opinion, that King J<zwjf/s Violations 
 both upon our Religronaiid Laws were fo great, that nothing could preferve 
 the-Kingdom from a total Subverfioii in its eftablifhed Religion and Civil Con- 
 ftitution, but his HighnelVs coming over ; andmoftof the Bifliops were of that 
 Opinion, who, now the Government is fettled, refufe to take the Oath of 
 Allegiance to their prefent Majctties. 
 
 , But to anfwer what you fay, that the manner of Henry IV^s, and ffefiryVlVs 
 coming to the Crown, doth not at all agree with the Cafe of King William, be- 
 c lufc they clajriicd by Right of Blood, which you fay King William cannot do ^ 
 that is not foiii refpeft of ^the Qpeen,. who has certainly a Right to fucceed 
 her Father by Right of Blood, in cafe' the Prince of Wales be not the true Son 
 of the Queen i a;id until he can be proved fo, we mud at prefent look uponhini 
 as if he were nctfoat all. So that the Convention hath done no more in fet- 
 tling the Crown upon the King during his Life, than what the Great Coancil. 
 pjf the Kingdom have frequently done before upon other Vacancies of the 
 Throne, as I have proved from the Examples oi William Rufm and Hony 1. 
 King Stephen, King John, and Henry 111. And it is very hard to fuppofe the 
 ■whole isiation to have been guilty of Perjury and Treafon, upon their fwe'ar- 
 ingto, and fighting for thofe Princes after they were fo folemnly eledled, 
 crowned, and iavefted with the Royal Power. But z?, for Edward lU. his firft 
 and belt Title was from the Eledion of the Great Council of the Kingdom, 
 who I doubt not but if they had found him unworthy of the Royal Dignity, 
 by reafon of JFoIly or Madnefs, or tyrannical Principles, would have fet him 
 alide, and have made his younger Brother Kingj a Protestor to govern in the 
 King's Name, with Royal Power, having never been known in England till 
 the Reign of Henry VI. But as for Henry IV. notwithftanding his Claim by- 
 Right of Blood, 1 have already proved that the Parliament, by their placing 
 him in the Throne, did not at all allow it •■, nor is any fuch Right recited in 
 the Ad of the 7th of Henry IV. which by the Crown is entailed upon that 
 King and his four fuccefiive Sons. And tho it is true //.-wry VII. alfo claimed 
 the Crov/n by Right of Inheritance, in his Speech in Parliament, yet they 
 werefo far from allowing it, that they do not fo much as mention it in that 
 Aft of Settlement, which, as I have recited, they made of it upon that King 
 and the Heirs of his Body. And therefore 1 think I may ftill maintain, that 
 the Convention have done nothing in the prefent Settlement of the Crown, 
 but what hath been formerly done upon every Vacancy of the Throne, either 
 by Dcpofition or Refignation of the King, or Abdication, or Forfeiture of the 
 Crown i as in the prefent Cafe of King James, in which the Convention have 
 done no more than exercifedthat Power which has always been fuppofed to re- 
 fide in the great Council of the Kingdom, of fettling the Crown upon fuch a 
 Prince of the Blood Royal as they fhall think belt to deferve it. 
 
 Thus much I have faid to preferve the antient Right of the Great Council of. 
 the Kation. But to put all this out of difpute, 1 have been credibly informed 
 that the Princefs of Denmark her felf did, by fome of her Servants in both 
 Houfes, as well of the Lords as Commons, declare, upon a great Debate that 
 arofe about fecuring her Highnefs's Right to the Crown immediately after her 
 Sifter the Queen, that her Highnefs had defired them to aflure the Convention, 
 that (he was willing to acquiefce in whatever they Ihould determine concerning 
 the Succeffion of the Crown, fince it might tend to the prefent Settlement 
 and Safety of the Nation j whichi think is a better Ceflion of her Right to his 
 prefent Majefty, than any you can prove that the Emprefs A/^w^ made to her 
 Son Henry II. or than die Countefs of Richmond ever made to her Son Hen- 
 ry Vll. 
 
 M. You have often talked of this Forfeiture, and extravagant Power of your 
 Convention, by which you fuppofe they are not obliged to place the Crow^n 
 upon the Head of the next Heir by Blood, which I fhall prove to be a vain 
 i^otioa: for if there be an abfolute Forfeiture of the Crown, the Government 
 
 would
 
 Dialogue the Twelfth. 6^"! 
 
 would have been abfolutcly diflblved : for fi nee there is no legal Government 
 without a King, if the Throne were really vacant, and that the People might 
 place whom they pleafed in it, yet the Convention can have no power to do it 
 as their Rcprcfentatives ; fince upon your fuppofed DilTolution of the original 
 Contraft between the King and the People, there was an end of all Conven- 
 tions and Parliaments too. And therefore if a King could have been chofea 
 at all, it ought to have been by the Votes of the whole Body of the Clergy, 
 Nobility, and Commons, in their own fingle Perfons, and not by any Council 
 or Convention to reprefent them \ Cnce the Laws for reftraining the Eleftion of 
 Parliament-men only to Freeholders, are, upon this fuppofed Diflblution of 
 the Government, altogether void; and if you fay fuch a way of Eleclion is 
 now impofTiblc, I (hall do fo too : but however, it plainly Ihews the Abfur- 
 fiity of fuppofing a King could ever now be fairly cleded, were all the Blood 
 Royal totally extinft. 
 
 As for what you fay concerning that CefHon which the Princefs of Denmark 
 made of her Right to the Crown, 1 never heard any thing of it before ; but 
 admit it were fo, this could only ferve in relation to her felf, and fhe could not 
 give up the Right of her Brother the Prince of Walesy no nor that of her own 
 Children, if God (hould give her any. 
 
 F. This Objcftion concerning the total DifTolution of the Government, pro- 
 ceeds from a want of your Conlideration of what the antient Government of 
 England was, not only before, but a good while after your pretended Con- 
 quefl •■, which was not a fettled hereditary Monarchy, but a teftamentary or 
 eledive Kingdom, where the Kings, being often recommended by the Tefta- 
 mentof the precedent King, were chofen out of the Royal Family, tho not 
 according to the Rules of SuccelTion now in ufe : and therefore in all fuch Go- 
 vernments, it is very well known, that there was, at the firll Inftitution of 
 Kingly Government among them, a great Council or AfTembly of Eftates of 
 the whole Kingdom appointed, who upon the Death of the lafl; King and Va- 
 cancy of the Throne, were flill to meet of courfe to appoint a Succeflbr, which 
 was commonly one of the Sons of the lafl; King, or at leafl: fome other Prince 
 of the Royal Blood. Thus it was till of late years in Denmark and Smden, 
 and fo it was anticntly in France during the Succefllon of the firfl: Race •, as alfo 
 in Sy).ii» during the Government of the Sandals and Gothkk Pni\ce% ; and fo it 
 likevvife was in England during the whole Succefllon of our EngU(l) -Saxon Kings, 
 and fo I have alfo proved it continued till Edward I, And tho lince his time 
 that the Crown hath been claimed by Right of Inheritance, yet in all times 
 precedent it is apparent, that the great Council of the Kingdom, upon the 
 Death of every King, alfembled by their own inherent AuthoriCf, to conllder 
 whom they fiiould place on the Throne, which they then looked 6 pon as va- 
 cant. And therefore tho I grant in the cafe of Edivardl. the Parliament did 
 not only ordain him Succeflbr to his Father, but alfo recognized his Right by 
 Blood; yet for all this they fl:iil retained their antient power of meeting with, 
 out Summons from the King, he being in the Holy Land, and they not know- 
 ing whether he was alive or dead. So that it is afalfe Afl^ertion to aflivm, that 
 there can be no Civil Government without a King, fince in all thofe Vacancies 
 of the Throne, it is plain, the Government devolved of courfe upon the great 
 Council of the Nation. And tho it is true there can be now no Parliament 
 without a King, according to the prefent Notion and Acceptation of that 
 Term, yet before that word was ever in ufe (which is no older than about the 
 middle of the Rciga of //^wr^TlI.) it is plain, that our great Councils often 
 met by their own inherent Authority without any King, and prefcrved the 
 Peace of the Kingdom till anew King was cither chofen or declared. And 
 tho 'tis true the Crown hath been long enjoyed by thofe who have claimed by 
 Inheritance, yet there is no reafon for all that, if the like Cafes fliould tall out 
 as haife done in former times, why the Government fliould devolve to the 
 mixed Multitude now, a«y more than it did then j fince it may be as well fup- 
 pofed, that the fame tacit Contraif ft:ill continues of maintaining the original 
 Conltitutionof our great Councils, which I have proved to be as antient as 
 Kingly Government it fclf. And tho perhaps the Form of chufing or fending 
 thefe Reprefentativcs of the Nation may have been altered in divers particu- 
 lars by former Laws or received Cufl:oms, yet this is nothing to the purpofe, 
 
 N n a n 2 ^s
 
 (544- BiBLIOTHECA PoLITlCA.^ 
 
 as long as the thing it felf remains the fame in fubftance as it was before •, for 
 it can never bethought to have been the intent of the People who eftablifhed 
 this Form of Government, that upon the Extinftion of the Royal Family, the 
 Government (hould be fo quite diflblved, as that it fhould be left to the Mul- 
 titude tochufe what Form of Government they fhould think fit, or elfe fall 
 into Anarchy and Confufion. 
 
 Therefore to conclude, I wi(h you would be perfuaded to own this Govern- 
 ment as it is now eftabliflied, and to take the Oath of Allegiance which is en- 
 joined by the Declaration of the Convention, who are the only proper and le- 
 gal Judges we can now have of conferring the Rights of thofe to whom our Al- 
 legiance is due. And if in cafe of a Difpu'te about the right Heir of the Crown, 
 the People of this Nation were not all obliged to ftand to theDecifion of this 
 AfTembly, we muft neceflaiily fall together by the ears, and fight it out as they 
 do in the Euft-hdtes^ where, upon the Death or Depofition of a King, he has 
 Hill the Right who can conquer his Competitors in Battel. 
 
 M- Well, i wifh there were not fomething very like it praftifed here of 
 late i for I think you will grant, that if the Prince of Orangeh Party had not 
 prevailed over the King's, the Convention would never have placed the Crown 
 upon his Head. 
 
 But I muft beg your pardon if I cannot agree to your Propofals of taking the 
 new Oath of Allegiance to King ff'»7//4«( and Queen Mary^ fince I have already 
 taken the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance to King James; and I do not 
 believe that any Power on Earth can difengage me from that Oath as long as he 
 and his Son the Prince of Wales are alive : For as to your Doftrine of Abdica- 
 tion or Forfeiture, they are too hnrd for mv Reafon to underftand, or for my 
 Confcience to comply with J and therefoie it is all one tome whom your Con- 
 vention places on the Throne, fince I am very well fatisfied that none but the 
 King can have a Right to it. 
 
 F, I wifh I could fee fome better Reafons for this Opinion of yours, than 
 thofe you have already given ; for if you could convince me that the Nation 
 hath done any thing in this Revolution, which cannot well be juftified by the 
 antient Cuftomsand Conftitutionof the Kingdom, I fhould come over to your 
 Opinion. But if King James has truly abdicated or forfeited the Crown (as I 
 hope Ihave fufficiently madeout) and that your fuppofed Prince of Wales ei- 
 ther is not really, or elfe cannot now be proved to be the true Son of the 
 Queen, by reafon of thofe Obftacles and Impediments I have fliewn you ^ I 
 cannot fee any thing to the contrary why you fiiould not be wholly free, and 
 difcharged from your former Oath of Allegiance to Kiag James: So that King 
 William and Queen Mary being now placed on the Throne, your Allegiance to 
 King James and the fuppofed Prince of Wales is lawfully determined. Pray 
 tell me therefore why you cannot take this new Oath of Allegiance, fince you 
 havethe Judgment and Declaration of the Convention, which is the Rep re ten- 
 tative of the whole Nation, to juftify you in fo doing. 
 
 M> I muft tell you once again, that I think Allegiance is not only due to the 
 King by the Law of the Land, but alfo by the Laws of God and Nature, and 
 confequently cannot be difFolved by any fnbfequent Judgment of a Conven- 
 tion, who are and always ought to be Subjefts to him and his right Heirs, as 
 long as they are in beings and therefore I (hould not allow the Prince and Prin- 
 cefsof Or^w^e for fuch, were the King now aftually dead. Nay, li Wm^ James 
 himfelf had ftaid in England^ and had been fo over-awed by fear, as to have 
 declared in Parliament, that the Prince of Wales was not his true and lawful 
 Son born of the Queen, and had thereupon fettled the Crown upon the Prin- 
 cefs of Orange as his Heir apparent ^ I could never have thought my felf ob- 
 liged to fwear Allegiance to her, or to own her for my lawful Sovereign, as 
 long as the Prince of Wales^ or the Heirs of his Body, are in being : lince I 
 am very well fatisfied, and that by unexceptionable Proofs, that he is really the 
 Son of the King and Queen j for 1 think I have fufliciently made out by feveral 
 Declarations of Parliament, that the Hereditary Right of the Crown can ne- 
 ver be defeated nor altered by any Statute whatfoever, but according to the 
 Aft of Recognition of King James I's Title (which I have already urged) the 
 Crown ought to defcend to the next Heir by Blood, according to the Rules of 
 Dcfcent 1 have now laid down. 
 
 f . I 
 
 «Y
 
 Dialogue the Twelfth. 645 
 
 f. I cannot but admire your Obflinacy in this matter, which proceeds from 
 your old Error of believing, that there is a Natural or Divine Right of Suc- 
 ccflion to Crowns different or abftrafted from the Civil and Political Laws 
 and Conftitutions of particular Kingdoms i which I think I have already con- 
 futed, by (hewing you that there was no fuch thing in nature as a Patriarchal 
 ^\^\\l\n Adamov isfoahy or their Heirs, nor yet to any other King as their Af- 
 ligns or Reprefentatives. And therefore tho I grant that Allegiance to every 
 lawful King is due by the Laws of God and Nature, yet who that King is, or 
 who is to be his lawful SucccfTor in limited or mixt Monarchies (as ours is) 
 can only be determined by theAfTembly of Eftates of the whole Nation : for 
 notwithftanding all you have faid, there is a very great Difference between the 
 legal Rights of Princes, and the natural Rights of Fathers and Husbands, which 
 yet may ceafe and be diflblved in fome Cafes, as I have already fufficiently E. L.R./i. 27. 
 proved. Yet I think it is evident, that not only a legal Title and legal Autho- 
 rity may be parted from each other, but that legal Titles and legal Authority 
 may be rightfully feparated from the Perfons to whom they were once due, 
 which natural Rights can never be. A King may ceafe to be a King, tho a 
 Father can never ceafe to be a Father ; for Laws have not the fame force and 
 power that Nature has. Now all Men confefs this Separation may be made by 
 a voluntary Relignation, asalfo by Conqueft in a jufl: War j both which will 
 diveft fuch a Prince of all Right and Authority to govern ■■, and if it may be 
 done by either of thcfe ways, his Right and Authority is not infeparablefrom 
 his Perfon. Since then there is no natural inherent Property in Lands or King- 
 doms, but what proceeds from the particular Laws of each Kingdom or Com- 
 monwealth \ therefore whoever the fupreme Power, appointed by the Confti- 
 tution of fuch Kingdoms, Iball judge or determine to have a true and legal 
 Right to the fame, are to be owned and elteemed as the true legal Owners and 
 Pofleirors thereof, by all the Subjcds : fo that if a King can part with his King- , 
 Ihip, it is pofFible he may lofc it too, fince there are more ways than one of 
 parting with that which may be parted with. If then a voluntary Refigna- 
 tioii of a Crown, or Conqueft in a juft War, can give another Prince a julb 
 Title to it, I cannot fee why a tacit Abdication, or Forfeiture of a Crown, up- 
 on a limited King's total Breach of the fundamental Laws and Conftitution of 
 the Kingdom, (hovild not as much difcharge all the Subjeftsof their Allegiance 
 to him, and alfc give the great Council, as the Reprefentative of the Nation, 
 a like Right of ordaining a Succefibr upon fuch a Vacancy of the Throne i and 
 who being once placed therein, all the People of the Nation ought to pay the 
 fame Allegiance to him, as they did to his PredecefTors. 
 
 But as for the latter part of your Suppofition, that the right Heirs of the 
 Crown by Blood muft always neceflarily fucceed to it, that is likewife founded 
 upon two very falfe Principles : firft. That a lineal hereditary Succefllon to the 
 Crown is eftabliflied by the fundamental Laws and Cuftoms of the Kingdom. 
 Secondly, That the Succefflon to it cannot be limited by the Parliament or 
 great Council of the Nation. The former of which SuppofitionsI have con- 
 futed at our laft Aleeting, and as for the other, you cannot deny but the 
 Crown has been frequently fettled and limited by Aft of Parliament, contrary 
 to the common Rules of Succeflion, as hath been fufficiently proved by the 
 Statute above-mentioned of HemyVW. asalfo by thofe feveral Ads concerning 
 thvj Succtflion in Henry VIll's time \ and fo it continues at this day by the Sta- 
 tute of the 13th of Qntsn. Eliz.abethy whereby it is declared " Treafon, during chap^ i; 
 *' the Qaeen's Life, for any Perfon to afErm that the Qijeen and Parliament 
 *' had not power to make Laws to limit and bind the Defcent and Inheritance 
 " of the Crown ■■, or that this Aft was not of fuflicient force to bind, limit, 
 " and govern ill Perfons, their Rights and Titles, that in any way claim any In- 
 " tercltor Poifiuility in or to the Crown of England in. Polleflion, Remainder, 
 " Succeffion, Inheritance, or otherwife howfoever i and every Perfon fo hold- 
 *' ingor affirming, after the Deceafe of the Quc.n, ftiall forfeit all his Goods 
 *' and Chattels." So that I can fee no juft reafon you can have to refufe 
 fwearing Allegiance to their prefent Majefties and their Succeffbrs, according 
 to the Limitation in the faid Aft. 
 
 At. Well, I fee it is in vain to argue thefc Points any longer with you, fincc 
 it would only force me to repeat the fame things over again, which will nei- 
 ther
 
 6^6 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITlCA. 
 
 ther edify you, nor my felf •■, only give mt leave to tell you thus much, that 
 the laft part of your Argument (which is the only thing that is new in all 
 your Difcourfe) is founded upon a very wrong ground : for tho I fhould grant, 
 , as I do not (lince 1 think this Aft you laft mentioned is expired) that the 
 
 Crown may be limited or intailed by Aft of Parliament, contrary to the due 
 Rules of SucccfTion •, yet even that will not hold in refpcft of the prefent Set- 
 tlement thereof by the Convention, upon the Prince and Princefs of Orange 
 for their two Lives: lince you cannot but know that no Parliament yet was 
 ever fo prefumptuous as to take upon them to fettle or limit the Succeflion of 
 the Crown, without the Confent of the King or Q^ieen then in being. Where- 
 as the prefent Settlement was firft made by the Convention, upon the making 
 of the Prince and Princefs King and Qjaeen j tho I grant it vras afterwards con- 
 firmed by another pretended Aft, whereby all Princes that are or fhall be J?a- 
 man Catholicks when the Crown (hall defcend unto them, are debarred from 
 their Right cf SuccelTion. This, tho I grant to be made after the Prince and 
 Princefs of Orange took upon them the Title of King and Queen j yet fince that 
 Statute was not made in a Parliament called by the King's Writs, but in a Con- 
 vention, who owe their meeting wholly to the Prince of Orangeh Letters, it is 
 not only void in refpeft of theSubjeft-matter, but alfo in the'raanner of mak- 
 ing it j and therefore I cannot believe that the Throne was ever vacant. And 
 I have as little reafon to be fatisfied that the Prince and Princefs could be law- 
 fully placed therein, or that all Roman Catholick Princes can ever be barred 
 from their Right of Succeffion whenever it may fall to them. 
 
 F. If this be all you have farther to objeft, 1 think I can eafily anfwer it j for 
 ■ in the firft place, I have already told you, that the Convention did not take 
 upon them to create or make any new Form of Succefiion to the Crown, but 
 only to declare that the Prince and Princefs of 0>-^t«j-<r are rightful and lawful 
 King and Queen of England : for upon fuppofition of Kingjamesh Abdication 
 of the Crov/n, 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 muft till then certainly be their Right, and no others: and as for King fT//- 
 hams holding the Crown during his own Life, I have already told you it was 
 not done without the tacit Confent of the Princefs of Denmark her felf, tho I 
 doubt not but it may alfo very well be juftified upon thofe Suppofitions of the 
 Forfeiture of the Crown by Kingy^wf/, and the Conqueft the Prince of Orange 
 made over him ^ which are fufficient in themfelves to bar any legal Claim of 
 thofe that either are or may pretend to be right Heirs. 
 
 But as for the other part of your Objeftion, whereby you will prove, that 
 Popilh Princes cannot be excluded from the Succeffion, becaufe the Aft was 
 made not in a Parliament, but a Convention : This wholly proceeds from your 
 want of Confideration, that at the firft Inftitution of the Government, and 
 long after, whilft the Kingdom continued Eleftive, there was no difference be- 
 tween a Great Council or Convention, and a Parliament i for pray call to mind 
 the four firft Great Councils after your Conqueft, (reckoning that for one where- 
 in King William I. was elefted or declared King) whether it was poflible for 
 thofe Councils to be fummoned in the King's Name, before any body had taken 
 upon themfelves the Title of King. The like I may fay in the cafe of King 
 >/j», and Henry HI. and that this continued after the Succelfion was fettled in 
 the next Heir by Blood, appears by that Great Council that was fummoned 
 after the Death of Hcmy III. which recognized or ordained his Son Prince Ed~ 
 '■ward to be his Succedbr. So likewife the Parliament that depofed King Ed- 
 ward II. fat both before and after his Depofition and Refignation, and elefted 
 his SonEdwardlW. to be King, and appointed his Reign to begin from the 
 time of their Eleftion, and not of his Father's Refignation of the Crown : fo 
 alfo upon the Depofition of King Richard II. the fame Parliament that depofed 
 vid.Kot.Vul him, placed Henry IV. in the Throne j and tho the Writs of Summons were ia 
 r Henry IV. the Name of King Richard^ and they were never re- fummoned or new-elefted 
 in the Reign of Henry IV. yet did they ftill continue to fit, and made divers 
 new Afts, and repealed feveral old ones^ all which hold good to this day. 
 
 And that the Parliament are the only proper Judges of the Right of Succef- 
 fion even without the King, you your felf muft grant, or elfe how could they 
 declare in ipth of Henry VI. that the Claim which Richard Duke of Tork made 
 
 to
 
 Dialogue the Twelfth. 6A.y 
 
 to tl>e Crown could no way be defeated ? And certainly if that unfortunate 
 Prince, King /:/^«ry VI. had had fufficient Power or Intereft in that Parliament, 
 they might and would have adjudged the Duke of Torkh Claim to have beea 
 groundlefs, and contrary to Law, and then I believe it would fcarce have ever 
 been heard of again. 
 
 But to make it out beyond exception, that a Convention may become a 
 Lawful Parliament, tho never called by the King's Writs, v/hen the King's Au- 
 thority and Prefence come once to be added to, and joined with ir, ap- 
 pears by the firft Parliament of King Charles the Second ; which tho fumraoned 
 in the Name of the Keepers of the Liberties of England, yet nevcrthelefs con- 
 tinued to fit and make flveral Ads which hold good to this day: and I doubt 
 not but they might have made the like Limitations of the Crown in rcfpeft of 
 Roman Catholick Princes, as the Convention have now done, and that it would 
 have held good at this day, fmce it is fo much for the Security of our Religion, 
 Liberties and Properties, .that it fliould be foj fince we have found by dear- 
 bought Expericrjcc in tlic Reigns of the four laft Kings of the Scotijl) Line, 
 that Itill as they began to favour the Popiih Religion and Intereft in this 
 Kingdom, fo did the Protectant and true EngU^i Intereft, in refpeft of our 
 Religion, Liberties and Properties, ftill decline, till at laft they were like to be 
 totally ruined and extirpated : for that reftlefs and dangerous Faftion very well 
 know, that there is no means pofliblefor them to re-eftablilh their Superftition 
 among us by due and legal Methods, bi?t only by introducing Arbitrary Power, 
 taking away Parliaments, or dfe making them wholly to depend upon the 
 King's Will, as we fee was laboured, and almoft elFeded in the Reigns of the 
 two laft Kings. And therefore I cannot but believe that the prefent Parlia- 
 inent has not only afted wifely, but alfo legally, to enact that for the future no 
 Prince, who is aftually a Roman Catholick, ftiall fuccccd to the Crown, tho he 
 be next Heir by Blood. 
 
 M. I muft ftill tell you, lam as little fatisfied with your Suppofitions of the 
 Forfeiture of the Crown by King James, and the Conqueft of the Prince of 
 Orange, as I am with your Inftancesout of Hiftory concerning the Power of the 
 Great Council's meeting and chufing a King by their own inherent Authority; 
 lince, befideythat it was done by Ufurpation in thofe rough and unfettled times, 
 I believe if the antient Writs of Summons were now in being, you would 
 find that they were called by thofe Ufurpers, tho not by the Title of Kings. 
 But I defy you to (how me, fince the Reign of Edward the Firft, any Parliament 
 ever called without the King's Writs of Summons; and tho upon the Depoli- 
 tion of Edward and Richard the Second, the Parliaments you mention might 
 continue to fit and tranfact publick Bufinefs, yet was it during a plain Ufurpa- 
 tion upon thofe Princes, whom you your fclf muft grant to have been unlaw- 
 fully depofed: And therefore we find upon the Parliament-Roll of the 21ft of 
 Richard the Secoi^l, that an Ad of the ift of Edward the Third, confirming Rot. Pnrl. n. 
 the Judgment given upon the two Spencers, was not only repealed in farlia- 6^^. 21Ric.lL 
 ment, but declared to be unlawful, becaufe £^irW the Second was living, and 
 true King, being imprifoned by his Subjeds at the time of that very Parliament 
 of I Edwardlll. But as for your laft Inftance of a Convention's declaring it 
 felf a Parliament in the Reign of KiagCharles the Second, there is a great deal 
 of difference between them and the prefent Convention, fiace they did not 
 take upon them to declare or make a King (as this Convention has done) 
 but only to recognize him to be tlieir Lawful Sovereign ; which (as I have 
 already told you) being that which was their Duty to do, they might very 
 well juftify, though they were not fummoned by the King's Writs : but how- 
 ever all their Ads were looked upon as made without Legal Authority, 
 and therefore were confirmed in the firft Legal Parliament of King Charles's 
 Reign. • 
 
 But as for the Authority of the Statute of the 1 3th of EUz^abeth, whereby 
 you would prove, that the Parliament has at this day power to alter or limit 
 the SuccelTion of the Crown ; befidcs that fuchanAd being againft the funda- 
 mental Rules of Succefuon, was void in it felf i yet if you pleafc to look upon 
 the Ad in Raftalh Statutes, - you will there find it was only made to ilrvc a 
 prefent turn, and to keep the Queen of Swr/ and her Party from cntcrprizing 
 any thing againft Queen EUz.abeth : and therefore it is there only declared to 
 
 be
 
 64-8 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITlCA. 
 
 be Tieafon during the Queen's Life for any Perfons to maintain, tliat the Queen 
 could not, with the Authority of the Parliament, limit the Succeflion of the 
 Crown: and as for the laft Claufe, that makes it Forfeiture of Goods and 
 ' Chattels to maintain the contrary after her Deceafe ; this was made to ftreng- 
 B.H.S. p.i^o. jiiejj and confirm the former part of the Statute, which was a Provifion and 
 Security againft fuch Pretences and Practices as had been lately made againft her 
 by the Papifts, on the behalf of the Queen of Scotsh Title. And this Claufe 
 could not take effeft after her Death, but was added to preferve Qiieen Eliz-a- 
 beth\ Memory from being defamed after her Deceafe, or being flanderouQ/ 
 charged with the heinous Crime of ufurping the Crown-, which muft have been 
 the inevitable Confequence of affirming, that fhe and her Parliament could not 
 limit the Succedion. For to confefs the truth, I think Qnt^a Eliz.abethh belt 
 Title was by Aft of Parliament, fince her Legitimacy mieht be juftly quef- 
 tioned, by reafon that her Mother's Marriage was declared unlawful by the 
 28th of H(my the Vlllth, and flie was as good as declared illegitimate by her 
 Father in that very Aft that fettled the Crown upon her. But that this Sta* 
 tute of the 13th of Qnz^n Eli:Labcth is now looked upon as expired, appears 
 in Putio>i% and all other late Colleftions of the Statutes fuice her timej 
 ■wherein the Title cf the Statute is barely mentioned with EXP. immediate- 
 ly following it, to fliew it is looked upon as expired. So that you are mif- 
 taken to affirm that the Convention has done nothing in the late Limita- 
 tion of the Crown, but what may be juftified from that Statute ^ therefore 
 if it be not Law at this day, I think they had no Authority to alter the 
 Succeflion of the Crown from the right Line, let them be of what Religion 
 they would. 
 
 F. I fee you do all you can to evade the Force of my Authorities from Hif- 
 tory and direft Matter of Faft j and therefore as to what you fay, that thofe 
 were rough and unfettled Times, and therefore no Precedents to be drawn from 
 thence, this is to beg the Queftion : for what could be the Law concerning the 
 Succeflion of the Crown for the firft hundred and fifty Years after the Con- 
 queft, but the conttant Ufage of the Great Council of the Nation, as low as 
 the Reign of Henry the Third ? And it is a bold Afiertion to accnfe the whole 
 Nation of Perjury, and Rebellion againft their Lawful Kings, during all thofe 
 Succeffions I have now inftanced in : nor have you any thing to fay againft 
 thofe Parliaments that met in the ift of King Edward III. and Charles II. but 
 that their Meeting was lawful, becaufe it was only to recognize thofe Kings, 
 and not to make them •, which is indeed to beg the Queftion, fince you cannot 
 deny but thofe Parliaments are held for good, notwithftanding they were not 
 called by the King's Writs. But as for making a King, the prefent Parlia- 
 ment have not taken upon them to doit, fince they do not in the Aft for the 
 SuccefTion eleft King William and Queen Mary to be our Lawful King and 
 Queen, but only declare or recognize them to be fo, upon fuppofition that the 
 Prince of Wales is cither an Impoftor, or elfe his Legitimacy impoffible to be 
 tried and determined by them. Kor are your Objeftions material againft the 
 Authority of thofe Afts of Parliament which were made in the ill of King 
 HenryW. and Charles II. which were never fummoned by thofe King's Writs. 
 For as to the firft of thofe Inftances, moft of thofe Afts of Henry IV. ftand 
 good at this day, without ever being confirmed by any fubfequent Parliaments. 
 And tho I grant that the publick Afts made in the firft of King Charles II. were 
 confirmed in the next Parliament of that King, yet this does not prove that 
 they would have been void without it ; fince divers private Afts pafled in that 
 Parliament, which were never confirmed in any other, and yet are held for 
 good : as particularly an Aft of that Parliament for making the Church of 
 St. Paulas Covent-Garden Parochial. And this Aft, tho never confirmed, was yet 
 adjudgefl to be in force by the Lord Chief Juftice Hales^ avA the reft of the 
 juftices of the King's Bench, in a cafe concerning Rate-Tythes between the 
 Minifter and fome of the Parifhioners of the faid Parifh. And that not only 
 all the private Afts of that Parliament, but fome publick ones alfo, tho never 
 confirmed in the following Parliament of the 13th of King Charles U. are yet 
 held good in Law, appears by thefe that follow, viz.. 
 12 Car. II. I. .An Ad; for Continuance of Procefs^ and judicial Proceedings^ continued. 
 
 i.^ 
 
 By
 
 Dialogue the Twelfth ^4.9 
 
 By which all Writs, Pleas, IndiAments, &c. then depending, were ordered 
 to ftand and be proceeded on, notwithltanding want of Authority in thelaic 
 Ufurpers. And therein it was tarthcr ordained, that Procefs and Proceedings 
 in Courts of Juftice fliould be in the Englijh Tongae, and the general IfTue be 
 pleaded, till Augufi i, 1660. as if the Adts made during the Ufurpation, for 
 that purpofe, bad been good apd effeftual Laws. 
 
 And upon this foot only ftand many Fines, Recoveries, Judgments, and 0- 
 ther Proceedings at Law had and palTed between jlpril x^, 1660. md j4u- 
 gujl I. 1 65c, 
 
 2. An ASl for eonforming and reftoring of Aiinifiers. 12 Car. IJ. 
 
 This Aft is ufaally to this day fet forth and pleaded in Quare impedits, tho '^- ^7' 
 it was faid to be refufed upon Debate to be confirmed in theHoufe of Com- 
 mons, r 3th of Car. II. when divers other Afts of the fame time were confirmed j '3 Car. il. 
 yet both thefe Adls, having no other Authority but from that Convention (as '' '7' '^'" 
 you call it) have been judged and ccnftaotly allowed to be good Laws for above 
 thefe thirty Years. 
 
 • Nor is what you have now faid true, to prove the Statute of the 13th of Queen 
 Eliz.aberh (whereby the Crown is declared capable of being limited by Ad of 
 I'ar iame.it) to be now expired ; fince it is plain, by the purport of the Ad, 
 that it is declaratory of the former Laws of England., made in King Henry Vllth 
 andVUith's, and other Kings Reigns, whereby the SuccelTion of the Crown 
 had been frequently entailed upon thofe who were not the next Heirs by 
 Blood : and tho the Queen be only mentioned in it, yet it certainly as much 
 .concerns her SacccfTors and all future Parliaments, as the Oath of Allegiance, 
 in which the Qusen is only mentioned, does all future Kings and Qyeens ^ and 
 it is not only made Treafon during her Life, but alfo there isalofs of Goods 
 ^nd Chattels to be inflided on all thofe who fhall maintain after her Deceafe, 
 that the Q;ieea and Parliament had not power to limit the Succefllon. And 
 if a Parliament in her Reign could do this, I defire to know whence it is 
 that the prefent Parliament may not have the like Power ? 
 
 As to what you alledge concerning the Judgment againfl the two Spencers 
 being reverfed in the 12th of Richard U. becaufe done whWit Edward U. was 
 ftiU alive i 1 deiire yo 11 would take notice, that this Parliament of Richard II. 
 was wholly made and palt by King Richard after the Banilhment of the Dukts 
 of Lancafier and AWfolk ; and that as well the Lords as Commons were in fuch 
 fear of the Arbitrary Power he then exercifed, that they paft whatever he would. 
 And in this Parliament it was that the Proceedings againft the Chief Juftice 
 Tre/iliat and his Fellow-Judges, who had been condemned and executed by 
 Judgment in Parrument in the nth of this King, were reverfed. And to 
 x)rov<: the Illegality of this Parliament, you need but confult the Statute- Book 
 in the I ft of Henry W. where you will find one of the firft Statutes after his 
 coming to the Crown, is to repeal all Ads and Proceedings made in that laft 
 Parliament of Richardll. 
 
 Ai. 1 doubt this will not do the bnfinefs j for we maintain, that Henry IV. 
 as alfo his Son and Grandfon, were Ufurpers, and coufequently all the Ads 
 niade in their Reigns were null and void. 
 
 F. I will grant you for once, that Henry IV. was anUfurper, and that Ed- 
 xotirdXW. was fo alfo during his Father's life-time j but then it doth not fol- 
 low, that all the Laws and Statutes made during thofe times were null and 
 void, fince you muft needs know the contrary ^ for even in that Parliament of 
 the 2 tit of Rich.trdW. tho 'tis true that Judgment againft \\\<iSpencers was re- 
 verted for the reafon you have given, yet did that Repeal extend to no other 
 Statutes but that, tho made ia the fame Parliament of Edward III. whilft his 
 Father was yet living: But they are all of them held for good at this day, as 
 are alfo all the Statutes of thofe three Henrysy whom you fuppofe to be Ufur- 
 pers, which have not been repealed by any fubfequent Statutes, as I can afTur^ 
 you thofe of the.firft of Henry W. arc not, and therefore are good Laws at 
 . this day. So that nothing can be a plainer Proof than this, that let the King's 
 Title to the Crown have been what it would, yet Allegiance was due to them 
 as long as they continued in the Throne. 
 
 Therefore to conclude, let me tell you, I think it behoves you, if you mcaa 
 to keep that Oflice you hold under the Government, to take the Oath of Al- 
 
 O o o Icji^iaiice
 
 6^0 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTlCA. 
 
 legiance to their prefent Majefties, fince you oweyotir Protcftion to their Go- 
 vernment, which certainly deferves a temporary Allegiance as long as you en- 
 joy the Benefit of it. And indeed, the Oath it felf is fo loofcly worded, that 
 methinks any Man may take it v.'ithout any fcruple, fince it doth no ways de- 
 clare, that the prefent King and Qiieen have an Hereditary Right to the Crown, 
 but only the Perfon fwears to bear true AllegiaSice to their Majeflries King ^F//- 
 Ham and Queen Mary; which I think even Strangers and Denizens are bound 
 to take as long as they continue in the Kingdom. 
 
 M. I am forry you fhould think me, after fo long an Acquaintance, capable 
 of doing any thing againft my Confcience for any worldly Advaiitage whatfo- 
 cver ; and therefore 1 muft freely tell you, that as for the Employment I hold, 
 I will rather part with it, if it were ever fo great, than do a!:y thi!;g againft 
 my Confcience, and that Reputation 1 have hitherto maintained in the World 
 of being an honelt Man. 
 
 And therefore I cannot take the Oath as a mere Denizen, that owrs Pro- 
 teftion to the prefent Government, not only becaufe this Oath is inconfiflent 
 with that I have already taken, but alfo there is much more required of thofe 
 that owe a Natural Allegiance to their rightful King, than can be requirtd of 
 Strangers, till they become naturalized by Aft of Parliament: And therefore 
 it is, that when any War breaks out between neighbouring Princes, all fuch 
 Denizens, who do not become abfolute Subjefts of this Kingdom by Naturali- 
 zation, if they will aft like honefl; Men, muft look upon themfeUes as obliged 
 either to quit the Kingdom in cafe a War be declared againft their natural 
 Prince, or at leaft are obliged not to aft any thing to his prejudice, tho they 
 may ftill inhabit and traffick here^ which is a quite different cafe from thofe 
 who are not only born the King's Subjefts, but have alfo taken the Oath of 
 Allegiance to him. And therefore 1 can by no means think it lawful to take 
 this new Oath to King IVi/Uam and Qiieeu Af^c^, tho it were required in no 
 higher a fenfe than as King and Queen de faclo^ fince it can no ways confilt 
 with that Oath which I have already taken to King James and his right Heirs, 
 as I ftiall prove to you another time (fince it is now very late) from the true 
 Senfe and Meaning of thofe words, / wi/l be faithful^ and bear true Allegiance^ 
 &c. which can only be fworn to fuch Kings and Queens, who befides a bare 
 PofTeffion, have alfo a Legal and Hereditary Right to the Crown. 
 
 F. I ftiall be very glad to hear you farther upon this Queftion j for if tha'fe 
 can be made out, I fear too many of the Clergy as well as Laity, by miftaking 
 the true fenfe of this Oath, have been forfworn. But pray tell me when I 
 fliall wait on you, and hear what you have further to fay upon this importaiit 
 Subjeft. 
 
 M. Pray let me fee you two or three days hence, and thtn I ihallbc at 
 leifure j in the mean time 1 am your humble Servant. ■ ■" . 
 
 F. And I am yours. 
 
 nm cs 
 
 imiia^
 
 651 
 
 iStbltot^eca $olittca* 
 
 DIALOGUE XIII. 
 
 I. Whether an Oath of Allegiance may be taken to a King 
 or Queen de fa^o, or for the time being. 
 
 II. What is the Obligation of fuch an Oath, whether to art 
 a6lual Defence of their Title againft all Perfons whatfo- 
 ever, or only to a bare SubmiflTion to their Power. 
 
 III. Whether the Bifliops who refufed to take the Oath of 
 Allegiance to their prefent Majefties, could be lawfully de- 
 prived of their Bifliopricks. 
 
 IR, 1 hope I" do not interrupt you by coming too foon ; for 
 the truth is, fince I intend that this (hall be the lad Difpute I 
 fhall ever have with you upon this Subject, I was very defirous ° 
 to have it difpatched as foon as I could, that when 1 have once 
 difcharged the Duty of an old Friend and Acquaintance, my 
 Mind may be at reft, which fide foever you take. 
 
 M. Dear Sir, I thank you, and tho 1 intended to go abroad this Evening 
 npon an Appointment, yet I will now put it off, that I may enjoy your bet- 
 ter Converfation j 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 fee any reafon why yoli may not fafely do it, fince our belt 
 Common Lawyers are of this Opinion ^ for my Lord Coke^ in his third Infti- 
 tutes, in his Notes upon the Statute of Treafon, the 25th of £^rp<jr^ the Hid, 
 gives it for Law, " That this Aft is to be underftood of a King in poflcf- p.y. 
 " fion of the Crown and Kingdom ; for if there be a King Regnant in pof- 
 " feflion, although he be Rex de F<jffo, & non de Jure., yet is he Seignior 
 *' Le Roy within the purview of that Statute, and the other that hath Right, 
 *' and is out of Pofleffion, is not within this Aft," &c. And if it be Treafon 
 to levy War againft him, or to confpire his Death as long as he continues 
 King, it can only be fo, becaufe the Subjects Allegiance is then due to him, for 
 that all Men have either taken the Oath of Allegiance, or elfe arc fuppofcd 
 to have done it. 
 
 M. I muft beg your pardon, if I cannot come over to your Opinion neither 
 in point of Law or Reafon i for as long as I am perfuadcd in my Confcience 
 that King jAmes is King dejure, fo long muft the Obligation of my former 
 Oath laft: and 1 fuppoic you will grant that it is as impoflible to owe Al- 
 
 O o 2 Icgiaace
 
 6^2 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITlCA. 
 
 legiance to two Kings at once, as it is to ferve two Mafters: and therefore 
 you muft pardon nie, if I fuppofe that my Lord Coke^ depending too much up- 
 on the commonly received Seofe of the Statute of the i ith of Henry the Vllth, 
 which he quotes in the Margin, may be miftaken in this great point, and may 
 have alfo given an occafion to divers others of his Profeflion to fall into the 
 fame Error. 
 
 F. I doubt not but my Lord Coie, and others of his Profeffion, who main- 
 tain the fame Opinion, may very well be defended, as well from that Statute 
 as other Authorities; but to pafs by thac at prefent, I fhall firft difcourfe with 
 you upon this point, of the Lawfulnefs of taking this Oath to their prefent 
 Majefties King William and Queen Mary .• and therefore you mifunderftand me, 
 if you believe that 1 think this Oath doth require from you the Performance 
 of all thofe Duties of Allegiance and Subjeftion which I my felf am obliged to, 
 who am fully fatisfie.d of their Title, and therefore mult venture my Life 'and 
 Fortune in their Quarrel to the utmoft of my power againll all Perfons what- 
 foever. But all that I think can be required of you, is, that whereas King 
 IVtlliam and Queen ^^>.are aftu^lly in pofFeflion of the Regal Power, fo long 
 as they continue thus pofTefled of it, you may, I think, fwear thdt you will be 
 fo far true and faithful to them, as not to enterprize any thing againft them, 
 but that you will pay them that Obedience an^ SuUmiflron which may be lawfully 
 paid to an adtual Sovereign ■, not engaging* hereby to' uphold them in the pof- 
 felFion of the Throne againft King James^ and without debarring your felf from 
 exerting that Allegiance you have fworn to him upon any emergent fafe Op- 
 portunity for the recovery of his Right. 
 
 M- I muft beg your pardon, if 1 cannot alTent to take this Oath in this low 
 and quali&ed fenfe that you would now put upon it, fince befides the Significa- 
 tion of the words themfelves, 1 am very well fatisfied that the Impofers of this 
 Oath do intend fomething more thaa a bare negative Obedience to the prefent 
 Power ; fince it is the only Oath which is required from thofe who take Ira- 
 ployments either Civil or Military, and from whom certainly not only a paf- 
 live Obedience or SubmifTion, but alfo an adtive Obedience and AfFiftance is re- 
 quired, in defending the Crown and Dignity of the prefent King and Queen 
 de faBo with their Lives and Fortunes againft all Perfons whatfoever : Or elfe 
 how could the prefent Government ever truft them ? And all this cannot be 
 fworn to without a breach of that Oath they had formerly taken to King James j 
 and therefore if I Ihould take it in this fenfe (as the Oath it felf feems to im- 
 Q ply) I Ihould be perjured. Befides, by thefe words of being true and faithful, 
 I fhould look upon my felf as obliged to reveal all Plots and Coufpiracies which 
 I may any ways happen to know of againft King William and Queen Mary ^ 
 which I think would be derogatory to my Allegiance to his Majefty, fince I 
 Jhould thereby difcover and accufe fuch of his good Subjefts as endeavoured to 
 reftore him, and fliould thereby hinder him, as much as in rile lay, from JJeing 
 reftored again to the Throne. ! 
 
 But if we confider the word Allegiance^ it is yet more ftricl j and if I fliould 
 perform it to King Wiliiam and Queen Mary^ accotdijig to the true Intent and 
 legal Senfe of that word, I think it could no ways confift with that Oath of 
 Allegiance 1 have already taken i fince Allegiance is, thus explained in the next 
 following words of the Oath I have already taken :. " And him, and them^ viz. 
 " the King and his Heirs, 1 will defend to the utmoft of ray power againft all 
 " Confpiracies and Attempts whatfoever that Ihall be made againft his or their 
 D. A. p. i^j. " Perfons, Crown and Dignities." Now what kind of Afiiftance is here meant 
 by the word defend^ may be underftood from all the Writers of our feudal 
 Laws, who expound the jm defenforium-^ by telling us the word protegtre im- 
 plies a Neceility of defending by Arms, as due, from the Supreme Lord or 
 Sovereign •, and further, that Subjefts are in the fame fenfe reciprocally bound 
 to defenJ the Honour and Dignity of their Sovereign. And thefe words Alle- 
 giance, and the Defence that follows it, may be likewife underftood from our 
 feudal Laws, whereby the Vaflals were bound by their Oath of Allegiance, as 
 alfo by virtue of the Tenure of their Lands, to a Military Defence of their 
 Supreme Lord the King, from whom all the Laws of England are held: and 
 this is according to Glanvil, and all our old Lawyers. And tho I grant that 
 Military Tenures are all. now taken away by a late Statute, yet am I ftill ob- 
 liged
 
 Dialome the Thirteenth. 
 
 653 
 
 lieed to the like D:feijce of the King and his Heirs, not only from the words 
 of cii;Oich, bat fron the mmicipil La-vs of this Kingdom alfo j which o-b- 
 li^e ail theSibjCL^s that are cipible to tike up Arms for th; Kin^ when need 
 (hi'l require. 
 
 Which iniy be thus further proved ■■, firft, from the antient Laws oi E drear d ib. p. 14. 
 the C)i»fe(l")r and IVUiLim the G'Jnqaeror : by both which, " all the People or ViJ. Lambardi 
 " FreeiriM of the Kingdom were to affirm upon their Faith and Oath, within ^-L- ^''^yi"''^'' 
 *» the whole Kingdom, and without, that they will be faithful to their Sove- ""^ ^'^'" ^'"■^* 
 " reigi Lord,Kingl'r//7/rtOT, and every where preferve his Lands and Honours ^' ^^" 
 *« with all Fidelity, and with him will defend them againft all his Enemies." ^"t. 51. ibid. 
 To this fucceeded that which the Lord Coke calls Legal Ligeance, or the Com- cMn'sCafe. 
 mon-Liw Oath of Allegiance, which he cites out of Britton (who writ under CowclV mjl. 
 Edward I.) which all the Subjefts were obliged to take at twelve Years of Age 1.2. tit.?. §.14. 
 at the SnerifF's Court, and at the Leet •, without the taking of which, they had 
 no warrant to abide in the Kingdom : and the form of it was to this effed; 
 " Vou fhall fwear, that from this day forward you fliall be true and faithful 
 ** to our Sovereign Lord the King and his Heirs, and Truth and Faith fliall 
 *♦ bear of Life, and Member, and terrene Honour ; and you fliall neither know 
 ** nor hear of any 111 or Damage which you fliall not offend (that is, oppofe) 
 " to the utmofl: of your power." 
 
 The fame Author alfo here informs us, that *' five things were obfcrved by 
 V all the Judges from this Oath in the Debate of Calvin s Cafe : Firlt, that for 
 ¥1 the time of its Obligation, it is indefinite, and without limit. Secondly, 
 « two excellent Qiialities were required, that is, to be true and faithful. 
 " Thirdly, to whom ; to our Sovereign Lord the King and his Heirs. Fourthly, 
 V* in what m inner ; and Faith and Troth fliall bear of Life and Member •, that 
 " is, until the letting out the lafl: drop of our deareft Heart-blood. Fifthly, 
 **■ where, and in what places in all places whatfoever: for you fliall neither 
 •* know nor hear of any 111 which you fliall not offend," Such is the Ligeance 
 which the Law has prefcribed in that antient Oath, which is fl:ill in force j 
 it is neither circumfcribed by Time nor Place j it is unconditionate and unre- 
 ferved ; it is not a lazy paffive Allegiance, requiring nothing but pure Sub- 
 miffion, but an adtive and vigorous Loyalty, exafting all that is in the Sphere 
 of moral Poffibility, and engaging us to fpend our deareft Blood in the De- 
 fence of our Sovereign's Perfon, and the Prefervation of his Crown and 
 Dignity. 
 
 For it is to be obferved, that by the Law this Allegiance is due to the King's 
 Perfo.i i fo the fame Author fays it was then refolved by all the Judges, that 
 *' that Ligeance was due to the natural Perfon of the King (which is ever ac- 
 *' companied. with the politick Capacity, and the politick Capacity as it were 
 *' appropriated to the natural) and not due to the politick Capacity only." 
 
 To conclude ^ if my former Oath of Allegiance to King James doth ftill con- 
 tinue (as I am fatisfied in my Confcience it doth) 1 cannot take a new Oath 
 of Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary^ lince I fliould thereby be ob- 
 liged by the force of thefe words in the Oath, viz.. I will be faithful^ and bear 
 true Allegiance, to yield it as much to thofc that are not my lawful Sovereigns, 
 as 1 am to thofe that are fo ^ which will be contrary to my firft Engagement : 
 for tho I grant that there is no exprefs Declaration of the Right of the pre- 
 fent PoffelTbrs of the Throne, and that I have heard that the word rightful 
 (which was at firft inferted into this Oath) was ftruck out, bccaufe as many 
 as could be might be drawn in to take it^ yet as long as the words that re- 
 main import the very fame thing, it is all one as if the word rightful were 
 there: for tho the deliberate Omiffion of the word rightful does neccHarily in- 
 fer, that we are not obliged in this Oath to a Recognition of their Kight to ' 
 the Crown, yet does it not infer, that we are not obliged to pay as high a 
 degree of Allegiance as to any rightful King whatfoever. That Omifllon indeed 
 is an Argument that the word King in the Oath doth not necellarily fig- d.a. p. 24. 
 nify a King de jure\ but it is no Argument that true Allegiance does not fig- 
 nify true Allegiance, thit is an Obligation to adhere to the King againft all 
 his Enemies: for there was no Debate, that we know of, about the fenfe of the 
 word Allegiance, neither is there the leall: intimation given that they deligned 
 to reftraia it to a lower figtiiftcation, tho ic was plainly ncccHary to do it, if 
 
 tliey
 
 6$+ 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA; 
 
 they inteaded to alter the commonly receiv'd meaning of it : wherefore, as 
 the ftriking out of the word rightful would not have prov'd, that they did 
 not intend to oblige us to an aftive afllftance of King William, againft all Men 
 living, if thofe words had been exprefly inferted in the Oath j fo neither will 
 it prove that the fame Doty is not now requir'd of us, if the word Allegiance 
 does, as I have prov'd, in termini^ import it ; and that as fully, as if it had been 
 in exprcfs words requir'd in it. 
 
 And that this word Allegiance implies fomething more than a bare pafiive 
 Submiflion or Neutrality from all Subjedts, as well as Magiftrates and OfBcers, 
 appears by that Paflage in the Statute of the nth oi Henry VII. which yoa 
 have now cited ; where 'tis plainly and exprefly declar'd, " That every Sub- 
 " jecl by the Duty of his Allegiance, is bound to ferve and aHift his Prince and 
 " Sovereign Lord at all Seafons when need (hall require." This is fo exprefs 
 and authentick a Declaration of the true Duty of Allegiance, that no Art or 
 Sophiftry can poflibly evade it. 
 
 F. 1 confefs you have argued this point of taking this new Oath of Allegiance,' 
 not only like a Civilian, but a Common Lawyer alfo; and 1 cannot deny the 
 force of what you have faid, that this Oath muft extend to an aftive Obedience; 
 and Defence of their prefent Majefties »u tlich Kiglit to the Ihrone, and not 
 only to a bare lluggifh SubmilTion, or a lukewarm Neutrality. And therefore 
 1 cannot fay but you are juftly fcrupulous in not taking this new Oath, until 
 you are fatisfied of their Majefties Right as well as prefent Power : but if yoa 
 will pleafe to obferve the purport of this Aft of the i ith of Henry VII. (which 
 you now mention'd) you will there find it as good as exprefly declar'd, that 
 Allegiance is due to him who is lavpful Sovereign, and the King for the time 
 being is ftill to be look'd upon as fuch ; for the words in the Statute are,- 
 *' that no Manfhall fuffer for affifting the King for the time being,'" without fpe^* 
 cifying by what Title he holds the Crown, whether by an Hereditary Right, or 
 by Conquefb, Eledtion, or the folemn Recognition of his Title by all the Eftates 
 in Parliament. So that by this Aft, all that Allegiance that was once doe 
 to the former King de Jure, becomes thereby wholly transfer'd to the King 
 de Faffo. 
 
 M. I grant what you now fay would go a great way to fatisfy me, couldl 
 you once prove that this Statute is now in force, and is not either abrogated 
 or expired ; or elfe (which I rather incline to believe) is not abfolutely void 
 in it fclf. In the firft place therefore I hope to Ihew you that this was not Law 
 before this Statute was made, and therefore not declaratory of what was Law, 
 but endeavours to make that to be Law, which was not fo before : fo that the 
 King for the time being, there mention'd, muft be a King de Jure, or at leaft 
 one that was prefumed fuch; becaufe at that time our Conflitution knew 
 lb, A. II. no other : for that PoflelTion alone was not a fufficient Title before the i ith of 
 H. 7-P-2, 3- Henry VII. will evidently appear from thefe following Remarks. 
 
 Firft, That all the Kings of the Houfe of Lancajier are declar'd in the Statute 
 of the firft of Edward IV. to be Kings in Deed, but not of Right, and pretended 
 Kings; and particularly Henry V\. is faid to be rightfully amov'd from the 
 Government, and his Reign affirm'd to be Intrufion and Ufurpation, and himf«l£ 
 attainted for being in Arms againft Edward IV. 
 
 Secondly, All Patents of Honour, Charters, and Privileges, which were 
 granted by the Houfe of Lancajier ; all Afts of Royal Authority which the Kings 
 of England have a right to execute by virtue of their fole Prerogative (nay; 
 Afts of Parliament themfelvcs, particularly thofe relating to Shrewsbury, and 
 fome others, which by parity of Reafon fuppofes the reft in the fame Condi- 
 tion) all Afts of this nature were confirra'd by the firft of Edward IV. which is 
 • a good Argument that this Parliament believ'd the Authority by which they 
 were perform'd to be defeftive and illegal ; for we never find any fuch gene- 
 ral Confirmation as thefe pafs upon the Grants of the King de Jure. 
 
 Thirdly^ In the firft Year of Henry Vll. Richard III. was attainted of High 
 
 Treafon in Parliament, under the name of Duke of Ghucejler ; from whence 
 
 Vid. lord 'tis plain, that as there was no Statute, fo neither was there any Common 
 
 Bacon^j ^ Law to fupport the Title of a King defaSfo ; for Treafon is an attempt againft: 
 
 the King's Perfon, his Crown and Dignity, but no Man can commit Treafon 
 
 againft himfelf ; therefore if Richard III. had been a King in the fenfe of this 
 
 Law, 
 
 Hen. Vn. 
 
 te
 
 Dialogue theThirt^mh 51 655 
 
 Law, wc may be Aire be would not have had fuch an infamojis C?afure_paft 
 upon him after hi? Death- Bradfhaw^ and his High Court of Jultice, wbre 
 the firft that wete lb hardy as to pronounce a King of England guilty of 
 Treafon. 
 
 Fourthly, If this Notion .of a King de fa{io had been allow'd in the nth of 
 Uemv VII. the principal Alliftantsot Ricbaird[l\. could not have been attainted: 
 for Richard being aftually in the Throne, he was, according to your modern way IbiJ. />. 4. 
 of arguing. Rightful King; and confeqaently the People ought to own him as 
 fuch, and def«nd hira againft all Oppofers : and if fo, certainly they ought not 
 to bs condemn'd as I raitors for doing their Duty, as wc find many of thofe 
 were who fought for King fo<rfc.iri. . , • . 
 
 Fifthly, At the end of this ParJiament, Henry VII. granted a' general Par- 
 don to the common People who had appeared againft him in the behalf of 
 Richard III. Now Pardon fuppofes a fault, and the Breach of a Law, which 
 they coul.1 not have been charg'd with, if the Plea of a King de fa{to had been 
 warranted by the Conftitution, 
 
 F. \ mull freely tell yon, that you ido not argue fo much likpa Lawyer in 
 this Argument as you did in your former i and you have in that forgot to whaft 
 end thofe Statures you mention were made, and what is the purport of them, 
 or clfe fbme body hath milinform'd you: .for tho 1 grant that all thofe hard 
 Exprellions you mention, are given of the Kings of the Lancaftrian Line in thofe 
 Statutes of the lit of Edward IV. yet do none of thefe Exprellions prove, that 
 they were not true and legal Kings in the Eye of-the Law all the while they 
 reign'd •, fince divers Perfposwere attainted for High Treafon againft them 
 whofe Attainders were never revers'd, but ftand gopd to this day i as in par- 
 ticular, the Attainder of the Earls of Keiit^ Salisbury^ and, of Humm^don, who 
 were all attainted by Aft of Parliament in the 2d of Henry W, and alfo the 
 Earl ofof Northumktland, and his Son the Lot d Piercy^ attainted in the 5th of 
 this Kin.?;; all vi^hich Attainders were never revers'd. So likewife^;c/?£j>-(i Earl 
 of Cambridge was found guilty of Treafon by his Peers, and his Attainder con- 
 iirm'd by Ad of Parliament in the fecond of Henry V. and tho it is true this 
 Attainder was afterwards revers'd in the firfl o{ Edward IV, becaufe the faid 
 Richard was not only his Grandfather, but was alfo condemn'd for endeavouring 
 to make Edmund Earl of March his Brother-in-law King of England, from whofe 
 SilK'r King Edward IV. claim'-i the Crown ; yet the very reverfing this Attain- 
 der by Act of Parliament, declares it to have been good unci! that Repeal, fince 
 it was not declarM void : alL which are .plain and evident Proofs, that Treafon 
 may be committed againft the King de fa^o^ and cpnfequently that Allegianc^ 
 is alfo due to him, and not to the King (if jwre. ,^ "y\ 
 
 I have likewitfe prov'd that all thpfe Statutes which yvere tpade by tliofe 
 Kings, and are not rcp^al'd, ftjind good at this day without any Confirmation 
 h^Kinz EdxardW. and thisyou have no waytoanfwcr, but by inilanciiig in 
 Patsnrs of Honour, or Charters of' Privileges granted by thofe Kiags, and cot;- 
 firm'd by EdivxrdW. from whence you will infer, that fome other Afts of 
 like nature were in the fame Condition ; which lot me tell you is no good ArJ- 
 gument ag-iinft them : for if you plea fe to read that Statute of Et^w/ard IV. yoji 
 niei^:ion, yoi will there plainly ife;, tl;iit the Gr«ints^',Pace\it;s,,,and orher 
 things there confirm'd» are either judicial Proceed logs, i<i, the /Gp\iri,5 of Jufticc, 
 of die fuch Charters, or Paterlts, which bqing thought to the prejudice of the 
 Crown, vitrz ex abundaitti cautcla thought necelHry ^tp be confinn'd by thofs 
 particular Perfons, Religion! Houfes, aa4' Cprporations,.who thougl^t themfclvoS 
 conctrn'd; nor wcreall others of 'like aa tare which were no,t fo confirm'd, 
 thereby void, (ince they hjld go-id at this d^y : and if you unJerftjnd any thing 
 of our Law, yoa cannot buc kno.v, that no Grants of the King can be nude 
 void by Implication. And to fhew you farther, that the Letters Patent made' by 
 Henry VI. were look'd up&n as good iu the Reign of Edward IV. it appears 
 froto Bitgot's Cafe in the Year-Book of the n^nth of that -King v where a Patent 
 of hIat\jrulizatioa granted by Henry VI. tho it wereiiot confirai'd by the Sta- pjg, j^ 2. 
 tuteof Edward IV. was by thegrcatell part of the Judges held to bs good, and 
 the Regions there given toi' it are very remarkable », iince it was urg'd by the 
 Counfel in behalf of the PlantifF, " that King Henry was then King in Pof- 
 *' feflion, and- it behoycs that the Realm Ihould have a King, and that the 
 
 " Laws
 
 6i^6 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTlCA. 
 
 *^ Laws Ihould be kept and maintain'd •, and therefore tho he wa's in only by^ 
 *' Ufurpation, nevenhelefs every judicial Aft done by him, concerning Royal 
 ** Jurifdiftion, (hall hold good, and bind the King de jure when he returns, S'c. 
 *' So likewife a Charter ot Pardon of Felony, and Licences of Mortmain (hall 
 " be good, and alfo the King that now is fhall have the Advantage of every 
 " Forfeiture made to the faid King Htmy^ &c.'* And mark this farther, it is 
 there alfo held, " that a Man (ball be arraign'd for Treafon done againft the 
 " faid K\ng Henry in compafTing his Death •, and the Reafon is very remark- 
 *' able, bicaufe the faid King indeed wof not merely an Vfurper, for the Croam was 
 " intaifd upon him by Parliament \ and this being not at all contradided by 
 *' the Court, is ftill taken for Law." And upon this Report, and net only upon 
 the Statute of the nth o^ Henry VU. did my ? ord Coke found his Opinion I 
 now mention'd. That a King de failo was within the Statute of the 25th of 
 Edward \\\. And ihonow it is true, that the farther arguing of this Cafe of 
 Bagot wasadjourn'd to a farther day, when the J nil: ices did not argue, but the 
 Serjeants and (Apprentices at Law (chat isnhe Barri(ters, as we now call them) 
 yet it feems to have been allow'd by the whole Court, that if King Edward 
 who was then King, had made his Charter before he was dedar'd io^ it Ihoald 
 be void at that time-, for every one who null '"akc a charter ot Pardon, ought 
 to be King in Deed, at the ciine of the making thereof. 
 
 M. Pray, Sir, give me leave to reply to what you have now faid againft ray 
 firft two Arguments, before you go on to anfwer the reft ■■, for 1 confefs the 
 Authorities you bring feem fo exprefs ag.ainll me, that if \ cannot take them off, 
 there will be no further need for anfwering the reft. I will not therefore deny, 
 but that all publick AQs and Proceedings at Law, which are for the publick 
 good and fifety of the Kingdom, do hold good tho made under Ufurpers, and 
 that for this Reafon ^ becaufe fuch Adls being for the publick Benefit, it is 
 to befuppos'd that the King de 'Jure did give his tacit confent to them : for 
 (as it is well obfcrv'd, in the Cafe you have now cited) it behoves the Realai 
 fliould have a King (that is, fome Civil Government) and that the Laws Ihould 
 be kept and maintain'd \ but then thofe Laws can extend only to fuch things as 
 arc for the publick good, and do not tend to the difinheriting the King dejure^ 
 or barring him or his Heirs of their Right, as did that Aft of the 7th of Henry 
 IV. whereby the Crown was intail'd upon hirafelf and his Sons, which was de- 
 dar'd to be void by the 39th of Henry VI. So likewife this Aft is void for the 
 fame Reafon, fince it would give a Right to the Subjcdts to defend the King for 
 ' the time being, tho an Ufurper, againft the true and lawful King, who would be 
 thereby not only defeated of his Right himfelf, but alfo his right Heirs would 
 befo tooi which would be direftly contrary not only to the Intent ot the faid 
 Statutes of the 39th of Hen. VI- and ift of EdmAW. juft now mention'd, but 
 alfo to the Aft of Recognition of King James I's Title. 
 
 And therefore I mufl (till maintain that my Lord Coh is mifl»keri in fuppo.* 
 ling a King ^e fd<!?o to be within the Intent of the Statute of the 25th of Edw. HI. 
 for fure it would feem a very odd queftion for any ohe to ask touching the Laws 
 that are made in any fettled Monarchy for 'the defence of the King's Peifon, 
 Crown and Dignity, who is meant by the King in thofe Laws-, whether 
 the Lawful and Rightful King of that Realm, or any one that gets into 
 the PofTefTion of the Throne, tho he be not a Rightful King but an Ufurper. 
 
 So likewife as to that Claufe in this Statute, which makes it Treafon to con- 
 fpire the Death of the King's eldeft Son and Heir, it could be never intended 
 for the Son of a King de Faffo, fince that would be to own him for right Heir 
 of the Crown for ever, and thereby intail it upon his Family, to the prejudice 
 of the right Heir of the King de Jure ; and therefore, tho 1 grant fome of the 
 Judges and Lawyers held the Law to be fo as you have cited it in Bigot's Cafej 
 and that a King ^eF^(?o may enjoy thofe Prerogatives in fome refpefts, yet can- 
 not this be extended to the prejudice of the King dejure^ and his Right Heirs. 
 And tho I alfo grant that divers Afts of Parliament made by Kings de FaOOy 
 have for the moft part held good without being confirm'd by any fublequenE 
 Statute of the K\x\%de Jure, yet have they been alfo repeal'd fometimes^ merely 
 becaufe made whilft the King de Jure was alive, as 1 ftuU prove more at large by 
 and by. 
 
 F. I
 
 Dialogtte the Thirteenth. 6^1 
 
 F. I Ihall alfo take the boldnefs to reply to thefe Anfwers of youi-s, before I 
 proceed to anfwer the reft of your Arguments. In the firft place, let me tell 
 you that this Nocion of a tacit Confent in the King de Jure^ fuppos'd to be given 
 to all Statutes made for the publick good, is to ferve upon all occafions, when 
 thofe of your Party cannot tell how otherwife to anfwer the Arguments that 
 are brought againll them i and you may as well tell me that they do alfo give 
 their tacit Confents to all other Afts that Ufurpers may do : and I may as well 
 fuppofe that Queen Elii.abi;tb the W'ifeof Htnrjy VII. the lawful Heirefs of the 
 Crown, did in the Perfon of her Husband give her tacit Confent that this Aft 
 of the iidi oi Henry V i\. fhould hold good for ever, fince it is fo much for 
 the publick Good and Peace of the Nation •, " That the Statute declares it 
 *' fhould be againft Law, Reafon, and good Confcience, that Subjeds ftiould 
 *' fufFer for fighting for the King for the time being." But 1 very much wonder 
 if this fuppos'd tacit Confent were given to all Afts of Parliament by the Kings 
 de Jure, why upon their return to the Government, they did not alfo exprefs 
 this Confent by confirming all the Ads made by their Predeceflbrs the Kings 
 de FaQo, or elfe declare them void : but fince they neither did the one nor the 
 other, it is plain it was becaufe even they themfelves look'd upon it as needlefs. 
 
 Nor is your Reafon at all fatisfadory, why a King de t'atio cannot be in- 
 tended by the Statute of the x%\.\\ oi EdwarA\\\. becaufe that maketh it Treafou 
 to confpire the Death of the King's eldeft Son and Heir, which fay you can 
 only be meant of the eldeft Son of a King de Jure \ which is to beg theQjieftion : 
 for tho it is true, thisClaufe in the Ad was intended for the prefervation of 
 the King's eldeft Son, yet it doth no where determine that this muft be the 
 eldeft Son of a King dejure: for tho I own this Claufewas made to preferve 
 the Crown in the Right Line from Father to Son, yet does it make no difference 
 between the Son and Heir of a King de Faflo, and one dc Jure ■■, nor have you yet 
 anfwer'd the Authorities I have brought from the Ads of Attainder of thofe 
 Lords, whoconfpired againft the three Kings of the Houfe of Lancajler^ which 
 ftand unreverfed unto thisdiy ^ and which alfo confirm the Opinion given in 
 Fagotti Cafe, where it is faid exprefly. That a Man may be arraign'd for Trea- 
 fon committed againft the King de FaSo, by the King deJure. And therefore 
 1 think my Lord Coh may very well be juftified in his Opinion, notwithftand- 
 ing the queftion you put, whether the Statute could mean him who is lawful 
 and rightful King, or any other who gets into poiTeffion of the Throne. Now 
 this feems to me no fuch odd Queftion : for when the Law only men- 
 tions the King, and the Law-makers certainly knew that Kings without 
 an Hereditary Right had often afcended the Throne; if they had intended to 
 except all fuch Ufurpers, they fliould have cvprefly faid fo. But indeed that 
 diftindion of a King dc FaSo, and a King de Jure^ was not known till many 
 Years after, being firft heard of in the Reign of Edward IV. for a King dec. A. p. 56. 
 Fa^o (as the late Chief Jnftice rightly affcrts; is Signior Le Roy within that 
 Statute, and there is no other King but he whilft he continues fo. For King fig- 
 nifies that Perfon who has the fupreme Government in the Nation j and a King 
 dejure, is he who fhould have the Government, but has it not-, that is, who 
 of right fhould be King, but is not : and the Statute of Treafon tells us what 
 is Treafon againft him who is King, not againft him who fhould be, but is not 
 King : and Reafon good it fhould be fo •, for it is not merely a legal Title by 
 dcfcent, but a legal inveftitute, and recognition by Parliament, that makes a 
 legal King, or a King in Law, as it makes a legal Magiftrate •^ and then all e. l. r. 
 Kingi de FaOo J who are plac'd in the Throne by a legal Authority, and with 
 all legal and acuftoni'd Ceremonies, are legal Kings i and as fuch, may require 
 a legal Allegiance : fo that all thofe hard words in the Statute of the firft of 
 Edward IV. that call thofe Kings of the Houfe of Lancafler^ Kings in Deed, 
 and not of Right, or pretended Kings, mean no more than this, that they were 
 Kings for the time beinf , and according to the Laws which had made them fo, 
 tho not according to that Hereditary Right of Succcfllon which thofe Statutes 
 require. If you have any thing to reply to this, tell me, or elfe 1 will pro- 
 ceed to anfwer your two other Arguments. 
 
 M. I will not at prefcnt fay more to this, and therefore yoa may proceed. 
 
 F. Your two next Arguments are from the Attainders of RichardWX. and his 
 principal AfTiftants, which were by Ad of Parliament. As to that Prince him- 
 
 P p p p felf.
 
 658 
 
 BiBLlOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 felf, as alfo his Adherents •■, the Attainders of Kings de faH:o, and their AC- 
 lirtanis in After- P.ulidmciits, do not prove that Subjefts cannot be guilty of 
 Treafon againft a King in poflefTion. Nor does the Statute of Treafon relate 
 to a King de jure oi\\y, for that Statute was not made to fecure Princes Titles, 
 but the Quiet of their Government whilft they fat upon the Throne : for tho 
 a King, if he be an Ufurper, whenever the r-ightful King regains the PofTen- 
 fion of his Throne, if he were a Subjedt before, may be attainted of Treafon 
 for his Ufurpation, as was ^»'cW<^ 111, for Treafon againft his own Nephew 
 King Edward V. yet this does no way prove that Richard III. was no true 
 King during his Ufurpation, but only fhews the Parliament's Abhorrence of 
 his Treafon ; and to deter others from falling into the like, attainted him and 
 feveral of his Accomplices who had alTifted him in his faid Ufurpation. For 
 that they were not barely attainted for defending King Richard's Title, ap- 
 pears from this, that the Earl of Surrey^ Son to the Duke of Norfolk, and di- 
 vers other Noblemen and Gentlemen who fought for King Richard at Bofworth- 
 Field, were never attainted at all. But as for the Pardon that you fay palTed 
 in that Parliament of the ift of Henry Vll. you are very much miftaken in the 
 purport of it j for if you pleafe to look upon it again, you will find that it 
 vid. iH. 7. "• was not a general Pardon for the common People, who had fought on the 
 cap.6. tc 5ei,3it of Richard 111. but of all thofe who had come over with Henry Vll. 
 
 " himfelf, or who were with him in the Field aginni\: Richard III. for all man- 
 " ner of Murders, Spoils, and Trefpalles committed by them, in taking part 
 " with King //f«ry againft his Enemies." So that you fee the afTifting of a 
 King ^f /.ri??o was not only juftifiable, but thofe that had fought againft him, 
 thought themfelves not fate till they had their Pardon, 
 
 Nay, farther, that Attainders paded in Parliament are no proof that the 
 Princes againft whom they were pafled were not lawful King, appears from 
 hence. That when Edward IV. was driven out of the Kingdom, and difpof- 
 fefled of the Throne, the next Parliament under Henry VI. palTed an Aft of 
 Attainder againft him and his Adherents. But as for the Attainder of Hen- 
 ry VI. you are very much miftaken to fuppofe, that it was for any Treafoa 
 committed againft Edward IV. but it was for Breach of the Agreement made 
 with his Father the Duke of Tor/J, and in making war again upon him i for 
 had he not done this, he had continued lawful King during his Life by the 
 Duke of Torkh own Confent. For in the Parliament-Roll you your felf have 
 Rot. Pail, already cited, it is thus exprelTed: " That confidering the Pofleflion of the 
 Edw.4. 39 H. cc f^j^i Henry VI. and that he had before this time been named, taken, and re- 
 6. n. 18. t( puteti {^iiig of £„gi^„^_^ and France^ and Lord of Ireland \ the faid Duke is 
 " content, agreeth, and confenteth, that he be had, reputed, and taken for 
 *' King of England, and oi France, with the Royal Eftate, Dignity, and Pre- 
 " heminence belonging thereto, and Lord of /rt/<?»«^, during his Life natural; 
 '■'■ and for that time the faid Duke, without hurt or prejudice of his faid Right 
 •' and Title, ftiall take, worlhip, and honour him for his Sovereign Lord." 
 So that you fee that by the Judgment of the Parliament, and by the exprefs 
 Confent of the right Heir of the Crown, a King de fa^o was to be owned by 
 this right Heir for his true and lawful Sovereign, and therefore could not be 
 attainted for detaining the Crown from him, or his Son. 
 
 AI. I will not difpute this Point any further ; but yet, methinks, tho Trea- 
 fon might be committed againft the King <^f /^ffc whilft he continues King, yet 
 this is not for any Allegiance due to him, but becaufe fuch Treafon being a- 
 gainft the due Order of Government, and the common Peace ot the Nation, 
 luch Aftions are therefore Treafon from the prefumed or tacit Confent of the 
 King de jure. 
 C.A./.58,59. F. I grant indeed that fuch Ads are againft the Order of Government, and 
 very deftrudiveto it, which is the only reafon why they are made Treafon by 
 Law: and this is as good a reafon why the Law fhould make them Treafon 
 againft a King de faHo, as againft a King de jure, for they are equally againft 
 the Order of Government, and deftrudtive to it, whoever is Kingj and that is 
 the only reafon why they made it Treafon at all. Now this prefumed or ta- 
 cit Confent of the King de jure is a very pretty Notion, and ferves you for a 
 great many good turns ; it makes Laws, and it makes 1 reafon, and gives Au, 
 thority to the unauthoritative Ads of a King de fa^o ; that is to fay (or you 
 
 fay
 
 Dialogue the Thirteenth, 6i,^ 
 
 fay nothing) that the prefumed Confeat of a King de jure^ invefts the King de 
 failo at the time with his Authority : for if he hath no Authority of his own, 
 unlefs what the prefumed Confent of the King de jure gives him, that cannot 
 malceany treafonable Aft done againfl: him tobeTreafon j for it cannot alter 
 the nature of things, nor make a Man guilty of Treafon againft any Perfon 
 to whom he owes no Duty of Allegiance. And if the prefumed Confent of 
 the Kin^de jure can invert the King de faBov}\\.\\ his Authority, itmuft tranf- 
 fer the Allegiance of the Subjefts too : and then Subjefts are as fafe in Confci- 
 ence, as if the King </; y«re were on the Throne, foritfeems there is his Au- 
 thority and tacit Confent, tho not his Perfon. 
 
 But indeed this is all mere trifling \ the King de faBo has Authority, or 
 elfe none of his Afts of Government can have any •■, for that which is done by 
 a Perfon who has no Authority, can lay no Obligation upon us : whence 
 then has he this Authority, fince he has no legal Right to the Throne ? not 
 furc from the prefumed Confent of the King de jure, which is Nonfenfe to 
 fuppofe ■, but from the poffeffion of the Throne, to which the Law it felf, as 
 well as the Principles of Reafon, have annexed the Authority of the Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 M. I am fo far 'of Bifhop Sander/on s Opinion in his Cafe concerning taking 
 the Engagement, that when Ufurpers or Kings de faBo have taken upon them 
 the Government, they are obliged to admiiiilter it for the common Good and 
 Safety of the People ; and as far as that comes to, we are alfo obliged to live 
 peaceably under them, and to yield Obedience to them in things abfolutely 
 necelfaryfor the upholding Civil Society within the Realm ^ fuch as are the De- 
 fence of the Nation againll Foreigners, the Furtherance of publick Juftice, the 
 Maintenance of Trade and Commerce, and the like. But fure this is no Ar- 
 gument for transferring our Allegiance from the lawful King and his Heirs 
 whilft they are alive i and therefore I muft ftill fuppofe that this Statute of the 
 nth of HenryVW. can do no Service to the prefent Government, becaufe it is 
 virtually repealed by feveral Statutes. As i)?. By the 28th of Henry VIII. con- 
 cerning theSucceflion of the Crown, wherein it is exprelly provided, that if 
 any of his Children fhould ufurp upon each other, or if any of thofeto whom 
 he fliould bequeath the Crown by his lafl: Will, or Letters Patent, Ihould 
 take the Crown in any other manner than what (hould be thereby limited, 
 fuch Children or others ihould be guilty of Treafon for fo doing. Now it is 
 plain fuch Treafon muft only have been committed againft the right Heir, 
 and confequently the Perfon fo taking the Crown was not to be looked upon as 
 King de faffo. It is alfo virtually repealed by the Statute of prima Eliz.ab. 
 by which we are obliged tofwearto be true to theQ.ieen, her Heirs, and law- 
 ful SuccelFors (».*. thofe who have a Right to the Crown by Proximity of 
 Blood) as alfo by the Oath of Supremacy, enafted in the 4th of K'u-igjames^ 
 by which we are likewife fworn to bear true Allegiance to his Majelty, his 
 Heirs, and Succeflbrs. From whichOathsI argue, (i) That if weare fworn 
 by Aft of Parliament to pay Allegiance to the Heirs of a King de jure, who 
 never were in poirefTion, then a fortiori to a King de jure, who, befides the 
 Legality of his Title, had been aftually recognized as Sovereign, and enjoyed 
 an uncontefted Adminiftration of the Regal Power. (2.) If our Laws oblige 
 us to fwearSubjeftionto the Heirs, &c. of a rightful Prince, then by unde- 
 niable Confequence we are bound not to tranflate our Allegiance to thofe who 
 are unjuftly fet up by the People ^ for without all queftion the words Heirt 
 and Lawful Sue ceffors were made ufe of on purpofe to fecure the Hereditary 
 Rights of the Monarchy, and to prevent all Ufurpations upon the direft Line. 
 And fince by virtue of that Statute, which framed the Oath of Allegiance and 
 Supremacy, we are not to acknowledge any pretended Governors, to the Pre- 
 judice or Difinherifon of the Heirs of the King de jure, then moft certainly 
 we ought not to do this in oppofition to the King de jure himfelf i fo that now 
 we can have no pretence to make Right the necelTary Confequence of mere pof- 
 feffion of the Crown, anymore than in private Eftates. 
 
 F. In the firft place, 1 agree with you in what you have faid, that Kings de 
 faBo are to be obeyed in all things tending to the publick Good of Society ; buc 
 then it will alfo follow, that Allegiance is due to them from that great Law 
 of profecuting the fame publick Good : fince it were much better that evea 
 
 Pppp 2 Kings
 
 660 B I B L I O T H E C A P O i t T I C A. 
 
 Kings de jure (hould lofe their Right, than that a Nation (hould be involved 
 in a. long and cruel War, to the weakoing and impoverifhing thereof, and to 
 the deftruftion of fo many thoufands of ordinary as well as noble Families ; as 
 was feen in the long Civil Wars between the Families of Lancafter and Torh. 
 So that I cannot but think it would have been much better for this Nation, if 
 that Family had continued to govern us unto this day, rather than that £^- 
 rvard IV. (hould have obtained the Crown, with fo great a Dellruftion of the 
 People of this Nation, and fo great Cruelty as was then exercifed upon King 
 Utnry VI. and the Prince his Son, and fo many other Perfons befides, as you 
 may read in the Hiftory of thofe times- 
 
 But Icome nowto anfwer the reft of your Arguments, whereby you will 
 prove this Statute of the iith of Henry Vll. to be virtually repealed. And 
 here by the way 1 muft tell you Gentlemen of this Opinion, that I cannot but 
 admire your wondrous Sagacity in difcovering this Aft to be repealed, when 
 my Lord Coke^ and all the relt of our Lawyers, do ftill fuppofe it to be in 
 force. But indeed the reafon you give for it is not urged like a Common 
 Lawyer, and therefore 1 think it will figoify little : for tho I grant that an Aft 
 of Parliament may be virtually repealed by a fubfequent Aft, yet it is only in 
 fuchCafes where they are abfolutelycontradiftory, and inconfiftent with each 
 other J but if they are not fo, an Aft of Parliament can never be faid to be 
 virtually repealed. And therefore I fliall now (how you, that notwithltanding 
 the Statute of //fw)' Vlll. and the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance you 
 have now mentioned, this Statute may very well continue in force and unre- 
 pealed. Firft, As to the Statute of /y«7ry VI 11. whereby it was declared Trea- 
 foa for any one of his Children, upon whom the Crown was fettled, to ufurp 
 upon each other •■, that part of the Statute, which makes this Treafon, was 
 1 SefT. repealed by the iftof Edward VI. and by the ift of Queen Mary. Or admit 
 
 Chap. 12. it had not been fo, yet this Claufe in the Statute of fJen'^yVlU. would have 
 been abfolutely void in it felf againft any fuch Ufurper, when aftually pof- 
 felTed of the Crown ^ (ince it was held by all the Judges in the Cafe of Hemy 
 Vll. who at the time of his coming into England flood attainted by Aft of 
 Parliament, that this Attainder need not be reverfed, (ince PofTelTion of the 
 Crown takes away all precedent Defefts. 
 
 But as to the Statutes of the ift of Queen Eliz.abtthy and the 4th of King 
 Jamesy by which the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy were enafted ; 1 con- 
 ceive neither of thefe Oaths can amount to a virtual Repeal of this Aft : for 
 tho I grant one end of thefe Oaths may be to fecure the Right of the King's 
 or Queen's Heirs by lineal Defcent, yet it will not therefore follow, that a 
 King de fA^loy or for the time being, may not be legally defended in the 
 Throne j for as for that part of the Oath which was taken to Kiagjameshlm- 
 felf, it can hold no longer than whilft he continued King. If therefore the 
 Eftates of the Kingdom have adjudged him to have forfeited or abdicated the 
 Crown, the whole Nation ought to take this as to have beea legally done, 
 lince it was done by the judgment of the higheft Authority in the Nation, 
 when King James had deferted the Throne. The like i may alfo fay for the 
 other part of the Oath of Allegiance, whereby we are obliged to his Heirs 
 and lawful SucceiTors: for (Ince there has been a Difpute concerning the Suc- 
 celTion of the Crown, between the Princefs of Orange and your Prince of Walesy 
 if the Convention, who are the fole proper Judges in this Cafe, have thought 
 fit for the Reafons I have already given you at our laft Meeting, to declare 
 King William and Queen A^ary the lawful King and Qaeen of England^ all the 
 Nation ought to accept them for fuch, (ince it was done by the higheft Au- 
 thority at that time extant in the Nation, and the only proper Judges of 
 that Right •, and if Difputes about legal Rights (of which certainly that of 
 fucceedingtotheCrown is of the higheft importance) ought to be decided by 
 E.L.R. p. Law, and not by the Sword (which is not the decifton of Civil Authority, but 
 8, 9. of Force) the Sentence of competent Judges muft end the Difpute. And if 
 
 the Eftates of the Realm be not the proper and legal Judges of fuch Difputes 
 that concern the Right to the Crown, there can be none ^ and if they be, Sub- 
 jefts muft acquiefce in their Judgments, or it is all one as if there had been 
 none: for if Men may pretend Confciencc, and adhere to their own private 
 Opinions as fole Judges, the Difpute muft end in Blows i which is contrary to 
 
 ik
 
 Dialogue the Thirteenth, 66 1 
 
 the Reafon and Kature of human Societies, which were inftituted to prevent 
 Civil Wars, and to end all Controverfies by a legal Judgment without the 
 Sword. 
 
 And to let you fee farther, that as to the Allegiance of the Subjefts it is all 
 one in refpcft of us who are Subjcfts, whether the Convention have judged 
 Right or Wrong in this Cafe: Let us fuppofe a Perfon who has only a Pre- 
 tence, but no true Right to an Eftate, fhould commence a Suit of Law for it, 
 and at laft obtain a Verdift of the Jury, and alfo a Judgment of the Court of 
 King's Bench for his Title ; can any Man deny but that the SherifT is, by vir- 
 tue of thisVerdift and Judgment, obliged to put this Abator into polFelTion of 
 this Eftate, notwithftanding he may know of his own knowledge, that the 
 Perfon who has obtained this Judgment has no true Right to the Eftate? Or 
 will any Lawyer doubt whether all the Tenants of the Mannor are not obliged 
 to fwear Homage and Fealty to this fuppofed Lord, if they are required by 
 him fo to do ? Now tho the true Heir or Owner has the legal Right to the 
 Eftate, yet by the fupreme Law of all Societies, which refers the Decifion of 
 all perfonal Rights to a legal Authority, he who by a legal Judgment is pof-^'^"^•^*9>*°• 
 fefted of it, has the legal Right in the Eftate againft all other Claims, and le- 
 gal Authority muft defend him in it, and all who will fubmifto Laws and legal 
 Authority, muft: acquiefce in it. 
 
 And thus it rauft be with refped to the Rights of Princes as well as of Sub- 
 je&s: The Right to the Crown has been often difputed, as we all know^ and 
 to fay that when fuchDifputes happen, there is no Authority in the Nation 
 to decide them, is to fay that Princes have no Right to their Crowns by the 
 Laws of that Nation j for there can be no Civil Rights, of which there nei- 
 ther are nor can be any Civil Judges : for no Man, no not a Prince, can be Judg 
 in his own Caufe •■, and if Princes have no legal Rights, they can lofe no legal 
 Rights when they lofe their Crowns, and 1 doubt their natural Rights will af- 
 feft the Confciences of very few Subjects. Therefore every independent Civil 
 Society, which is not wholly governed by the Sword, muft, from the nature 
 of fuch Societies, and the reafon of their Inftitution, have Authority within it 
 felf to decide all Controverfies which may arife about the Rights of every 
 Member of that Society, and to preferve it felf from falling into a State of 
 War, which is a Diftblution of all Civil Government : and if there ought to 
 be fuch an Authority in every civilized Nation, when this fupreme Authority 
 has given Sentence in fuch Difputes, this muft alfo determine all the Subjeds, 
 and ought likewife tohave the fame effeft upon the contending Princes them- 
 felves; and no Right, or pretence of Right, ought to affeft the Confcience after 
 fuch a final Judgment, unlefs Civil Rights can oblige Subjefts to diftblve Civil 
 Governments, and to difpute Civil Rights, not by the Law, but by the Sword :i 
 which is to overthrow all Civil Rights, and put an end to the Authority of 
 Laws. 
 
 1 hope this mayferve to fhew you how much you are miftaken, to fuppofe 
 that there can be no King in an Hereditary Monarchy, but the next lineal 
 Heir. And tho 1 grant no Allegiance can be due or ought to be paid to hira 
 who is no King, yet will it not follow, that none can be due to any Prince if 
 he be not the next Heir \ for that no Obedience can be due to him who is no 
 King, I readily grant, but yet he may be a legal King in this Kingdom, who is 
 not the next Heir by Blood, as almoft half of the Kings of England fince the 
 Conqueft were not, and yet have been always owned and obeyed as legal 
 Kings. 
 
 M. I confefs what you fay would go a great way to fatisfy me, could you 
 prove that there was no Difference between the Succeftion to Crowns and pri- 
 vate Inheritances, where I grant that the Judgment of the fupreme Court of 
 the Nation, is to determine not only the PoflefTion, but the Right too, in re- 
 fpedt of the Perfon who lofes his Eftate by an unjuft Verdid, or illegal Judg- 
 ment \ whereas it is otherwife in the Title of Crowns, to which Princes have 
 a Right as well by the Laws of God and Nature, as alfo by the received fettled 
 Laws and Cuftoms of the Kingdom concerning the Succeftion by Defcent ; 
 which is called, in the 1 3th of Queen Eliz.abethy (in the Statute we have fo 
 muth debated at our laft Meeting) the common Laws of this Realm : and it 
 is there declared, that it ought to dircdt the Right of the Crown of England^ 
 
 and
 
 662 BiBLIOTHECA POLITICA. 
 
 and \t IS tbere made Treafon, during the Queen's Life, to affirm the contrary. 
 And this Courfe of lineal Succeffion at Commpn Law was alfo declared by fo- 
 lemn Judgment in Parliament, in the Cafe (I have fo often urged) of the Duke 
 of Tori's Title to the Crown againft Henry VI. that it could no way be de- 
 feated by Aft of Parliament •, and therefore I mult ftill tell you, that you go 
 upon a wrong ground, when you fuppofe that there can be now any Difpute 
 who is rightful King of England^ fincc I have often told you, that he can nei- 
 ther abdicate or forfeic his Right to the Crown, and that no Parliament what- 
 ever (much lefs a Convention) could have any power to declare he had ab- 
 dicated the Government, and that thereby the Throne was become vacant. 
 For tho I grant the Judgment of the Eftates of the Kingdom, when legally af- 
 fembled, ought to be received with great Submiffion and Refpeft ■■, yet muft it 
 be only in fuch Matters which they have a legal Cognizance of, and which they 
 are impowered by the Laws and Conftitutions of the Kingdom to deter- 
 mine. But their voting him, whom you your felf cannot deny to have been 
 their lawful King, to have abdicated the Throne (when indeed he had not) 
 and then not only to declare the Throne vacant, but alfo to place thofe there- 
 in whom you your felf dare not affirm to be the next Heirs by Blood, are 
 things quite out of their Element, and beyond the Sphere of their Authority. 
 And tho 1 grant that they may fometimes judge concerning the Succeffion of 
 the Crown, and who is next Heir to it, yet is this only to be underftood as 
 far as they judge according to the common Laws of the Succeffion already laid 
 down at our laft Meeting, and not when they go quite contrary to them : 
 and therefore tho I own the Parliament might juftly declare //^wry VI. to be an 
 Ufurper, and confequently might be depofed ^ yet it doth not therefore fol- 
 low that they had a like Right to declare £^ip;jr<^ IV. an Ufurper, and to pafs 
 an Aft of Attainder againft him, as I confefs they did after that Prince had 
 held the Crown for ten years together, fince that was beyond their power to 
 enaft or declare by the fundamental Conflitution of the Government. 
 
 F. I am forry your Anfwer can afford nothing new, but only the Repeti- 
 tion of the fame falfe Principles and Arguments that have been already lb 
 often anfwered in our former Converfations : for in the firit place I have fuf- 
 ficiently proved, that neither the Laws of God nor Nature have ordained 
 any fuch thing as a lineal Succeffion of Kings, or any irrefiftible or unforfeita- 
 ble Power in them, which they can never fall from, let them aft ever fo tyran- 
 nically. For I think I have fufficiently proved, that not only in abfolute Mo- 
 narchies, but alfo in limited Kingdoms, where the King has not the whole fu- 
 preme Power, a King may not only be refifted, but may be alfo declared to 
 have abdicated or forfeited his Right to govern, in cafe of any apparent ob- 
 ftinate Violations of the fundamental Conflitution, in thofe great Points that 
 make that Government to differ from a defpotick Monarchy j and that if they 
 had not this Right, all their Liberties will fignify nothing, and their Lives, 
 Liberties, and Eftates would lie wholly at the King's mercy, to be invaded 
 and taken away whenever he pleafed. I am forced to repeat this, to remind 
 you of the Reafons upon which thofe Principles are founded ■■, and therefore 
 you do but fall into your old Miftake, when you affirm, that by the funda- 
 mental Conftitution of the Government, the great Council of the Nation 
 (which was but the fame with our late Convention) had no power to declare the 
 King to have broken the original Contraft between him and his People. 
 
 7 herefore what you fay concerning the want of Authority in this great 
 Council to declare the Throne vacant, is altogether precarious, unlefs you 
 could alfo prove that it is againft the fundamental Conftitution fo to do ; 
 whereas I have fo far proved the contrary, that the Throne has been declared 
 vacant no lefs than eight times fince the Conqueft, which makes up almofl: 
 a third part of the Succeffions of all the Kings and Queens that have reigned 
 lince that time. So that if the Cuftom and Praftice of great Councils or Con- 
 ventions (and thofe not condemned by any fubfequent Statutes) can be the only 
 Rule or Guide for the Confciences of all the Subjefts of this Nation, we have cer- 
 tainly had that as folemnly declared now, as in any other great Council or Con- 
 vention that has been ever held in this Kingdom. But as to what you fay con- 
 cerning the want of Power in thofe Councils, to declare or recognize who are 
 the right Heirs to the Crown, but not to make them fo, is very pleafantj fince 
 
 that
 
 Dialogue the Thirteenth. 66^ 
 
 that were all one as if two Men, who contended for an Eftate, fiiould bring 
 the matter before the Houfe of Peers, and when that was done, and the Cafe 
 folemnly heard by Counfel on both fides, that Party who had loft the Caufe, 
 (hould declare that this Court (though the higheft in the Kingdom) had no 
 power to judge in prejudice of himfelf, who had an undoubted Right to the 
 Eftate, which were to give the Lords a power to give Judgment only for 
 one fide-, and why the other Party, if the Judgment had been given againlt 
 him, ihould not have made the like Plea, I cannot underftand : fo that luch a 
 Judgment would be altogether in vain. 
 
 Therefore to apply this to our purpofc, tho the Parliament, being prevailed 
 upon by the Strength and Fadfion of the Duke ofTork, did (as I granted at our 
 laft Meeting) declare that his Title could in no wife he defeated ■■, yet Henry the 
 Vlth being then in the Throne, they naight have certainly given a contrary 
 Judgment if they had pleafed, and then I fuppofe the Title of the Houfe 
 of Tork might have been fo defeated, as that the Nation had never been trou- 
 bled with it again: and fo alfo, when by the Power of Edward the IVth, a 
 Parliament met, and declared him to be lawful King from the time of his Fa- 
 ther's Death, yet when the faid King was driven out of the Kingdom by the 
 Earl of Warwick, and K\ng Henry the Vlth reftored to the Throne, a Parlia- 
 ment was fummoned in the 4yth of this King, wherein £^m4>-<^ the iVth was 
 declared an Ufurper, and himfelf attainted ^ and to which Parliament the Duke Rot. Clauf. 
 of Clarence, Brother to King Edward the IVth, is firft fummoned, as well as49H.6. m.6, 
 the Archbiihop oi Canterbury, with all the other Bifhops, Temporal Lords, and 
 Judges (of whom L'ttleton, the Author of the Book of Tenures, was one :) fo 
 likewife upon King Edward^ Recovery of the Crown the year following, King ib. iiEdw.4. 
 Henry was again depofed, and a Parliament called, wherein all the Dukes, Earls, m. i. 
 and Birons, with the Archbifhops of Canterbury and Tork, and molt of the reft 
 of the Bifhops, fwore to Prince Edward, after called Edward the Vth, as right 
 Heir to the Crown. 
 
 Kow I defirc to know what other Law or Rule there was then for the Sub- 
 jefts Allegiance, but the folemn Judgment or Declaration of the Eftates of the 
 Kingdom affembled in Parliament, fince their Adfs and Judgments were in this 
 Difpute direftly contradiftory to each other : fo that it is evident from the 
 conft:ant Practice of thofe times, that the King de faEio was always owned as 
 lawful Sovereign, and had Allegiance ftill paid him by all the People of this 
 Kingdom, except thofe who being the Heads of one or the other Party, were 
 either attainted, or forced to fly the Kingdom. 
 
 But as for all others, tho different and contrary Oaths of Allegiance were 
 impofed upon the People, fometimcs by the one, and fometimes by the other 
 of thofe Kings, according as they got poffcffion of the Throne •, yet I can no 
 where find, that ever any bodyfuffered for barely fwearing Allegiance to the 
 King then in being : for it was always taken for Law, that Allegiance was due 
 to the King de failo, fince ordinary Subjeifls are not fuppofed to underftand 
 the legal Right or Juftice of the King's Title. 
 
 M. 1 muft ftill fay, that there was fome colour for the Peoples thus adfing 
 (as you fay they did) during theConteft for the Crown between the two Fa- 
 milies of Tork and Lancafier, when I grant it was fomewhat a difficult mat- 
 ter to judge which of the two had the beft Right to the Crown, by rcafoa 
 that the Houfe oi Lancafier had held it for three Defcents j as alfo from theSpe- 
 cioufnefs of their Title, fince it was founded upon a pretended Claim by Right 
 of Blood, upon fuppofing that Edmund, firnamed Crouch-back (who was one 
 of the Anceftors of this Houfe of Lancafier) was the eldeft Son to Henry the 
 Third ; which had it been true, would have given Henry the Fourth a good 
 Right to the Crown, not only againft ^»cW^ the Second, but his own Grand- 
 father Edward the Third likewife (had he been then alive:) and this Defcent 
 falling out long before the Memory of any Man then living, who could confute 
 the Falfity of this pretended Pedegree ? The People of England might very 
 well be excufed for owning an Ufurper, and paying Allegiance to him, fince 
 they did not know but his Claim might have been right, efpecially fince it was 
 approved of in full Parliament without any Cofltradidion, as 1 have already 
 fhewn you at our laft Meeting. 
 
 But
 
 66^ 
 
 BlBLlOTHECA PoLltlCA. 
 
 Bat what is all this to the matter not/y in Debate between us, when the Li- 
 neal SuccelTion of the Crown has been fo often declared to be the only means 
 of acquiring a juft Title to it •, and every one knows very well who was owned 
 for lawful King of England within thefe three Months, and alfo who was prayed 
 for in all onr Churches as his Son and Heir apparent ? and therefore 1 mufl: ftill 
 tell you, that your Parallel between thofe Kings de faElo of the Houfe of z,<i«- 
 cafier, and thofe Princes whom the Convention have now voted to fill the Throne, 
 does not at all agree, firice every Subjed of this Kingdom, who has bat fenfe 
 enough to go to Marlcet, can very well tell (if he will deal fincerely) to whom 
 his Allegiance is due. 
 
 F. As to what you have now faid, it is no more than a Repetition of what 
 you have already urged to evade the Force of thefe clear Authorities ^ but in- 
 deed it was all one, when a Prince had been once recognized for lawful King 
 by Aft of Parliament, whether the People knew his Title not to be good by 
 Right of Blood or not : And this I have plainly proved to you from the Iii- 
 ftance of Richard the Third, who tho both his elder Brother's Children were 
 then alive, and the eldeft of them had been proclaimed King, and alfo owned 
 for fuch by himfelf, and whofe Title he had alfo fworn to maintain in his 
 Mem. I. Brother King Edward's life-time, as appears by the Claufe-RoU of the nth of 
 Edward the Fourth ; jet when he had once dc'pofed him, and had called a 
 Parliament which recognized his Title, his Afts and judicial Proceedings ftand 
 good at this day: and tho he himfelf was attainted, and declared a Tyrant 
 and an Ufurper, yet all the Subjects who afted under his Authority, and had 
 taken an Oath of Allegiance to him, never needed an Aft of Indemnity for fo 
 doings whereas thofe that came over with Henry theVlIth were fain to have 
 an Aft of Pardon pafTed to indemnify them for fighting againft Richard the 
 Hid (as I have now fhewed you.) And tho this Parliament of the firft oi Hen' 
 ry the Vllth agreed to repeal divers Afts which the King found fault with; 
 yet as for all other Statutes, made in the Reign of King Richard the Hid (which 
 have not been fince repealed) they are ftill in force without any Confirmation. 
 Likew'iie when Henry the Vllth had prevailed ovev Richard the Hid, and that 
 he was flain in the Field, tho all the IsJation very well knew that Henry the 
 Vllth could not be Heir of the Houfe of Lancaftcr^ becaufe his Mother was then 
 alive, and had never formally given up her Right, if Ihe had any j as certainly 
 fhe could have none, as being defcended from John Earl of Somerfet^ wi)0 was 
 bafe Son to John of Gaunt T>\xYeoi Lane after ^ hy Catherine Swinford, whilft his 
 Wife was alive j and tho I grant after his Marriage with the faid Catherine^ the 
 Children born of that Bed were made Legitimate by Aft of Parliament in the 
 20th of Richard the Second, yet that Legitimation only refpefts fuch private 
 Privileges and Inheritances which they might enjoy or flicceed to as Subjcfts, 
 vid. the Mi and had no refpeft to the Crawn v the Succefiion of which they were exprefly 
 frinted at large declared uncapable of by that very Aft of Legitimation, ftill to be feen upon 
 inh\xik'sHili. jj^g Parliament-Roll. But for all this, vi\\cn Henry the Seventh had called a 
 Parliament, and was therein recognized for their lawful Sovereign, and that 
 the Crown was fettled by Statute on him and the Heirs of his Body (without 
 any mention of the Princefs Eliz.abeth, who ought to have been Queen by Right 
 of Blood) yet none of the Subjefts of this Kingdom (as I can find) ever fcru- 
 pled to fwear Allegiance to him, before ever he married that Princefs-, tho 
 they as well knew that he could have no Right by Blood, as you can fuppofe 
 that the People at this day can know whether King James has abdicated or 
 forfeited the Crown or not, or whether your Prince of Wales be his true and 
 lavyful Son: for fince they are both nice and difficult Points, and have been 
 determined by the Convention, the Supreme Judges in this cafe, in favour of 
 their prefent Majefties, and that they alfo recognized their Title after they 
 became a Parliameilt i 1 can fee no manner of rcafon why all the Subjefts of 
 this Kingdom may not as well juftify their taking this new Oath of Allegiance 
 to them, notwithftanding their former Oath of Allegiance to King James and 
 his right Heirs, as Well as the People of England could juftify their taking an 
 Oath of Allegiance to Henry the Seventh, notwithftanding their former Oath 
 to Edward the Fourth and his right Heirs, before ever Henry the Seventh had 
 married the Princefs £/(z,«t«/;, the Heirefs of the Crown ; efpecialiy lince this 
 Aft of the nth of Henry the Seventh (which we are now difputing about) 
 
 was
 
 Dialogue the Thirteenth. 665 
 
 was made exprefly to fecure and indemnify all thofe who (hould attend upon 
 the King for the time being, and do him true and faithful fcrvicc of Alle- 
 giance, &c. And therefore it lies upon you ftill to prove, that this Statute is 
 either expired, or elfe void initfelf^ otherwife (befides the conftant Practice 
 of former times) wc have here an exprefs Aft of Parliament declaring it every 
 Man's Duty to pay Allegiance to the King for the time being, and then cer- 
 tainly he is as much obliged to fwear it too. 
 
 Al. 1 doubt not but 1 Ihall prove to you, that this Statute expired with Hen- 
 ry the Seventh, from a Claufe in the Aft it felf j for if you pleafe to read im- ^' " ^' 7- 
 mediately after thofe words you have now cited, " That all thofe who do the^"^''^' 
 *' King for the time being true and lawful Allegiance, &c. \jt follows thus] 
 *' fliall be fccured from all manner of Forfeitures and Moleftations relating to 
 " their Perfons or Eftates i (but mark) provided always that no Perfon or 
 *' Perfons (hail take any Benefit or Advantage by this Aft, which fhall hereafter 
 *' decline from his or their faid Allegiance." Now we know a Provifo is an 
 Exception or Reftraint upon the Latitude and Comprehenfivenefs of the Law, 
 and that all Statutes are pcrfeftly null fo far as the Provifo reaches. Having 
 premifed this, I fhall endeavour to prove that this Aft was deligned only for 
 the Security of that Reign in which it was made, and cannot be Ilretched any 
 farther. To make this appear, let us now fuppofe a Competition between the 
 King de jure, and Henry the Seventh (that is, ont de faBo) and that theSub- 
 jeft engages for the latter ; in this cafe, if the King de faclo prevail, there 
 is no need of the AfTiitance of this Statute : for we cannot imagine any 
 Prince could be fo impolitick as to puuifh thofe who have ventured their All 
 to maintain him in his Government. This, befides the Ingratitude of the Ac- 
 tion, would proclaim the Injuftice of his Caufe, and would ferve only to ruin 
 his Intereft. 
 
 F. Notwithftanding this Objeftion you have now made, I doubt not but « 
 this Claufe will bear a very fair and legal Interpretation, and that not in re- 
 fpeft of the Allegiance that might be due to the King de fad:o, but to the King 
 de jure \ fiuce if it were not for the Indemnity provided by this Statute, the 
 King de faElo would have been obliged to have punifhed them for oppofing their 
 lawful Prince. 
 
 A'f. This is eafily anfwcred, for pray do Kings de faUo always perform that 
 •which the Law requires? if fo, they never would have been Kings de faBo^ 
 fince they could not make themfelves Matters of the Sovereign Power without 
 difpoflerting thofe who are fuppofed the right Owners of it. Secondly, the 
 PonefTor would not fo much as feem obliged to punifh his Adherents upon a 
 competition, except he owned himfelf to be no more than an unjuft Ufurper : 
 but we have neither example nor reafon to expeft fuch lingular Conceflions as 
 thcfe j for no Ufurper will own himfelf in the wrong, fo long as he intends 
 to enjoy the Advantages of his Injuftice. Upon fuppofition therefore, that the 
 Viftory had fallen on the fide of a King de faBo, the Aft would be wholly 
 fupcrfluous. 
 
 F. But why may we not alfo fuppofe that this Claufe was inferted, not only 
 to fecure thofe who had alTifted the King de fuBo ag:inft your King de jure, 
 but alfo to debar all thofe who had fallen from their Allegiance to the King 
 de faBoj from receiving any Benefit by this Aft, if ever they fhould plead it 
 in their own Juftification, after the King de jure had prevailed, and was again 
 fettled' in the Throne? 
 
 M. You may take it in this fenfe if you pleafe, but if you do, it will not 
 at all mend the mattery for t ho thofe that ftood by the King de faBo will ibij. ^.5. 
 have great occafion for an Aft of Indemnity, yet this Aft will be as helplefs 
 to them now, as it was needlefs before •■, for either they muft fubmit to the 
 King de jure, or not : if they do not fubmit, it is eafy to imagine the Confe- 
 quences, how a viftorious and irrefiftible Prince will treat the obftinate and 
 rebellious Oppofers of his juft Titles if they do fubmit (as of necelFity 
 they muft) then they can claim no manner of Privilege and Indemnity from 
 this Aft: for they cannot come into the Party of the King de jure, without 
 deferting that de faQo •, ». e. without declining their Allegiance to him, who 
 was King when this Statute was made: by declining which Allegiance, the 
 Provifo exprefly excludes them from all manner of Benefit or Advantage by 
 
 Q.qqq this
 
 666 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITlCA. 
 
 this A<fl. In this condition the Law would have left the de ftffo Party, if the 
 Sovereignty had been difputed between Henry the Seventh and theHoufeof 
 rork, and that the Prince de jure of the Houfe of Tork had been fuccefsful: 
 From whence it is undeniably plain, that neither the Defign nor Words of this 
 Statute can be drawn to fuch a monltrous Conftruftion, as to enaft bare Poflef- 
 lion to be a good Title, and make Might and Right the fame thing. The 
 only Defign of this Parliament was to continue the Crown to Henry the Se- 
 venth during his life-time, which both by the Body and Provifo of the Aft was 
 as efieftually done as in them lay, for divers Reafons that might then prevail 
 with the two Houfes to confent to a temporary Alteration of the Succeffion to 
 the Crown : fuch as thefe, That tho Henry the Seventh had no jufl: Title in 
 his own Right, yet in the Right of his Wife he had, which he did no way 
 difavow by this Aft. And you mull alfo remember, that at this time Henry 
 the Seventh had feveral Children by his Queen, viz.. Prince Arthur^ Henry^ dic^ 
 So that now the contending Families of Tork and Lancafier being thus happily 
 united, there was no reafbn to fear, that a Security (tho an unufual one) to 
 the prefent Poflenbr, could be prejudicial to the right Line, efpecially fince the 
 Force of that Aft was confined to the Reign of that Prince, as has been al- 
 ready proved. 
 
 F. You may fancy if you pleafe, that you have proved this Aft to be ex- 
 pired, but I think if you better conlider of it, you will find your felf miftakenj 
 for tho I may very well fuppofe that the King and Parliament, to deter Men 
 from falling fiom their Allegiance to the King for the time being, might in- 
 fert thisClaufe, upon a fuppofition that the next King, whoever he was, whe- 
 ther by Right of Blood, or only de fa^o, would, out of a generous Averfion 
 to Traitors and Deferters, hinder them by virtue of this Claufe from enjoying 
 any Benefit by this Aft ; yet 1 fhall not longer infift upon't, whether it be in- 
 fignificant or not, and therefore will at prefent grant it to be fo : but what 
 then ? Will a void Claufe vitiate or render expired an Aft of Parliament which 
 is made indefinitely, without fixing it to any Time or Perfon ? The words in 
 the Aft are, the King for the time being •■, which muft certainly extend to any 
 other King, as well as Htnry the Seventh : for 1 fuppofe that an Aft of Parlia- 
 ment and a Deed agree in this, that an unneceflary Claufe can by no means 
 render the whole void. 
 
 But as for what you fay in relation to this Aft's being a Security for the 
 Title of the Queen and her Children (whom you fuppofe to be the right Heirs 
 of the Crown) this rather ferves to ftrengthen the Aft than otherwile j for if 
 this King had a good Title in her Right, then it may be alfo very well fuppofed 
 that (he gave her Aflent to this Aft in the Perfon of her Husband, and that 
 not for the benefit, but to the prejudice of her own Iflue : fince if after her 
 Death (which happened fome years before his) her Son Prince Henry of Wales 
 had fet up his prefent Title to the Crown in the Right of his Mother, and fo 
 would have dethroned his Father as an Ufurper, I fuppofe no reafonableMan 
 will deny but that this Aft would have indemnified all thofe who had taken up 
 Arms in defence of King Henry the Seventh againft bis Son, tho (in your fenfe) 
 Kmgde jure: and if it' would juftify the Subjefts then, 1 cannot fee why ic 
 may not do the fame thing now in their fwearing Allegiance, nay, fighting 
 for the King in pofleflion, againft hira whom we will tor the prefent fuppofe 
 to be King de jure. 
 
 M. Well, however I think I can prove that this Aft was no more than tem- 
 porary, from the Judgment of the Judges in the Cafe of John Duke of Northum- 
 A. II H. 7. berland\ who when he was tried for Treafon, for leading an Army againft 
 ^5<5• Queen Mary.^ to fettle the Lady Jane Gray in the Throne, defired to be in- 
 
 formed by the Judges, whether a Man afting by the Authority of the Great 
 Seal, and the Order of the Privy Council (or Prince's Council, as Sto-w and Hey- 
 tin word it) could become thereby guilty of Treafon : To which all the Judges 
 anfwered, that the Great Seal of one that was not lawful Queen, could give no 
 Authority or Indemnity to thofe that afted by fuch a Warrant ■■, upon which 
 the Duke fubmitted : tho without queftion he did not want Lawyers to enforce 
 his Plea with this Statute likewife, if his Caufe would have borne it. From 
 whence I infer againft Sir Edward Coke, That Treafon lies againft a King dc 
 jure, tho out of pofleflion ■■, for it is plain by all our Hiftorians, that Queen 
 
 Mary
 
 Dialogue the Thirteenth 66j 
 
 Mary was fo far from being pofTefled of the Crown when the Duke of Nor' 
 thumberUnd aded againft her, that the Lady Jane was not only proclaimed Queen 
 in London^ and molt of all the Cities and great Towns in England^ but the 
 Tower of London^ with all the Forts and Naval Forces, were under her Com- 
 mand i aad flic had alfo Allegiance fworn to her by the Privy Council, and by 
 the Lord Mayor and Aldermen : and flie had alfo the Seals in her power, by 
 w hich all Patents and CommilTions were granted and ifTucd in her Name. And 
 if all this be not fufTicient to conftitute her Q^ieen de fan:o^ according to this 
 Statute of Henry the Seventh, I know not what was. 
 
 F. Yet I can tell you what was yet wanting, which becaufe Ihe had not, fhe 
 was certainly neither Queen de jure^ nor de facto ^ and that was a folemn Co- 
 ronation and Recognition of her Right by Parliament ■■, which legal rnvcftiture 
 fince fhe never had, fhe was not the Qiieen for the time being, and confequcntly 
 not intended within this Statute of the i ith of Henry the Seventh : for tho it 
 is true, fhe was appointed SucccflTor of the Crown by the Letters Patent of 
 King £^rr^r^ the Sixth, yet iince flie could not claim by Right of Blood, there 
 being fo many before her, all the Kingdom looked upon it as an Ufurpation, 
 and an Artifice of the Duke of NorthumbcrLind (whofe 'Son Ihe had married) 
 to get the Government of the Kingdom into his fole power : fo that it was 
 no wondtr if the greater part of the People were fo averfe to her Title, and 
 that thofe of the Nobility who took her part, fo quickly revolted from her, 
 when once the fear they were in of the Duke of Northumberland^ Power was 
 removed •■, for had this Bequell of the Crown to the Lady Jane held good, 
 this Kingdom, inftead of being Hereditary, would have become wholly Tef- 
 tamentary, and difpofable by the laft Will or Letters Patent of the King or 
 Queen for the time being, without the Confeiit of the Great Council of the 
 Nation : which is contrary not only to the then received Laws of Succefllon, 
 but alfo to the anticnt Coaftitution of the Kingdom, as well before as after 
 the Conquelt. 
 
 But notwithflanding all this, I doubt not if the Lady Jane had fo far 
 prevailed againft Queen Mary^ as to have been able to call a Parliament, 
 and to have had her Title owned and recognized therein, as it was in the Cafe 
 of Richard the Third and Henry the Seventh, but that fhe would have been 
 true and lawful Queen, according to the Intent of the Statute we are now dif- 
 courfing of-, and then the Duke of Northumberland muft likewife (if he had fair 
 play) have been indemnified for taking up Arms in her Defence againft Queen 
 Mary^ fince Queea Jane would have been then within the Letter of this Sta- 
 tute, as much as King Henry the Seventh. 
 
 M. You muft pardon mc if I cannot be of your Opinion in this matter, 
 fince if the bare Coronation and Recognition by Parliament could confer a le- 
 gal Right to the Crown upon one who had no Hereditary Right to it before, 
 the Confequence of it would be, that the Crown would be fo far from being 
 Eledtive (as you fuppofe it to have antiently been) that it would be in the 
 power of every bold Ufurper or Rebel, who had but the Confidence to call 
 himfelf King, to gain a legal Title to be fo, according to your Principles : and 
 then if Oliver Cromwel could have found a Party ftrong enough in the Army to 
 have declared him King, and had called a Parliament in his own Name, who had 
 recognized him for their lawful Sovereign, he would then have had as much 
 Right to our Allegiance as King Charles the Second ; which certainly was not 
 only contrary to the Settleixient of the Crown upon King //^^r)! the Seventh, 
 and the Heirs of his Body, but alfo to that folemn Recognition of Kxng James 
 the Firft's Title, as lineally dcfcehded as right Heir to the faid King Henry^ 
 which I infifted on at our laft Meeting. 
 
 And therefore if you will have my fenfe of this Aft, it is either expired (for 
 the Reafons I have already given) or elfc was void ab initio \ fince it is not only 
 contrary to the fettled Courfe of Succeffion of the Crown according to the Laws 
 of lineal Defcent for divers hundred years paft, but alfo to thofe of Juftice 
 and right Reafon, for an Ufurper not only to f<;ize the Throne by force, but 
 if he can once get himfelf folcmnly crowned, and then recognized by an Aft 
 of Parliament of his own calling (which you your felf cannot deny but to have 
 been ever too obfcquious to the Will and Power of Ufurpers, as appears by 
 thofe Inltances you have given me in Henry the Fourth, Henry the Sixth, and 
 
 Qq q q 2 Richard
 
 668 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 RkhardWl.) the Confequence will then be, that the whole Nation would not 
 be only bound to fwear Allegiance to him, but would be alfo oblig'd by this 
 A^ to defend him in his Tyranny and Ufurpation to the utmoft of their Power, 
 and it would alfo indemnify them for fo doing ; which would be to eftablilh 
 Iniquity by a Law, and would deftroy all the fettled Foundations of Right and 
 Wrong, which I affirm God hirafelf is not able to alter, without departing from 
 thofe great Attributes of Immutability and Juftice, fo efTential to his Divine 
 Nature. 
 
 F. It will not be very difficult to reply to thefe Arguments, fince they are 
 grounded on fuch falfe Principles as are already anfwer'd. As firft, that this 
 Kingdom is by the fundamental Conftitution cf it an Hereditary Monarchy, 
 and that confequently none but he who has a Right by Inheritance can require 
 our Allegiance. But pray tell me where yon can find this fundamental Con- 
 ftitution ? For I think I have fufficiently prov'd that there never was any fuch 
 thing known in England, till between four and five hundred Years fince, whea 
 King Edvoardl. fucceeded to his Father Hcmc^ HI. without any Bequeft of the 
 Crown by his Teflament, and before any Eleftion or Coronation, he being then 
 c. A. p. 57. in the Holy-Land. But fuppofe it now to be an Hereditary Monarchy, it 
 doth not therefore follow, that the Monarchy fhould continue always in fuch a 
 Family, for that may fail, or may bechang'd by Conquefb or Ufurpation, as 
 has often been, and the Conftitution continue. So that the moft that can be 
 faid, is, that when any particular Family, by the Providence of God, and the 
 Confent and Submifllon of the People, is plac'd in the Throne, of Right the 
 Crown ought to defcend to the Heir of that Family: but fuppofe it does not, 
 mult we pay Allegiance to no other Perfon, tho pofrefied of the Throne ? Pray, 
 Sir, fliew me that fundamental Conftitution; for its being an Hereditary Mo- 
 narchy does not prove it, and according to the Judgment of the beft Lawyers, 
 the Laws of the Land require the contrary, wz.. that we muft pay our Al- 
 legiance to him who is adually King, not to him who ought to have been King, 
 but is not : and to think to confute this, by pretending this fundamental Con- 
 ftitution of an Hereditary Monarchy, is to take that for granted, which is 
 ftill to be prov'd. 
 
 And therefore I am not at all frighted at the dreadful Confequences which 
 you fuppofe muft follow if this Statute of Henry VII. (hould be Law, viz.. 
 that it would be in the power of every Rebel and Ufurper who could get him- 
 felf crown'd, and thenown'd to be King by a Parliament of his own calling, 
 to have a legal Right to our Allegiance •, and that Cromwell, if he could have 
 got himfelf once crown'd, and recogniz'd, might have been defended in his 
 unjuft Ufurpation againft King Charles II. But admit this to have been fo \ yet 
 it is ftill to be underftcod, that at this Coronation he had taken the Oath 
 antiently taken by our Kings, and that the Parliament he had fummon'd to re- 
 cognize his Title, had confifted of the antient Lords and Commons, confifting 
 of Knights, Citizens and Burgefies, which never wasobferv'd in any of thofe 
 Mock-Parliaments which CrommU call'd : Had all thefe Conditions been obferv'd, 
 1 believe he would have been as legal a King within this Statute oi Henry VII. 
 as he himfelf ever was before he married with the Princefs Elizabeth, which 
 was net till near half a Year after he had the Crown fettled upon hira by Aft 
 of Parliament. So that tho upon every Tranllation of the Crown from one 
 Family to another, the firft Prince of that Family could have no Hereditary 
 Right to it, yet we find fuch Princes to this day taken for lawful Kings. Thus 
 your W^;///flw the Conqueror, King Henry \V. and K'\r\g Henry VU. are each of 
 them look'd upon as true and lawful Kings (according to our Conftitution) as 
 if they had been right Heirs of the Crown by lineal Dcfcent ■, and tho )\jO may 
 fay, that as to William 1. he had a good right by Conqueft, that is only gratis 
 diElum, fince I have already prov'd that he could be really no Conqueror. And 
 if the Englijh Saxon Monarchy was Hereditary before the Conqueft (as the Gen- 
 tlemen of your opinion fuppofe) he could be no other than a Ufurper upon 
 Edgar Albeling, the right Heir ot the Crown by Blood. And 3% io\ Hnry W , 
 and Henry VU, tho they both pretended a feign'd Title to the Crown as Heirs 
 by Blood, yet it is plain by the very Afls of Recognition I have cited, that they 
 durft not intift upon that Title; fince I have already prov'd there is no fuch 
 thing mention'd in that A€c of Parliament, wherein the Eftates of the Kingdom 
 
 unanimoufly
 
 Dialogue the Thirteenth, 669 
 
 unanimoufly agreed that Henry Duke of Lamafler fliould reign over them ; nor 
 yet in the fubfequent Act, whereby the Crown was inciil'd upon himfelf, and 
 his four Sons fuccedively. So like wife in the Statute of the firft of //cnr/ VII. it is 
 only drawn in general Terms \ " declaring that the Inheritance of the Crown 
 " o{ England, &c. fliall reft, remain, and abide in the Perfon of King Henry 
 *' VII. and the Heirs of his Body lawfully coming, <^c." Nor is there indeed 
 any Breach made upon this Statute (as you fuppofe) nor yet upon the Aft of 
 Recognition of King Jawjcj, which you fo much infiftupon-, fince the Crown 
 is certainly fettled upon two Princes, who are not only lineally defcended 
 from them, but who arealfo to be look'd upon as right Heirs unto them, fince 
 the Great Council of the Nation, who are thefupreme Judges, have declar'd 
 theai to be fo. 
 
 But as for the reft of your Speech, whereby you would prove that this Ad 
 niuft needs be void, becaufe contrary to the Laws of Juftice and right Reafon ; 
 this alfo depends upon your former Error, in fuppofing that Princes have a 
 Divine or Natural Right to their Crowns antecedent to the municipal Laws of 
 their lefpcftive Kingdoms, which is already fufficiently confuted. So that the 
 I grant it is not in the power of God himfelf to alter the natural Foundations 
 of Right and Wrong, Juft and Unjufl: -, yet it is likewife as certain that the 
 Civil Rights of Princes, as well as thofe of Subjedts, can no ways be accounted 
 for according to thofe Natural Laws \ fince all Civil Property, as well in Crowns 
 as other Pofleffions, muft depend upon the particular Laws and Conftitutions of 
 each Kingdom and Nation, as I have already fufficiently made out. 
 
 And therefore tho I grant that all legal Authority ought ftill to go according £. t.R. p, 
 to juft or rightful Titles, yet fince God makes no Kings at this day, but thofe 25, 25. 
 who are made Kings by fome human Ads, and have a legal Right to Kingfhip by 
 fome human Laws \ how can you prove from hence, that in England none 
 can have a legal Right to govern, but thofe who have the rightful Title of a lineal 
 SuccelTion ? For if the Title alone does not confer the Authority, but that the 
 Law fays a legal Inveftiture by Coronation and Recognition by Parliament (hall 
 alfo confer it, it is evident that an Hereditary Title, and a Legal Authority, 
 may be feparated, and yet the Authority continue Legal ftill : for Legal Au- 
 thority muft be convey'd in fuch manner, and by fuch forms as the Law has 
 prefcrib'd, or appoints to that purpofe, for there is no other way of convey- 
 ing it \ and then that Authority which is fo given in form of Law (and that 
 only) is the legal Authority. If then the Eftates of the Realm, who are the 
 only proper Judges of fuch Difputes, have adjudg'd the Crown to one, whom 
 we will at prefent fuppofe to have no antecedent legal Title to it, yet he there- 
 by becomes legally poirelTed, not only of the external Force and Power, but 
 of the legal Authority of the Government alfo; and therefore he may challenge 
 as his due, ail legal Obedience, (which is the true notion of Allegiance, for no- 
 thing more than legal Obedience can be due to a mere legal Authority :) fo that 
 becaufe he is invefted with the legal Authority, the Crown is his legal Pro- 
 perty, againft all other Claims, and his Subjefts muft defend him in it ; as the 
 legal Properties of private Perfons being oncedetermin'd by Judgments of infe- 
 rior Courts of Law, are alfo to be defended by the Civil Power againft the 
 force of him who perhaps may have the better Title to the Eftate by Right 
 of Blood. And if God makes Kings by human Afts, I hope it is no injuftice ia 
 God to make him a King, whom the Law makes a King, and to enjoin our Obe- 
 dience to a legal King •, which legal Authority may be faid to be annex'd to the 
 legal Title, while there is no legal Judgment againft it : which was not the 
 Cafe of Queen Mary^ and the Lady 'Jane her Competitor :, nor yet of King 
 Charles 11. and Oliver Cromxvcli : fince neither the one or the other were ever 
 crown'd or acknowledg'd as lawful Queen, or King by Parliament, and there- 
 fore could obtain no legal litle againft the right Heirs. But on the other fide, 
 when one is folemnly declar'd King or Qiicen, being crown'd or plac'd on 
 the Throne by the Eftates of the Realm, he is then legal King, and has the legal 
 Authority, as the Royal Eftate and Dignity was own'd to be in Henry VI. 
 when the Dukcof Tork claim'd the Rigiit to the Crown. 
 
 M. 1 am not yetconvinc'd I am miftaken in this matter ■, for waving at prefent 
 any natural or divine Rights of Princes, I think this Aft of Henry VII. (if fup- 
 pos'd to be now in force) is no ways to be rcconcil'd with the former declar'd 
 
 Laws
 
 670 BiBLioTHECA Politic A. 
 
 Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom ■■, much lefs can this lafl pretended Aft of 
 Recognition of King William and Qpeen Mary reverfe the Statute of Recogni- 
 tion made to King James 1. whereby the Parliament does not only own him for 
 true and lawful King by defcent from Henry Mil. and Edward IV. but alfo en- 
 gage themfelves and their Pofterities to his Majefty, and his Royal Progeny for 
 ever. And they do likewife conclude in thefe words, (I have not yet mention'd) 
 " Which Aft, if your Majefty fhall be pleafed (as an Argument of your gra- 
 " cious Acceptation) to adorn with your Majefty's Royal AfTent (without 
 " which it can neither be compleat and perfeft, nor remain to all Pofterity, 
 *' according to our moft humble defires, as a Memorial of your princely and 
 " tender AfFeQion towards us) we (hall add this alfotothereft of yourMa- 
 *' jefty's unfpeakable and ineftimable Benefits". Here they plainly acknowledge 
 thefe two things. Firft, That the Crown defcends by Proximity of Blood, 
 and that immediately, even before any Ceremony of Coronation, or otherwife ; 
 To that there can be no Interregyium-, or Vacancy of the Throne j and accord- 
 ingly it is a maxim in Law, that Rexnon moritw. Secondly, That the AfTent 
 of the King is that which gives the Life, Being, and Vigour to the Laws, 
 without which they are of no force : therefore 1 Ihall plainly prove thefe ASts 
 to the contrary to be void. It is a Maxim in our Civil as well as your Common 
 Law, that every Senatus-Cotijultum^ or Decree of the Senate, as alfo every Sta- 
 tute or Aft of Parliament, muft be abrogated and repeal'd by the fame Autho- 
 rity by which it was made. Since therefore that Aft of the firft of Edward IV. 
 whereby he wasdeclar'd to be lawful King, as defcended from L/owe/ Duke of 
 Clarence^ third Son of Edward III. by Philippa his Daughter and Heir, and 
 that Henry IV . and HemyVl. who had fucceflively held the Crown, were Ufur- 
 pcrs, and only pretended Kings •, it wonld necefiarily follow, that none can 
 after this fo folemn Law and Declaration, lawfully fucceed to the Crown of 
 this Realm, but fuch as have a true and jufb Right as Heirs by Blood, according 
 to the courfe of defcent allow'd of by the common Laws of this Kingdom : 
 and therefore Henry VII. being an llfurper, and enjoying no more than a 
 Matrimonial Crown, could not join with a Parliament in making any Law 
 contrary to that of the firft of Edward IV. which had been fo folemnly paft-,' 
 and fettled in Parliament by a King whofe Title was by defcent indiQiu- 
 
 table. 
 
 So likewife in the matter now in difpute between us, I can never apprehend 
 how a pretended Statute made in a Convention, and not in a lawful Parlia- 
 ment fummon'd by the King, can firft declare the Throne vacant, and then 
 appoint thofe to fill it, who certainly can have no juft Title to it, according to 
 that Aft of Recognition of King James; " which exprefly declares, that they 
 " themfelves could not have made that Aft to be compleat and perfeft to remain 
 " to all Pofterity, withorut bis Royal AfTent." Which being once paft into a 
 Lav/, by a King whofe Title was indifputablc, can never afterwards be alter'd 
 (if ever it can be at all) but by a Parliament as legally call'd, and that by a King 
 whofe Title is alfo as legal as that of King James I. This Objeftion, tho I have 
 often urg'd in other words, yet could 1 never yet obtain a fatisfaftory anfwer 
 from you. 
 
 F. Tho I have already in part anfwer'd this Objeftion at our laft Meeting, 
 and have aifo partly done it already in this 5 yet fince 1 fee you fo much infift 
 upon it, and do alfo urge it again in other word?, with a frefh addition of new 
 Arguments •, I hope you will not think me tedious, if I am alfo necelTitated to 
 repeat the fame things again, and put you in mind of what I have already 
 prov'd: which when 1 have done, I doubt not but this Argument of yours will 
 fignify very little. Your firft miftake therefore is, that Henry VII. being an 
 llfurper, had no power to alter the courfe of Hereditary SuccelTion, fettled by 
 the Statute of the firft of Edward W. whereby he was dedar'd lawful King: 
 in anfwer to which, I muft put you in mind, that this was the firft time that 
 ever this Point was fo fettled, and that not till after a long War, and 
 by fubduing all thofe that held with the Houfe of Lancajler^ he had made 
 fuch a perfeft Conqueft of all that oppos'd him, that there were no Lords or 
 Commons in this Parliament, but what were intirely of his Party. Yet we fee 
 that when Henry VI. got the upper hand again, his Party revers'd this Sta- 
 tute of Edward IV. and declar'd the Crown to belong to HemyVl. and his Heirs j 
 
 which
 
 Dialogue the Thirteenth, 6ji 
 
 which Aft T\'3S levcrfcd again by the next Parliament, in the nth oi Ed- 
 ward IV. when he again recovered the Crown by another Battel againft ^r«r^ 
 VI. So evident it is, that whoever is or.ce feated in the Throne, and is recog- 
 nized by Aft of Parliament, tho of his own fummoning, all his Afts till they 
 are repealed do held gocd, tho he were declared an Ufurpcr, and himfelf at- 
 tainted by Aft of Parliament. And therefore admitting that Henry VII. was an 
 Ufurper at the time when this Aft we now difcourfe of was made, yet would 
 it not render this Aft void as you fuppofe, iince it was never yet repealed by 
 any fubfequent Statute. 
 
 But indeed //f»r_y VII. was no Ufurper at the time when this Statute was 
 made j for you your fclf have already granted, that he had a good Title in 
 right of his Wife, which he never rcnour.ced or difavowed : and therefore we 
 may very well fuppofe that Ihe, tho Queen de jvre, gave her tacit Confent to 
 this Aft in the Perfon of her Husband ■■, and if fo, I cannot fee any reafon why 
 it fhould not Hand good, not only againlt her felf, and her own Children, 
 but alfo againft all others who fhould claim under her Title. But if you fay 
 Ihe could not do this in prejudice of her own right Heirs, becaufe the Crown 
 had been already declared by Aft of Parliament to be hereditary, and not to 
 be acquired by IJfurpation ■■, this is to beg theQueftion, and to fuppofe an he- 
 reditary Defcent to have been the fundamental Law, and conftant Praftice of 
 the Succefilon of the Crown before that time: whereas I have already proved, 
 that till the Reign of Edrvardl. the Crown was partly hereditary, and partly 
 eleftive ; and ever fince that time, tho it has been flill claimed as hereditary, 
 yet has it been always believed to be the Right of the Parliament to declare 
 who was lawful Kiugi and that whofoever was fo declared and recognized, 
 has been always looked upon, in the eye of the Law, as the only rightfiil and 
 legal King, to whom the Allegiance of the Subjefts was due, and whofe Sta- 
 tutes are obligatory at this day. 
 
 This being fo (as it cannot be denied) your Argument from the Aft of Re- 
 cognition to King James I. may be eafily anfwered ; tho I fhould grant at pre- 
 fcnt (for Difcourfc-fake) that their now Majefties King William and Queen 
 Mary are only King and Queen de faSio: for if all the Statutes of thefe three 
 Kings of the Houfeof Lancafier^ and of RlchardlU. (nay even thofe Statutes 
 by which themfelves were declared to be lawful Kings, and the Crown fettled 
 upon them and their IfTue) have at all times held good, till they were lawfully 
 repealed j I dcfue you would fliew me any fufJicient reafon why the late Aft 
 of Recognition of their prefent Majefties Title, and for the Settlement of the 
 Crown upon their right Heirs of the Proteftant Religion, fhould not have 
 the like force and effeft in refpeft of our Allegiance to them, as it had to all 
 other Kings de faclo who have hitherto fat upon the Throne, tho perhaps it 
 may derogate from the intent of that Statute of Recognition of King Jamesl. 
 nor does it make any Difference, tho we fuppofe that this Aft was made by a 
 King by Defcenr, and that we now difcourfe only of a King andQjieen de 
 faElo^ and a Parliament called or owned by them^ fince the Law allows no 
 Difference, as to their Legiflative Power, between Afts made by a Kingde fac- 
 to, and one de jure. 
 
 And therefore tho I grant, (i.) That thofe Conclufions you draw from this 
 Statute are true, that there is no Interregnum or Vacancy of the Throne ^^ and, 
 (2.) That the Aflent of the King is that which gives the Life, Being, and Vi- 
 gour to the Laws : yet as for your firft Conclufion, that there can be no Va- 
 cancy of the Throne, it is only to be underftood, that ordinarily, and accord- 
 ing to the common Courfe of Succeffion, there can be none , and yet extraordi- 
 narily there may, as you your felf mult grant: fince upon the Death of Queen 
 Elizabeth there might have happened a Contefl between King James and the 
 then Earl of Hertford, as Heir to Mary the French Queen, fecond Sifter to King 
 HenryVUl. upon whofe Heirs the Crown was fettled by //rwry VIH'sWill, asi 
 have already mentioned at our laft Meeting. And if it had been a Doubt whe- 
 ther this Will had been rightly made or not, it could have been no otherwife de- 
 cided but by VA'ar, or clfc thefolcmn Judgment and Recognition of Parliament 
 of that Title they had judged to be beft ; and he who had been fo declared, 
 would certainly have been lawful King, and all the Nation had been obliged to 
 fwear Allegiance to him. Apply this to the prefent Cafe, admitting King 
 
 James
 
 672 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 Jiitres to have truly abdicated the Throne, and fee whether it be not exadtly 
 the fame, fuppofing (for once) your Prince of Wales to have been indeed the 
 Son of the late King and Queen \ and tho it is true he is not yet declared an 
 Impoftor, yet is he neither acknowledged as their right Heir, for the Reafons 
 1 have already given. 
 
 But as for your next Condufion, that it is the Aflent of the lawful Kin^ 
 that gives Force and Vigour to a Law •, from whence you would infer, that the 
 late Aft of Recognition and Settlement is void, becaufe not made by thofe 
 ■who were lawful King and Qiieen at the time of the making this Aft: this is 
 alfo to beg the Quellion. For tho it is true the Aft of Recognition to King 
 James declares this Aft could not be compleat without his Majefty's Royal 
 Aflent, yet it is not there faid, that no other King but he who claims by De- 
 fcent (as King Jama did) could pafs an Aft that fliould be good in Law, 
 fince we find by the whole Courfe both of Law and Hiftory, that the Statutes 
 made by Kings de f^tio are as truly and as much Laws as thofe made by your 
 Kings de jure j and Attainders for Trcafon committed againft them, have been 
 fo far from being declared void, that they could not be reverfed by any other 
 means than by particular Afts of Parliament made for that purpofe, as I have 
 already (hewn you from divers Inflances, both from Hiftory and Records. Nor 
 is your Exception againft the prefent Parliament's not being called by the King's 
 Writ of any force : fince I have already proved at our laft Meeting, from the 
 Example of the Great Council that atrembled to recognize and ordain Edward, 
 the Fiirt to be King when he was in the Holy Land ^ as alfo by the Parlia- 
 ments of Edward and Richard the Second, by which they were depofed, and 
 Edward the Third and Henry the Fourth declared to be their Succeflbrs •, That 
 thofe Parliaments could not be fummoned by thofe Princes whom they fo re- 
 cognized : and therefore tho they were called by the Writs of the former 
 Kings, yet their Authority determined as the Parliament of that King that 
 called them, upon his ceafing to be King^ and therefore muft owe their 
 fitting longer wholly to the Authority of him they had already declared King, 
 whofe Prefence and Authority was then looked upon as fufficient to give them 
 power to fit and make Laws with the fucceeding King, tho they were never 
 fummoned by him. 
 
 To thefe Parliaments 1 may add that of the firft of KingCharles the Second, 
 which called home the King, and after his Return made feveral Statutes both 
 publick and private, which ftand good to this day : fo that to conclude, you have 
 no reafon either from Law or Hiftory to maintain that there can be no Vacancy 
 of the Throne, or that none can be declared King or Queen, but in a Parliament 
 fummoned by the Writs of that Prince, whofe Title they are to recognize. 
 
 M. 1 (hall not deny the Matters of Faft to have been as you lay them, as to 
 the Great Councils or Parliaments you mention •, but in anfwer to this you 
 may remember, that as for thofe Parliaments called in x.hs 'Hzmt oi Edward 
 or Richard the Second, there is no Precedent to be drawn from them, becaufe 
 they ierved only to depofe their lawful Kings, and to fet up thofe who had no 
 Right, at leaft: as long as they lived : and you very well' know, that any coer- 
 cive Power in the two Houfes of Parliament over the King, is exprefly re- 
 nounced and declared againft: in the Parliament of the thirteenth of K.Charles 
 the Second, as 1 have already fhewn you. But as for the Convention which was 
 called in the firft Year of that King, I have alfo given you my Judgment of it, 
 that tho they might lawfully meet to vote the Return of their lawful Sove- 
 reign, and to recognize his Title, yet were they not for all that a lawful Par- 
 liament, as to the raifingof Moneys, or making of Laws •, and therefore what- 
 ever they did to both thefe, was fain to be confirmed by the Parliament of the 
 Thirteenth I now mentioned. 
 
 But indeed I cannot but admire at this mungrel hodge-podge Courfe of Suc- 
 ceflion, which you now fuppofe to take place in England \ for you cannot deny 
 but the Crown is Hereditary, and has been always claimed as fuch for near 
 500 Years : and yet for all that, whenever an Ufurper and a Parliament (hall 
 agree together, he to take the Crown by force, and they to recognize his Title 
 as foon as he pleafes to call them, he muft then be looked upon as a lawful 
 Kingi and the juft: and rightful Title of the true King, or lawful Heir of the 
 Crown, (hall be fo far deftroycd, as that Allegiance muft: be due to this Ufur- 
 per,
 
 Dialogue the Thirteenth. 6j':^ 
 
 per, tho perhaps he obtained the Crown by the moft horrid Villanies in the 
 Woild : as the dcpofing and murdering of his lawful Sovereign, 3% Henry the 
 Fourth did, and which would alfo have been the Cafe of Oliver Crommel, had 
 he ever taken upon him the Title of King. So that this is to fet on foot at once 
 two contrary legal Rights ■■, a legal Right and Title to the Crown by Defcent 
 of Blood, without a Right to exercife the Authority belonging to a King, 
 and a legal Right to wear the Crown, and exercife the Authority belonging 
 to it, without any antecedent legal Right to the Crown it felf: which would 
 indeed render the legal Authority in England to be like the Right that Men have 
 to thofe Creatures that are fera natura^ which belong to him who can get them 
 into his power; for as to the Confent or Recognition of Parliament, I look 
 upon that as a mere bauble, fince your felf cannot fhew me anyUfurpcr lince 
 the Conqueft, tho ever fo wicked and notorious, who ever failed to have his 
 Title fo recognized and confirmed by Parliament, as you your felf cannot deny •■, 
 which methinks is a high Derogation from the Dignity of a true Hereditary 
 P4onarchy, fuch as ours is, or as Icaft ought to be. 
 
 F. I fliall reply but this once upon this Head, fince I fee there can be nothing 
 new faid upon it -, and therefore you your felf are forc'd to repeat what you 
 have already urged at our laft Meeting, only you ftrive to fupport it by frefh 
 Authorities: therefore as to the Parliaments which depofed Kw^ Edward and 
 Richard the Second, I cannot blame you for denying them to be lawful Prece- 
 dents, becaufe they make diredly againft your Opinion \ but you fay nothing 
 to that of the firlt Great Council or Parliament of Edward the Firft, which 
 not only ordained he (hould be King, but alfo appointed all the Great Officers 
 of the Kingdom which were to govern it in his abfence. But you may deny 
 the Authority of thofe Parliaments of the firft of Edward the Third, and firft 
 of Henry the Fourth, as much as you pleafe in a Chamber : but if you (hould 
 do the like ai iVeftminfler-HMl againft any Aft of Parliament, becaufe made whilft 
 Edward or Richard the Second were living, you would foon be over-ruled, and 
 told that thofe Laws ftill continued in force and unrepealed, and it did not 
 belong to private Men to queftion thofe A£ts that have been hitherto received 
 for Law. 
 
 But as for what you have f.iid againft the Authority of the Afts of that Par- 
 liament that brought in the King, I have already proved that they were only 
 confirmed ex ahundanti cautela j and that they had been good without it, ap- 
 pears by this, that all their private Afts, tho never confirmed in the following 
 Parliament, are ftill in force. But if the folemn Recognition of a King's 1 i- 
 tle by Parliament be fuch a bauble, and fo eafily obtained (as you fuppofe) I 
 may fay the fame of that Act which recognized King James the Firft'sTitlc, 
 that it was done merely out of Flattery upon his Accefllon to the Crown : 
 nor can you reply that they might do this, becaufe he was the only right Heir; 
 this is to beg the Qiieftion, fince if he had not been fo, it would have been all 
 one, as you your felf confefs. 
 
 As for the reft of your Arguments, which you draw from the different means 
 which our Law allows for Princes fuccceding to the Crown, which you call a 
 mungrel hodge-podge Courfe of Succefllon, and that it derogates from the Dig- 
 nity of a true Hereditary Monarchy ; I (hall only fay, that if our Law has 
 now eftablifhed it fo, no private Man ought to judge otherwife ; for nemo debet 
 ejfe fapient'ior legibtu, is a Maxiin as old as true. But indeed tho our Laws 
 do eftablilh a legal Right in the prefcnt Poffclfor of the Crown, when once 
 crowned, and recognized by Parliament, fince they will not allow the Parlia- 
 ment to judge of, or examine the King's Title, or by what means he attain'd. 
 the 1 hrone; yet this does not alter the ordinary Hereditary Courfe of Succcf- 
 fion, for the Law ftill looks upon the Crown as Hereditary, and the Change 
 of the Perfon or Royal Family does not make the Crown ceafe to be fo. And 
 therefore whoever has PolRffion of the Crown, has an Hereditary Crown, and 
 as fuch, may leave it to his Heirs as long as they can keep it \ as is plain from 
 the Example of the three Henrys who fucceeded each other, and who had not 
 only Allegiance fworn to them, but they who afted contrary thereunto, were 
 judged and executed as Traitors : fo that the Law did all it could to main- 
 tain the Crown in the right Line of Succcfilon. And if any Kings have gained 
 it by Ufurpation, tho the Parliament have owned the Authority of fuch an 
 
 R r r r Ufurper,
 
 674 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 Ufurper, yet have they not thereby approved the Aftion : and you your felf 
 mull acknowledge a great difierence between thefe two, Irnce you have more 
 than once acknowledged that an Ufurper, or King in PolTenion, has a good 
 Title to a Crown, in cafe all the right Heirs are extind, or by their not claim- 
 ing it for any long time, are fuppofed to have made a tacit CefTion pf their 
 Right i fince it is not fo much to the Perfon, as to the Authority (which we 
 grant to be from God) that we pay our Obedience. 
 
 But let us alfo for once fuppofe that there may be a legal Title to a Crown 
 without a Right to exercife the Authority belonging to it, and a legal Right 
 to wear the Crown, and exercife the Authority belonging to it, without an 
 antecedent legal Right to the Crown it felf-, this is no fuch Abfurdity as you 
 E.L.R. />. 18. fuppofe, if you pleafe to confider that allowed Diftinftion between jpu adrem^ 
 and JHi in rf, with the reafon of it : for 'tis an approved Diftinftion in Law, 
 that one may have a Right to a thing, and another a Right in it-, the one is 
 a Right of a legal Claim, the other of a legal PolTelTion : And that this may 
 and muft be in all Civil Governments, and mere legal Rights, appears from the 
 different Laws and Cuftoras on which fuch different Rights are founded. This I 
 have hinted before, but muft now explain it more particularly; in all Civil 
 Societies there muft be particular Laws to determine perlonal and particular 
 Rights, and whatever is due to any Man by fuch Laws, is his legal Right : 
 But yet we know thefe Laws can determine no Controverfy without a living 
 Judge; for if every Man were to judge for himfelf, every Man will make the 
 Law to be on his fide, and then we had as good have no Laws at all. And 
 therefore the fundamental Law of all Societies, which is fuperior to all par- 
 ticular Laws, is this, That the laft and final Judgment of Authority ftiall be 
 taken for Law, and that fliall be every Man's Right as to all the Effects of 
 Law, which is thus adjudged him. Whoever calmly confiders thefe things, 
 will find that it is impoffible it (hould be ctherwife, without overturning all 
 Civil Governments : And this I have proved to you from the Example of a 
 right Owner of an Eftate, when outed of his Poflelfioa by a Verdift of a Jury 
 and an unjuft Judgment in one of the King's Courts, that no Man ought to 
 rcftore him by Force to his PoirefTion, till he has again reverfed that unjult 
 Judgment given againft him. 
 
 M. Tho I grant this is true in the Cafe of private Perfons and their Inheri- 
 tances, yet is it not fo as to Princes, who hold their Crowns by a Title fupe- 
 rior to the ordinary Municipal Laws, and therefore are not only Kings by 
 Law, but by Divine Right, and the fundamental Conftitution of the Govern- 
 ment, and to cannot have their Title adjudged by Parliament, as you fuppofe: 
 for our beft Divines have unaaimoully concluded out of Scripture, that all law- 
 ful Kings and their Royal Power is from God by Divine Right, and is not from 
 the People, no not in Eledive Kingdoms (fiich as Poland for example ;) for 
 €ven there the conferring of the Royal Authority is from God, and not from 
 any Law made by the People, and neither they nor their Reprefentatives have 
 any thing to do to judge of it : for 1 would gladly know who made that Law 
 which made the King •, certainly the King did not make it, for that Law which 
 made the King muft of necefhty precede and be before the King, who had his 
 Royal Power and Kingly Office from that Law. 
 
 F. I fee you are very hard put to it, fince you are again forced to fly back 
 to your old Covert of a Divine Right in Kings, which is not to be derived 
 from any Law made by the Confent of the People \ and if this be true, 1 defire 
 you would Ihow me how Kings can at this day owe their Crowns immediately 
 to God, and not to the Law, fince God does no longer confer Kingdoms by 
 any exprefs Defignation of the Perfon, but by the ordinary Courfe of bis Pro- 
 vidence : and then pray tell me why all Princes whatfoever, when they are 
 once feated in the Throne, let them come by it which way they will, muft not 
 derive their Power alike from God ; and confequently Kings, by an unjuft 
 Conqueft or Ufurpation, are as much from God as thofe who afcend the 
 Throne by the Confent or Eledtion of the People. For if the Peoples Confent 
 do no more than defign the Perfon, but that it is God alone who gives him 
 his Authority, then which way foever he obtains this Power of the Sword, 
 which is the only Sign of God's conferring this Authority, it will be alfo 
 the Ordinance of God ; and confequently their prefent Majefties being once 
 
 feated
 
 'Dialogue the Thirteenth. 675 
 
 feated on the Throne, are upon thefe Principles as much to be obcy'd as 
 the Ordinance of God, as King James-, or any other Hereditary Monarch 
 whatever. 
 
 But if you do not like this Doftrine, and tell me of a legal fucceflive Right 
 which King James and his right Heirs have to the Crown, according to the 
 fundamental Conftitution of the Nation ^ this is plainly to own the King to 
 be fo by the Law of the Land, tho in words you deny it : for every Hereditary 
 Right is either a continued Ufurpation by Force, which can give no Right at 
 all \ or a Right by Law, which is by the Confent of the People to entail the 
 Crown on fuch a Family : which certainly is to make a King by Law, that is, 
 by the Confent of the People. But if you will fuppofe that it was the Autho- 
 rity of the firft King alone who thus entail'd the Crown upon himfelf and his 
 right Heirs, I defire you would Ihow me how the Crown could be fo cntail'd 
 without the Confent of the People, fo as that his Succedbr may not alter it, 
 and give it by his laft Will and Teftament to which of his Sons or Daughters 
 he pleafes •, fince Sir Robert Filmer himfelf acknowledges, that a Teftamentary 
 Heir to a Crown in an abfolute Monarchy, is as much by Divine Right as if 
 he had come in by SuccelTion ■^ as appears by the Inftances he gives in Seth, who 
 could have no Right to fucceed his Father j4dam in the Government of Man- 
 kind, while Clin his elder Brother was alive, by the Will of yidam his Fa- 
 ther. The like I may fay of Solomon, who by his Father's crowning him King 
 in his life-time, and thereby making him his Succeflbr, gave him a Right to 
 rule over Adonijah his elder Brother. So that I may very well ask you, if the 
 prefent Law of the Land did not proceed from the free Confent of the People 
 teftified by long Cuftom, or exprefs Declaration of the People by their Repre- 
 fentatives in Parliament ^ I defire to know why the King of £«^/4«^ cannot as 
 well fettle the Crown by his laft Will upon which of the Blood-Royal he plea- 
 fes, as that it fhould be lawful for the EngUjli-Saxon Kings to cxercife this Pre- 
 rogative, as Dr. Brady fuppofes they did before the Conqueft, without the Con- 
 fent of the Great Council of the Nation ? So that 1 think I may much better 
 ask you what that Law was, and who made it, which you fuppofe to make 
 Kings prior to, and independent from the Confent of the People j fince if 
 there be any fuch Law, it is either as yet unknown to Mankind, or elfe all 
 thofe who are once pofleffed of Kingdoms, have an equal Title to them by 
 Divine Right. But indeed it is only fome Divines who were more fcrupulous 
 than knowing in Politicks, who firft ftarted this Queftion, whereas indeed 
 there is no fuch great Myllery in it : for that Law by which the firft King of 
 England for example was elected, was not in being before the King was made, 
 nor yet was the King in being before that ^ bat when the firft King was made 
 fo, by the Confent and Election of the People, the King, and the Law that 
 made him fo, began both together : that is, the People by chufing of him to 
 govern upon certain Conditions, and he, by accepting the Crown upon thofe 
 Conditions, was that Law by which he then took the Crown, and by which it 
 has been held ever fince that time. So that if the Crown ought to beenjoy'd 
 according to a legal Right, and that there muft be fome Judges appointed of 
 this Right, whenever any Difputes may happen about it, either every Preten- 
 der to the Crown muft judge for himfelf, and then he will be both Judge and 
 Party in his own Caufe, or elfe it muft be left to the Confcience of every in- 
 dividual Subjeft in England to fide with what Party he pleafes, that may 
 thus pretend to it : and fo there may be a dozen Competitors for the CrowQ 
 at once, and all with equal Right, for ought that any body knows. Or laftly, 
 this I-light muft be left to the Determination of fome Civil Judges to judge 
 whofe Right it is j and who can thefe Judges be, who ftiall thus judge what arc 
 the antient Laws of Succefiion, and Rules of Allegiance, but the Great Council 
 of the Nation ? Therefore if they have already declared and recognized King 
 William and Queen Mary to be lawful King and Queen of this Rellm, I 
 think every Subjcft of the fame may very well juftify their fwearing Alle- 
 giance to them, not only by virtue of this Statute of the 1 1 th of Henry the 
 Seventh, which requires Allegiance to be paid to the King in being, but 
 alfo from the Equity and Rcafonablenefs of the thing it fclf, to hinder the 
 Nation from falling together by the ears, and entailing Civil Wars from Ge- 
 neration to Generation, if the Subjcdts were obliged by their former Oath of 
 
 R r r r 2 Alle-
 
 6-] 6 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 Allegiance to the King de jure^ to endeavour to reftorehim by force of Arms. 
 And therefore the Preamble to this Statute very well and truly fets forthj 
 " That it is not reafonable, but againft all Law, Reafon, and good Con fcience, 
 " that the Subjefts going with their Sovereign Lord to the \A^ars, any thing 
 " fliould lofeor forfeit for doing this their true Duty and Service of Allegiance 
 *' to the King for the time being." 
 
 M- But pray tell me, is not this very flrange and unjuft, and that by your 
 own {bowing, that a Prince Ihould have a legal Right and Title to the Crown, 
 without a Right to exercife the Authority belonging thereunto ? for they mnft 
 now pay Allegiance to the King in being, let him be ever fo great an Ufur- 
 per. So that indeed the Preamble to this Aft is exprefly falfe, fince I think it 
 is very nnreafonable, nay againft all Law, Reafon, and good Confcience, to 
 fwear Allegiance to an IJfurper; for by that means not only aU good Sub- 
 jedts would be put out of a Capacity of endeavouring to reftore the King de 
 jure to his Throne, tho ever fo unjuftly depofed or driven out, as in Duty 
 they ought, but alfo thofe who were inftrumental in this Rebellion, and in de- 
 priving the lawful Prince of his juft Rights, may not themfelves endeavour 
 to reftore him •^ which would put them out of all poflibility of making amends 
 for the wrong they have done him, and of making reftitution, by again reftor- 
 ing him to his Throne. 
 
 F. If this be all the difficulty that is left upon your Mind, I doubt not bat 
 to prove to you, not only from the Law of the Land, that Allegiance may be 
 lawfully fworn in this cafe, but alfo that it is for the common Happinefs and 
 Peace of the Nation, which is the main End of all Government, that it ftionld 
 be fo. And therefore I Ihall firft freely grant, that tho it is Rebellion unjuftly 
 to deprive a King and his right Heirs of the Crown, and that thofe who had 
 a hand in it are bound in Confcience to endeavour to reftore him or them to 
 their juft Rights again j yet this rauft be done by no other Methods but what 
 are confiftent with the publick Peace and Safety of the Commonwealth : for if 
 a King de faBo has once got pofleflion of the Throne, and has been crowned 
 and recognized by Parliament, from what has been already proved, I think it 
 is very plain, that they ought to obey him not only from the very Letter of 
 this Law, but alfo becaufe I have now faid all private Perfons ought to fub- 
 mit their Judgments in this matter to that of their Reprefentatives, who if 
 they have judged falfely, are to bear the blame j but yet their Judgment for all 
 that is to be held for good, till it be reverfed in the fame way in which it 
 was given : fince if after fuch a Recognition every private Perfon ftiould ftill be 
 E.G. /. 57. free to pay his Allegiance to him whom he fuppofed King de jure, it would 
 certainly follow, that the Civil Society or Commonwealth muft of neceflltyfall 
 into Civil Wars ; which is againft the nature of Civil Societies, and inconfiftent 
 with the Duty of Self-prefervation, which obligeth Men not to expofe their 
 Lives and Fortunes, but to obtain a greater Good than both thofe, which caa 
 only be the publick Good of the Community, and not the fingle Intereft of any 
 one Perfon or Family. And tho I grant it is a great Sin in thofe who are in- 
 ftrumental in raifing Rebellion, and who are thereby guilty of a very enor- 
 mous Crime j yet that which made it fo, was not barely the Injury they com- 
 mitted againft the Prince to whom (if alone confidered) the Breach of an Oath 
 (in withdrawing their Allegiance) could be no greater a Sin than the Breach 
 of an Oath to another Perfon j but indeed the fatal Mifchief and irreparable 
 Damage they did the Commonwealth, is that which aggravates the Sin. And 
 if a new Commotion to reftore the King de jure would in all probability prove 
 yet more deftruftive, and a Nation by being fo much weakned by a former 
 Civil War, be lefsable to bear a new Civil War, which may happen fo far 
 to the weakning:of it, as to expofe it to the Invafion and Conqueft of a foreiga 
 Nation, who may be Enemies both to our Religion and Civil Conftitution ; ia 
 fuch a cafe I cannot think it our Duty to reftore a Prince by force, tho ever 
 fo unjuftly driven from his Throne. And therefore if I had been then a Man, 
 tho 1 fliould have been as much for bringing home King Charles as any body 
 ought to be, yet I fliould have been only for it in the way in which it was 
 brought about j and fliould never have defired it, if it could not have been done 
 but by an Army of French or Jrijf) Papifts. And the like I fay now as to King 
 Jamtjy feeing he is joined with the Intereft of France^ and is already gone 
 
 into
 
 Dialogue the Thirteenth, 6jj 
 
 into Ireland on purpofe to renew the War, by the Arms and Afllftancc of thofe, 
 whofe Fathers, as well as feveral of themfelves, did all they could to deftroy 
 not only the Royal Power, but alfo the Englijh Religion and Government in 
 that Nation. 
 
 And therefore I mufl freely tell you, that if even Rebels have put it oat of 
 their power to make Reparation for all the Wrongs they may have done by 
 rebelling againft their lawful Prince, becaufe he in poflefTion is too powerful 
 to be driven out again without a violent Civil War, and a general Concufllon 
 of the whole Commonwealth i this Reparation to the injured Prince being not 
 to be made, without a greater Evil than that they endeavoured to avoid, ic 
 ought to be omitted till it may be done with more Safety to the Nation or 
 elfe not at all: I fay, if there be no other way to make Reparation to their in- 
 jured King, but by engaging the Nation in frefli Civil Wars, they ought not 
 to attempt it by fuch unlawful and deftrudtive means. 
 
 M. 1 confefs the Difcourfe you have now made carries the greateft appea- 
 rance of Truth of any thing you have yet faid ; fince 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 Rebellion 
 to deprive a lawful Prince and his Heirs of the Crown : yet that it is unlawful 
 to refiore them again to it, if we think it cannot be brought about without a 
 general Subverfion of our Religion and Civil Liberties, may be a Queftion. I 
 grant indeed, if we could be abfolutely certain of this, there would be fome 
 colour for this Argument ^ but fince future things are not capable of Demon- 
 Ilration, if the reltoring our lawful Prince be a Duty incumbent upon every 
 good Subject, we ought to endeavour it, tho with fome Danger and Hazard 
 of whatever is dear to us : for God will either protect us both in our Reli- 
 gion and Civil Liberties, for thus honeftly performing our Duties (accord- 
 ing as we are bound by our Allegiance) or if he has called us to fufTer for the 
 Truth, he will either find us Patience to bear it, or elfe provide us a way to 
 efcape. This 1 fpeak in relation to the French inA Irifli^ whofe Conqueftand 
 Malice you are fo much afraid of, in cafe the King (hould happen to be reftored 
 by their Afliftance : But indeed I think this a needlefs fear, fince I fuppofe the 
 King will be too wife to bring over fo many of either Nation, as fliall be able 
 to make an entire Conqueft of this Kingdom, left thereby both he and his 
 Crown may lie wholly at their mercy when the Bufinefs is done. Nor do I 
 think it either in the power of the French or Irijh to perform thefe dangerous 
 things : not of the former, becaufe (as I now faid) I fuppofe the King will ne- 
 ver bring over more of them along with him, than what may ferve to make a 
 ftand againft the Prince of Orange's Forces, till his good and loyal Subjeds 
 can come in and join with them to his Afliftance j and as for the Irijh^ they 
 are alfo the King's Subjedts, and tho ignorant, they are very inveterate a- 
 gainft the Proteftant Religion, and the Englifli Nation and Intereft y yet they 
 may befo governed and over-ruled by the King, as not to be able to do us 
 any confiderable Damage. 
 
 But as to the King of France., 1 do really believe he is far from intending 
 to make an entire Conqueft of this Kingdom for himfelf, much lefs defirous 
 to make the King as abfolutc a Monarch here, as himfelf is in France : for as 
 to the former, he has too much Confideration of his own Glory and Reputa- 
 tion in the World to feize upon the Kingdom of a near Kinfman and Ally of 
 his own Religion, and who had been driven from his Throne chiefly for being 
 too much in his Intereft: And befides all this, he may very well fear, that if 
 he went about any fuch thing as an entire Conqueft of this Nation, all Par- 
 ties may join againft him as a common Enemy, and drive him out again, as 
 the EngUjh Barons did Prince Lewis in the time of King Henry HI. Nor can it 
 be the Frfwc/; King's Intereft to make our King abfolute here; for then having 
 the Pcrfons and Purfesof his Subjefts wholly in his own power. King Lemit 
 might juftly fear, that either this King or his SuccefTors may prove as dange- 
 rous Enemies to the Crown of France, as ever they have been in former times, 
 if ever our Kings fhould go about to revive their antient Pretenfions to France 
 or Normandy, or make war upon fome other Quarrel : and therefore I think 
 it will be more for the Intereft of France to leave us our Laws, Liberties and 
 Privileges, as we now enjoy them ; nay, to make an exprefs Capitulation for 
 
 them.
 
 678 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITlCA.' 
 
 them, and when he has done, to foment thofe Jealoufies and Difputes, that 
 are ftill like to arife between the King and us about them, thereby to hinder us 
 from joining againfl him ; than by rendring the King Abfolute to take them 
 quite away, and put the fole Power of the Purfe as well as of the Sword wholly 
 into his bands. 
 
 To conclude, You do alfo very much mifreprefent the matter in fuppofing, 
 that tho the King cannot now be reftor'd without falling into a new Civil 
 War, it does therefore follow, that fuch a War is not to be defir'd for the 
 publick Good of the Nation : fince we fhall thereby not only reftore the Crowa 
 to its right Owner, and the Succeflion of it? to the lawful Heir ; but alfo (hall 
 reftore Epifcopacy in Scotland-, and prevent the Church of En^larniirom falling 
 into a dangerous Schifm, by depriving the ABp of Canterbury., and as many other 
 of theBifhops, who are fo honeft as not to take a new Oath, for Handing out 
 againft it, by the Temporal Power of a pretended Parliament, without the 
 Judgment of a lawful Convocation, who are the only proper and legal Judges. 
 
 You likewife as much miftake, in fuppofing that this War can no ways be 
 finifh'd, but by fo great a Concuffion as (hall fo much weaken the Kingdom, as 
 to render it expos'd to the Invafions of foreign Enemies, in which you may be 
 very much deceiv'd : for who can tell but the Hearts of this Nation may come 
 to be fo indin'd to receive their lawful King, and his right Heir, and may be 
 fo weary of the prefent llfurpation, as upon his flr(t appearance in England^ 
 with an Army fudicient to defend thofe who (hall come into him, fo many of 
 his Subjeds will take this advantage, as will be more than enough to re(tore 
 him with as little Blood- (hed, as when he was driven out ? And then 1 think no 
 indifferent Man but will acknowledge that fuch a War would prove for the belt, 
 lince it will not only fettle the Government upon its antient Foundation of a 
 lineal Succeffion, but will alfo extinguilh thofe fatal caufes of War, not only 
 from among our felves, but alfo from foreign Princes, as long as the King, 
 and the Prince of Wales^ and his lawful Heirs, (hall continue in being ; which 
 1 hope will be much longer than thofe upon whom your Convention has fettled 
 the Crown, cither in Prefent or Reverfion. 
 
 F. I doubt not but to (hew you, that all you have now fald, is either built 
 upon falfe Principles, or elfe deduced by very uncertain Confequences ; for in 
 the firft place, tho you doubt my Principle, That the People of this Nation 
 are not bound to reftore King James to the Throne, if it cannot be done with- 
 out the evident DeftruSion both of our Religion and Civil Liberties, ie 
 certainly is true, (granting it to be ever fo much our Duty to reftore him, 
 when with Safety we may.) For if the Obligation of all Moral Duties whatfo- 
 ever, is only to be judg'd of according as they more or lefs conduce to the Hap- 
 pinefs or Deftruftion of the common good of Mankind, (whereof this parti- 
 cular Nation makes a part) it will necelFarily follow, that this Duty of reftoring 
 King James, is not to be praftifed, if it cannot be brought about without the 
 Deftruftion of our Religion and Civil Liberties, fince it is only for themainte- 
 nance of thofe, that even Kings themfelves were firft ordain'd in this Nation; 
 and it is evident, that this Kingdom may be fufficiently happy, and fubfift in the 
 State it is now in, tho neither King James nor your Prince of Wales be ever 
 reftor'd to reign over us. 
 
 So that then all the difEculty that remains, is, That (ince his Reftoration 
 is not otherwife to be brought about than with the afllftance of great Numbers 
 of French or Iri/h Forces, whether it be not only fo fmall a hazard as you make 
 it, but twenty to one, that his coming in upon thefe Terms will produce thofe 
 dreadful EfFedls, which I fay will certainly happen from it ? And tho I grant 
 that future things, efpecially in the Revolutions of Government, are not 
 fo capable of Demonftration as Mathematical Propofitions, yet if all the Cir- 
 cumfbnces of Time, and the Temper and Difpofition of the King himfelf, and 
 y thofe who are to join with him in bringing him in again, be confider'd, it (hall 
 appear, that morally fpeaking nothing lefs than the evident Deftruftion of our 
 Religion and Civil Liberties wijl follow •, I think I may ftill pofitively affirm, that 
 we are notoblig'd to reftore him till this Temper of Mind be alter'd, and that 
 he can be reftor'd without thefe fatal Confeqnences I now mention. And if thefe 
 Cautions are not obferv'd, I deny that God hath any way promis'd to proteft 
 either our Religion or Civil Liberties, or that he is bound to provide us a way 
 
 to
 
 Dialogue the Thirteenths 675; 
 
 to cfcape, as you fuppofe ; if to perform this fuppos'd Duty of Allegiance thus 
 unfeafonably, we flight the only means God has ordain'd for our Prefervacion. 
 But as for tiie patience under thofe Sufferings that may then happen, that is a 
 very forry reafon to embrace them ■■, fince God may give us that Grace, if he 
 pleafes, as the only Comfort we can have left us, when by our own Folly 
 and miftaken Notions of Duty, we have brought all thofe Evils upon our 
 felves. 
 
 I fhall therefore now proceed to Ihow you, that thefe Evils I fpeak of, 
 muft necelTarily happen to us, in cafe King James be reftor'd by the French or 
 JriPj Papifts. In the firfl place therefore, it is very fallly fuppos'd, that this 
 Alteration can be brought about without an entire Subduing or Conqneft, not 
 only of their prefent Majefties, but the whole Nation •■, as is apparent lince none 
 but the Papifts and fome few of the Clergy, Nobility and Gentry defire his 
 Reftoration, and who if they were put all together, will not I believe amount 
 to the hundredth Man, who would be either willing or capable to come in to 
 his AfTiftance with Men or Mony : and therefore it is a vain Suppofition to be- 
 lieve (as you do) that this new Revolution can be brought about without any 
 more Difficulty or Bloodlhed than the laft, as long as the prefent King and 
 Queen continue to govern us according to the Declaration they fubfcrib'd upon 
 their acceptance of the Crown, and the Coronation-Oath they have fince ta- 
 ken i which 1 hope they will always do, fince nothing but following King 
 Jantesh Example, as well as to Religion as Civil Liberties, can ever mjkethis 
 Nation willing to receive him, or your Prince oiWaks^ with fo little difficulty 
 as you are pleafed to imagine. 
 
 Since therefore the bufincfs muft be wholly done by force, I (hall in the next 
 place conlider all thofe Suppofitions you have laid down, as well in rcfpedt 
 of the French as IriPi, who are the only Hands that I fee likely at prefent to 
 do this Work. Firft, as to what you fay, that the King would be too wife thea 
 to bring over along with him fo great numbers of the French and Ir'tPj Nations, 
 as (hall be able to make an entire Conqueft of this Kingdom, left thereby both 
 he and his Crown may lie wholly at their mercy, when the Builnefs is done ^ 
 you have hereby granted as much as I defire. For if their Majefties are never 
 like to be without an Army in England, of at leaft fifteen or twenty Thoufand 
 Men as long as this War lafts, and the Militia of this Nation, which are 
 almoft totally againft Kingjames^s Intereft, and do amount altogether to above 
 a hundred thoufand Men i i think you your felf will grant that King James can- 
 not attempt coming over hither with an Army of lefs than thirty or forty thou- 
 fand Veteran Soldiers of the French and Iri/h Nations, tho you (hould reckon 
 the Papifts and others who Ihould come in to his Affiftance at twenty thoufand 
 more i who if they fhould be all together able to beat not only K'\ng iVilliam's 
 ftanding Army, but the Militia of the Kingdom to boot, I detire to know 
 what ftiall hinder them from making as perfeft a Conqueft of this Nation, as 
 ever Cromwell's Army did, either of England or Scotland, and confequently 
 of fetting up what Religion or Government they pleafe in this Kingdom j 
 which, that it will not be what is now exercis'd either in Church or State, 1 
 think any unprejudic'd Man will eafily grant me. 
 
 But your next Suppofitions are altogether as precarious. That it is not either 
 the Dciign, or Intereft of the French King, to make an entire Conqueft ot this 
 Kingdom for himfelf, nor yet to make King James an abfolute Monarch here. 
 One of thefe I muft needs believe will happen : for tho perhaps that King may 
 at prefent ftand fo much upon his Glory, as not to feize the Kingdom of a Kinf- 
 man, and an Ally, wholly to his own ufe and benefit ; yet it is moft likely, that 
 he will retain French G^irifons in all or moft of the ftrong places of England, not 
 only for the fecnrity of the Charges he will have been at to place King James 
 on the Throne, but alfo as a tye upon us that wc fhall never endeavour to drive 
 him out again, let him ofc us as he pleafes. So that tho I grant, he may nbt make 
 an abfolute Conqueft of us now, yet it may be in his or his Son's power to do 
 it hereafter, if ever King James's Son fhall go about to fhake off that Vokc, when 
 once the prefent Obligation is forgot, or the near Relation between the two 
 Kings Ihail be farther remov'd. Nor is what you fay lefs precarious, that it 
 will not be for King Leww\ Intereft to deftroy our Liberties, and make King 
 James an abfolute Monarch, bccaufe the Kingdom will be then weaker and more 
 
 divided
 
 58o BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 divided tban it is now, by thofe Jealouiles and Difputes we fliall then maintaia 
 with the King about our Civil Rights: which is indeed fo far true, if he governs 
 when he returns in the fame aibitrary manner as he did before; but if he go- 
 vern according to Law (which no wife Man can expect) there needs be no more 
 Divilions among us than were for a great while after King C^a>-/« ll's. coming in. 
 Jiut that the French King fhould fear, if he once nude the King of England an 
 abfolute Monarch, and put the whole Power of the Pnrfes as well as Swords of 
 his Subjefts in his hands, he might then become fo formidable as to be an equal 
 Match to F>ance it felf, and to be able to demand either the whole Kingdom, 
 or any part of it, is yet more pleafant ; iiacc France h now, in comparilon with 
 ■ England, not only in rcfpeit of Men, but alfo the Revenues belonging to the 
 King, as ten to one : and I think 1 may very well maintain, that if England 
 fliould once come to be govern'd as France is, it would be fo far from growing 
 richer, or more powerful thereby, that from the intellide Grievances and 
 Difcontents that fuch a violent courfe of Government would caufe in the minds 
 of the People, of all Sorts and Conditions, by thofe excelfive Taxes and Op- 
 preffions that would follow from fuch an Arbitrary Government, the King- 
 dom would quickly diminilh and decsy, as well in People as Trade and Riches, 
 and confcque.itly in Po>ver too: which is but the product of both thefe, not- 
 withftanding whatfoever the fair appearance of an outwardly magnificent Court, 
 and a great Handing Army may produce, in the minds of thofe that do not 
 truly confideror underftand the true Grandeur and Safety of the Prince, and 
 Happinefsof the People. 
 
 but granting all this to be as you fuppofs, pray tell me what (hall become 
 of our Religion and Civil Liberties, not only in refpcLl: of the French King, 
 but of King 'James bimfelf ? Can any one believe, that either of them will 
 ceafe to be inftigated by the Jefuits their Confeflbrs to deftroy the Northern 
 Herefy (as they term our Religion) as well in England^ as it has been in France ? 
 No, the poor ^audovs in Savoy have been too recent an Example, that the King 
 of France would carry the Perfecution to the fame degree here, as he did 
 there, and that King James being wholly in his power, will not be able to 
 withftand his Commands, as well as the conftant Sollicitation of his Confeflbrs 
 of the fame Order and Principles as thofe of the French King, to which Holy 
 Fathers the Proteltant Religion in France and Savoy does chiefly owe its De- 
 IhudVion. 
 
 To conclude, let us fuppofe that King James fiiall prevail in this War 
 by the helpot the lri[h Army, now vais'd by the F.ari of Tyrconnel \ can we ex- 
 pert better Q.!arter if the King prevails by their Aims and Afliftance, than if 
 they were iniirely French? For having once conquer'd this Nation, it will 
 not be in the King's power to govern them fo eafily as you expedt ■■, but being 
 inveterate Enemies to the Engli/h, they will not only polFefs what Eftates they 
 pleafeof the £wg/»j'7j Nobility and Gentry in Ireland, but in England too, which 
 will be dedar'd forfeited by their Owners oppofingof King, James : and thea 
 1 will leave it to your felf to judge in what a Condition we fhall be both 
 as to our Religion and Civil Liberties, when the King fhall come to be m.anag'd 
 by Men who are dedar'd Enemies to both i neither will it be in the power of 
 thofe few moderate Men, either of the Popilhor Proteftant Religion, who take 
 King jr<7wej's part, to hinder it, fince the other Party will by means of the 
 Priefts and Jefuits, and the Intereft of France, run down all fober Coun- 
 fels, and they will be look'd upon but as Trimmers (at bell) that oppofe 
 
 it. 
 
 But as for King y<J»je; himfelf, I delire to know of you what truft there 
 can be put in him, or what alTurance he can give us tor the maintenance of our 
 Religion and Civil Liberty, more than the renewing of thofe Promifes, and 
 that Oath which he has already broken ? This being mofl: likely to be the Con- 
 fequence of things, if King James prevail, I (hall leave it to your felf, or any 
 indifferent Perfon to judge, if what 1 have undertaken to prove, be not as 
 clearly made out as future things are capable of, and fufficient to deter 
 any Man that loves his Religion or Country, from joining in fuch pernicious 
 Defigns. 
 
 AI. 1 confefs you have made a long and tragical Narration of the dreadful 
 Confequences that may follow, both upon our Religion and Civil Liberties, if 
 
 the 
 
 t,t
 
 Dialogue the Thirteenth. 68 1 
 
 the King prevail by the prefent atTiflance of the French or hifh Arras i and 
 were I lure ot all this, I fhould fo far agree with you as to this point, as never 
 to join with them for the King's return : and yet for all that I can never lo<flc 
 upon my felf as freed from that Allegiance I owe the King, as well by being 
 born his Subject, as from the Oath I have already taken to him and his Heirs, 
 as long as tlrey arc in being i tor I think 1 have already prov'd as well from 
 Law as Rcafon, Firrt:, That the Bond of Allegiance (whether fworn, or not 
 fworn) is in the nature of it perpetual and indifpenfable. Secondly, That 
 it isfo infeparable from the relation of a Subjeft, that altho the cxercifeof ic 
 may be fufpcnded by reifon of a prevailing Force, whilft the Subject is under 
 fuch Force, i<iz.. where it cannot be imagin'd how the endeavour of exercifing 
 it, can be cfFedually fcrviceable to reftore the Sovereign Power to the right 
 Owner, for the Eflablilhraent of that publick Juftice and Peace wherein the 
 happinefs of Commonwealths conlills ; yet no outward Force can fo abfolutcly 
 lake it away ortcmovc it, but that ftill it remaineth virtually in the Subject, 
 and obligeth to a vigorous endeavour (whenever the Force that hindcreth it is 
 over) and to theaitualexercife of it for the advantage of the Patty, to whom 
 of right it is due, and the advanceiTiient of the common Good thereby, upon all 
 fit occafions. Thirdly, That no Subject of fw^/afjfjf, that either hath by taking 
 the Oaths of Supremacy or Allegiance acknowledged, or that not having taken 
 either Oath, yet othcrwife knoweth or bclieveth that the true Sovereign Power 
 ia England to whom natural Allegiance is due, is the King, his Heirs, and law- 
 ful SucccfTors •, can without tinning againft his Confcience, take any new Oath, 
 or do any other Aft whereby to transfer his Allegiance from the King or his 
 Heirs, to any other Party who have no right to it, and thereby put himfelf in- 
 to an incapacity of i)erforming the Duties of his bounden Allegiance to his law- 
 .ful sovereign, when it may appear to be ufeful and ferviceable to h-im. This 
 is the exprefs Opinion of the Learned Bifhop Sanderfon in his Cafe of Confci- 
 ence concerning the lawfulnefs of taking the Engagement i which tho he did 
 not think abfolutely unlawful, becaufe it might be interpreted in a dubious and 
 qualified Senfe, without abjuring the King's lawful Right to the Crown ■■, yet 
 cannot this new Oath be taken in the like doubtful Senfe, becaufe (as 1 have 
 already prOv'd) the words in the Oath being to bear true Allegiance to King 
 William and Queen Alary ^ would be indeed a transferring of our Allegiance 
 from our lawful Prince toothers, which is abfolutely unlawful. 
 
 F. I am fomewhat pleas'd to fee you are fo far come off" from your Bigotry, 
 as not to think your ielf bound to affifl: for the reftoring King James, as long as 
 it is no otherwife to be done but by the evident Deftruftion ot our Religion 
 and Civil Liberties i but yet you fay you cannot take the Oath, becaufe it is 
 Bifliop^^iM^tr/ow's Opinion, as well as that of our belt Lawyers, that Allegiance 
 is perpetual, and untransferrable to another, whilft the King or his Heirs arc in 
 being. Now let me tell you (fpeakingas a Lawyer) ic may be prov'd from this 
 Statute, as weil as from the conftant practice before that time, that Alle- 
 giance was due to the King do failo, and that by the Judgment of all the Judges 
 _ia.the Reign of EdwardW- But to fpeak of this matter, either as a Civilian, 
 oraDivme, I think we are freed from the former Oath both by the Law of 
 Nations, as well as the Law of God- For as for natural Allegiance, by whicii 
 you fuppofc a iMan isindifpenfably fubjeft to the Kinginwhofe Territories he 
 is born, and that as long as he lives, lean by no means underlland, that being 
 born in a Country, makes one a Subject for all his Life to the Government of 
 that Country ; or why being, when born, in a Country, it (hould mikc one be- 
 come a Subject, more than being in the fame Country at another time. Belides, g, o. /. 49, 
 common Experience (hews this to be falfc, becaufe whoever is born in a Coun- 
 try, where his Parents are Foreigners, may (is it is allow'd by allj leave that 
 Country when he pleafeth : but perhaps it maybe laid, he is a Subjeft tothac 
 Prince where his Parents were born i but what if they were born under the fame 
 Circumftances? Or fjppofe his Parents are of different Countries, as if a Dutch 
 .Woman, and an Ew_g///Z» Man have a Child in frdicf , (ince France does not pre- 
 tend to him, which of the Nations can claim him for their Subjeft, or muft he 
 be divided? So that 1 can fee nothing at all in this notion of natural Alle- 
 giance, that can oblige any body in Confcience to obfcrve it. 
 
 Sfff M. If
 
 682 BiBLIOTHECA POLITICA. 
 
 M. If then natural Allegiance fignifies fiothing, pray tell me is no body ob- 
 liged to obey the King, or not to plot againfthini, until he has taken an Oath 
 dt Mlegiance to the contrary? This would make mad work indeed, and upoa 
 thefe Principles no Man were bound to obey the King or his Laws, and not to 
 confpire againll his Perfon or Govermtient, until he had taken the Oath of 
 Allegiance \ fo that three parts of four of the Kingdom would be abfolutely 
 tree from this great Duty. 
 
 F. No, Sir, you are very much raiftaken, fince 1 think I can found Alle- 
 giance to the King and Government upon a much firmer Foundation than that 
 of being born his Subjetf^ i that I am fo far from fuppofing that our Obliga- 
 tion commences from our taking the Oath of Allegiance, that tho I think it 
 may ferve toinforce our former Obligation to our King and" Country, yet does 
 it not fuperinduce any new Obligation thereunto : for indeed our Obligation 
 to any particular Government may be maSe out from much furer Principles, 
 'uiz.. That every Perfon, tho he be born free, yet is be, for the fake of his own 
 Ibid. /■.49. Safety, obliged to part with his Liberty, and put himfelf under the Protec- 
 tion of fome Government i nor can he be fecure in what he enjoys but by it, 
 nor can he have a Right in a Country (that is already pofTefled) to Property, 
 but by owning the Government of thit Country : and when by enjoying the 
 Rights and Privileges of the Subjects of that Commonwealth, he has owned 
 himfelf a Member of it, and a Subjcft to its Government, he is then bound to 
 maintain this Government, and alfo the King that adminifters it, from a double 
 Obligation: the one particular in refped of himfelf, and that Protection he 
 receives from him *, the other more univerfal, proceeding from that Duty, which 
 is incumbent upon every particular Subject to maintain the Peace and Kappincfs 
 of the Commonwealth, as long as he continues a Member thereof. So that 
 he is bound never to diilurb it, as long as the m.iin ends of Government can be 
 had and enjoyed therein; and this is the only means that I know of, by which 
 any Man rexcept by exprefs Oaths and Promifes) can confent to become fub- 
 jed to any fingle Perfon or Government. Now this tacit Confent of particular 
 Perfons being feparately and fingly given, unthinking People take no notice of 
 it, and fuppofe they are as naturally Subjeds as Men, and confequently that 
 they have no more Right to free themfelves from their Subjeftion, than from 
 their human Nature ^ nay, muft fufFer themfelves to be deftroyed rather than 
 endeavour it, let the Government opprefs them ever fo unmercifully: which 
 is indeed to reduce Men to the Condition of brute Beafts, who belong to this 
 or that Owner, becaufe he either bought them with hisMony, or elfe becauft 
 they happened to drop from their Dams upon his Ground. 
 
 From what has been here fpoken, 1 think we may deduce this general Cotl- 
 clufion, That every ordinary Subjei^, who enjoys the common Benefits and 
 Proteftion of any Government, is bound in Gratitude not only to obey it, but 
 alfoto be true and faithful to it during the time he lives under it, anti' is 
 bound likewife not to confpire againftit: and therefore that Oaths do not' al- 
 ter the nature of Allegiince, or make it due where it was not before, or any 
 ways extend it, but only add a new Tie to pay that Allegiance which is dntf tfp-- 
 on the account of Protection. He that lives under a Government, tho he has 
 notfwornto it, owes it the fame Allegiance as he that has ^ and if he fhduld 
 deny his Allegiance to it, would be equally guilty of Treafon, tho not of Per- 
 jury. It is evident by theuniverfjl Praftice of Mankind, thatnbSubjefts ever 
 thought themfelves obliged by thofeOaths of Fidelity (which all Governments 
 have conflantly impofed on them) when they could not be protctfted by them, 
 and that this failure of Protection did not proceed from any fault in the 
 whole Nation, or People themfelves. And this may be proved by the commoti 
 and conflant Pradice of all the Subjects of Europe i for who does not know 
 that the Subjcdtsof the King of France's lafb Conquefts in Flanders^ have been 
 forced to fwear Allegiance to him, tho they were fatisfied that his Title was 
 unjulf, and that their natural Sovereign the King of Spain^ to whom they had 
 formerly fwom Allegiance, is ftill living? We have had alfo a late Example 
 of the Subjects of the Duke of Holftein-Gottorp^ who h-aving both his Perfon 
 taken Prifoner, and his Territories unjuftly feired upon by the King of D(n. 
 mark^ in time of Peace, the Subjects of the faid Dafce were forced to fwear 
 Allegiance to the King, notwithftanding their former Oath to their Mafter j 
 
 nor
 
 'Dialogue the Thirteenth. 683 
 
 nor do our modern Cafuifts, as I knov7 of, blame them for fo doing. And 
 why the People of f^^/^ni fhould be tjed to harder Term? than all the reft of 
 Europe, I wiili you could give me a fufiicient Reafon ; (incc the Legiflative 
 Power of England (wherein it is certain the People have a fhare) are pre- 
 fumed to recede as little as pofTible froninatural Equity, and therefore defign, ibiJ. /.. 55. 
 by impofing fuch Oaths, only the Good aad Prefervation of the Civil Society, 
 whofe Interefl it is, that they who have the pablick Adminiftration of Affairs 
 fhould not be dillurbed : but ic is not at all material to that end, whether this 
 or that Man hath this Power, provided it be well mamgedi nor can it, 
 without the greatcft Ahfiirdity, be fuppofcd, that fuch nuaibers of Men as So- 
 cieties are compofed of, who are by Nature equal, (hould oblige themfelves, 
 by the moft folemn Ties, to become mofl miierable by living without Proucction j 
 nay to lofe even their Lives, rather than own the Government that can and 
 does protect them, for no other reafon but fuch an extraordinary fondnefs to this 
 or that Perfon, or Family, as to fancy the Government to be infeparable from 
 him, not the NecefTaries or real Conveniencics of Life, but only an Office (for 
 Government is no other) which is but an imaginary Happinefs. 1 grant there- 
 fore, that People (hould be true to thofc that have the prefent Adrainiftration 
 of Civil Affairs, is all that Oaths of Fidelity require i and it is evident 
 from the intent of it, that the late Oath of Allegiance required no more, and 
 to exrcnd it farther than the King in being, is not reconcilable with the Rea- 
 fon, End, and Defign of paying Obedience, which is the Peace and Happinefs 
 of the Civil Society •, which can never be maintained, if People may, for the 
 fake of a fingle Perfon, difturb him that has the Adminiflration of their com- 
 mon Affairs ^ audit would require Impoffibilities, becaufe private Perfons are 
 incapable of paying Allegiance to a King, when cue of polfelfion of the Go- 
 vernment. 
 
 M- Notwithflanding what you have faid, I think I am able to convince you 
 of divers great Miftakes you have now committed in this Difcourfe of natu- 
 ral Allegiance, as alfo in the Obligation we are under by the Oath of Alle- 
 giance to King James. For firft, as to natural Allegiance, you are very bold 
 to fuppofe there is no fuch thing, when all your Law-Books hold fo exprefly 
 that there is ; I am fure this is to be guilty of the Fault for which you have d.A. />. i^. 
 already reproved me, of being wifer than the Laws. You are alfo much mif- 
 taken to fuppofe, that this natural Allegiance merely fprings from hence, thaE 
 the Perfons obliged by it are only fuch as are born within the King's Domi- 
 nions ; for Perfons born without the Realm may be alfo his natural Subjeds, 
 as are the Children of Enibafladors born beyond Sea, and the Children of Aliens 
 boi n within the Kingdom, which are not therefore natural Subjefts of the King : 
 So that the mere Circumftance of Birth does not alone entitle any one to the 
 Privileges of a natural Subjed, nor confequently bind him to all the Duties of 
 ifciural Allegiance. But it is therefore called natural in our Laws, becaufe, as 
 the bed Lawyers have affirmed, it is founded upon the Law of Nature, which 
 gives a Sovereign Power a Right to the Allegiance of every one who is born 
 under the Jurifdiftion of it. As every Son is born a Subjeft to his Parents, 
 and is by the Law of Nature obliged to honour, obey, aflill, and fupport ^ fo 
 alfo is he born a Member of the Body Politick, and by confequence a Sub- 
 jeft to the Sovereign of it; and accordingly, by the fame eternal Law, is 
 bound to pay all faithful Service and Obedience to him, when he is in a capa- 
 city to perform them. 
 
 I3ut your next Miftake is yet worfe, when you confound that common Ob- 
 ligation of a Foreigner or mere Denizen to be true and faithful to the Com- 
 monwealth wherein he lives, with this natural Allegiance of every Englifh 
 Subjeft : for tho 1 grant the taking the Oath of Allegiance does not inforce 
 any new Obligation upon him that takes it, more than he was fubied to be- 
 fore i yet for all that, I think you will not deny, but that there is a great 
 deal of difference between that common Obedience or Submilfion which fuch 
 a Foreigner pays to the King and his Laws in a Country where he fojourns, 
 and that more perfed Allegiance arifing either by Birth, or from fuch a Stran- 
 ger's being naturalized, and by taking the Oath of Allegiance, becoming as 
 true and perfeft a Subject as a natural EngUjhman. And hence it is, that in all 
 Wars declared between neighbouring Princes, whatever Subjtjfts of theirs fhall 
 
 5 fff 2 prefume
 
 684. BiBLIOTHECA FoLlTlCA. 
 
 prefunie to flay and refide in each other's Dominions, after once they are re- 
 called home, may be ju'ftly executed as'Traitors whenever they (hall be taken. 
 And therefore tho I grant that every Perfon now living in England^ and of 
 fipe A,2:e, is obliged to obey your King and Qtieen de faH^Oy in all ordinary 
 and lawful things, which tend to the pablick Benefit and Defence of the Civil 
 Society or Commonweal, and which being for the Benefit of the Kingde jure^ 
 and his Liege People, it is to be morally fuppofed they have his tacit Confent 
 for what they do, as long as it tends only to this end : yet does it not there- 
 fore follow, that the bare Protedtion of this ufurped Government, and the 
 Enjoyment of the common Privileges of a Subjedt, Ihould give fuch a King de 
 faHo^ or Government, a Right of exafting an Oath of Allegiance to them j 
 lince 1 have already proved, from the true fignification of being true and faith- 
 ful, as alfo from the legal fignification of the word Allegiance, that no true 
 Subjeft can lawfully take it, without renouncing his Allegiance to his natural 
 Prince: feeing not only a bare Neutrality or Obedience in not tranfgrefTing the 
 Laws is thereby required of them, but alfo an active Obedience and Duty in 
 performing the King de faSio's Commands, and the defending him, whenever 
 there is occafion, in his ill-gotten Power. 
 
 But the only Difficulty being, how a ftridt Obfervation of this Oath caa 
 confift with the Q;jict and Happinefs of the Subjefts, whenever a new Oath 
 of Allegiance comes to be impofed by theKing ^f /^So, fince theSubjcds may 
 be all ruined that do not take it, if it be once ofTered to them •, this Diffi- 
 culty might be eafily removed, if the whole Nation would ftitk firmly to the 
 Duty required by their former Oath of Allegiance, and refolve never to take 
 a new one : for then the Numbers of the Refufers would be fo great, as that 
 they would be more than could be made to fufFer for their refufing it, I fpeak 
 of luch Subjefts as are inourCife, and who are not forced by a Prince, who 
 either has the Right or Power of a Conqueror, to compel them by force j and 
 therefore your Inftances of theSubjeftsof the King of Spain, or of the Duke 
 of Holfiein, who were conquered, or elfe as good as conquered by the Power of 
 France and Denmark^ fignify nothing: whereas we are only overawed by an in- 
 confiderablenumberof Z)«fc/7 and Germans, and might fet our felves free, if we 
 would give but a vigorous Effort towards it. For that K. William is a Conqueror 
 over the whole Nation, I think you dare not affirm ■■, and unlefs he were fo, he 
 could challenge no Right to our Allegiance as fuch : and therefore I muft ftill be- 
 lieve, that the Oath of Allegiance 1 have taken to King J.t«!fj: and his Heirs is 
 perpetual, unlefs you could fhow me that their Right is determined, which 
 you have not done by any thing you have yet faid. 1 cannot therefore be of 
 your Opinion, that the bare Protection of an ufurped Power can juftify our 
 fwearing Allegiance to it, either in Law or Confcience ^ for then all Men had 
 been obliged to pay as firm an Allegiance to t'at Rump Parliament, and alfo tM 
 Oli-vcr Cromwel, as to King fF«7//^w and Queen /l/^jr^j fince both the former pro- 
 teclcd the People as much in their Religion, Civil Liberties, and Properties, as 
 the latter I fear will ever do. 
 
 And that the bare Protedion of a Government does not give it an abfolute 
 Right to the Allegiance of all thofe that enjoy their Protedion, I think may 
 be fuiRciently proved from thelnftance of a Frenchman, or any other Foreigner ; 
 who tho by his living here, and enjoying the common Protedion of the Go- 
 * vernment, I grant he is obliged to be obedient to its Laws, and is not to aft 
 or confpireagainftit i yet this does not difcharge him from his natural Al- 
 legiance which he ftill owes to his former Prince, fo as to do any thing which 
 may prejudice that Allegiance he owes to him, either by confpiring or fight- 
 ing againft him. And this was folemnly declared to be Law by the Judges of 
 the King's- Bench, in the cafe of Dr. Story, in the 1 3th year of Queen FHzaheth : 
 He being a violent Papift, fled over into Flanders to the Duke of ^Iva, and 
 there confpiring with him to invade this Kingdom, and being afterwards taken 
 and brought over Prifoner, was tried as aSubjed of England, tho he refufed 
 to plead as fuch, becaufe he faid he had fworn Allegiance to the King of Spain j 
 notwithftanding which Plea he was executed as a Traitor, as you will find at 
 large in my Lord Chief Juftice ZJyrr's Reports: which Judgment is alfo con- 
 firmed by the Lord Chief jw&ke Coke in Calvin's Cafe, where he exprefly af- 
 fcrts, '■'■ That a Perfon bora under the Dominion of the King of England, owes 
 
 " him
 
 Dialogue the Thirteenth. 685 
 
 ** him perpetual Faith and Allegiance, and this by virtue of the Law of Na- 
 " ture, beca\i(ejura naturalia funt immutahilia." From whence will alfb ap- 
 pear the Falfity of yourConclulion, that Oaths of Allegiance extend no fur- 
 ther than to the King in podefllon, or to that Government to which we do at 
 prefent owe our common Protection, and therefore that our Law has a much 
 higher Confideration of this inheient Allegiance that belongs to a King de jure 
 as to his particular Perfon, and his Heirs: So that it cannot be indifferently 
 paid to any body el fe, who can, by feizing of the Government, force us to 
 owe our Protection to them ; which appears by what my Lord Coke hath alfo 
 laid down, to have been agreed by all the judges upon this Oath of Allegiance 
 \nCalvins Cafe, as f cited it to you at the beginning of this Evening's Con- 
 verfation. So that I confefs I much wonder, confidering what he has there 
 faid, how he can fo pofitively maintain as he doth (in the place you have alfo 
 quoted) that Allegiance is due to the King de f^ffo, and not to him de jure, 
 whilft the former is poflefled of the Crown: fince it feems a flat Contradic- 
 tion to me, how a Subjedt is to pay Allegiance, as long as he lives, to the King 
 and his Heirs, of Life and Member ; that is, until the letting out of the lalt 
 Drop of our deareft Heart's Blood, and that in all places whatfoever ^ and 
 yet that this Obligation fhould lall no longer, than whilft the King de jure is 
 in adtual pofTenion of the Throne. And therefore I think 1 have very good 
 reafon to maintain, that v/e are ftill obliged by our former Oath of Allegiance 
 to King y^OTfj, fo as not to take a new one to any other King, unlefs we had 
 been conftrained to it by an abfolute Conqueft, which you your felf will not 
 maintain to be our prefent Cafe. 
 
 F. 1 confefs you have now argued this Point very ftiffly, and I think what 
 you have faid carries with it the greateft appearance both of Law and Reafon 
 of any thing you have yet urged upon this Subjeft ; and therefore if I can 
 fairly anfwer it, I hope you will come over to my Opinion, and take the Oath 
 ■which is now required of you. In the firft place therefore, I cannot deny, 
 that all you have faid concerning a natural Allegiance due by Birth to the King, 
 is true according to our Laws ^ and I do my felf allow the thing, viz.. That 
 Allegiance is dqe to him, tho not for the Reafons upon which our Lawyers 
 have founded it, but upon thofe I have already given. And therefore grant- 
 ing it was held to be Law in the Cafe of Dr. Story, that his Plea of becom- 
 ing a Subjedt to the King of Spain was over-ruled by the Judges, and he re- 
 fufing to make any other Plea, was condemned upon a nihil dicit \ yet this be- 
 ing only a penal Law, I think obliges the Subjedt to the Penalty if he betaken, 
 but does not oblige him in Confcience never to change his Prince or the Go- 
 vernment he was born under without their Confent, let his Gircumftances be- 
 come ever fo uneafy under it. And that this is fo, I need go no further than 
 the late Cafe of the French Refugees, who though they are ftridtly commanded 
 by their King not to ftir out of France, whatfoever Perfecution they may fuf- 
 fer i yet I think no Man of Senfe can blame them, if, being perfecuted there, 
 they remove themfelves into other Countries, and become perfedtly natura- 
 lized Subjects or Denizens, at leaft in that Government whereunto they re- 
 move. And this is fo known a thing, that no Cafuift, as I know of, thinks it 
 a Sin in fuch Subjects oi. England, as finding it for their advantage, go over 
 into another Country, to fettle and make their Fortunes, and are there natu- 
 ralized, or made free Denizens in thofe Kingdoms or Commonwealths where- 
 •into they remove •, nor are fuch Perfons obliged in Confcience to return home 
 upon the Command or Summons of that Prince, to whom you fuppofe them 
 to be Subjects by Birth. Nor is your Argument at all convincing, becaufe 
 a Man owes a Duty to his Parents by the Law of Nature, and by being 
 Mvn their Child, that therefore the Subjedtion to the Prince, under whofe 
 Government he is born, mult be alike perpetual, fince the ground upon which 
 you found this Confequence is altogether falfe; for I have already proved, 
 at the firft Meeting we had to difcourfe of thefe Matters, that a Man's being 
 begotten, and bred up by his Parents, does not make him become their Sub- 
 jedt or Servant in the State of Nature as long as he lives, fo that he may ne- 
 ver withdraw himfelf from their Subjedtion without their leave. 
 
 But in the next place, I think lam as little miftaken in my Notion of Al- 
 legiance, which 1 fuppofe every Perfon, who is a true and perfefl; Subjedt of 
 
 the
 
 686 BiBLioTHEcA Politic A.' 
 
 the Government, owes to the King or Sovereign Power thereof: for tho I 
 grant there is a great deal of Difference between that imperfed Allegiance, or 
 bare Submifiion, which every Foreigner owes the King or Government under 
 which he refides, and that more perfeft Allegiance which every Subjed owes 
 the King, who enjoys all the Rights and Privileges of a true Englishman ; yet 
 to let you fee that this Diftinftion proceeds not from the bare Protection of 
 his Perfon and Goods by the Government under which he lives, but by his 
 being naturalized, and becoming thereby a perfed Member of this Civil So- 
 ciety, it is plain from your own fhowing : and therefore whofoever not only en- 
 joys the common Protedion of an Inhabitant, butalfo all the Rights and Pri- 
 vilegesof a true £«^/i/7j Subjed, is bound to fwear Allegiance, if required, to 
 the King or Queen de faElo^ without enquiring into their Right or Title: 
 For if they are Strangers, or have never taken any Oath of Allegiance be- 
 fore, they cannot be under any former Oath. And as for natural Allegiance, 
 I have already proved it to be a mere legal Notion, and this Allegiance I 
 have alfo proved to be due to the King and Q.aeen de fa^Oy not only from 
 the Opinion of the Judges in ^g^j^g-o^'s Cafe, but alfo from my Lord Cost's In- 
 terpretation of the Statute of Treafon ; which tho you fuppofe to be contra- 
 didory to what he had before laid down in Calvin's Cafe, yet if you pleafe 
 better to confider of it, you will find it not to be fo : for tho it is true the 
 Judges do there aflert, " That the Obligation of the Oath of Allegiance is in- 
 *' definite and without Limitation, as being made to the King and his right 
 *' Heirs ■■, and alfo that it extends to the venturing of Life and Members, and 
 *' to the letting out of the lafl; Drop of our Blood : " yet is this ftill to be un- 
 derltood only of fuch a one and his Heirs, who ftill continues to be King in a 
 legal Senfe, which can be only he who is King for the time being, as he is 
 Itiled in this Statute-of the nth of Henry VII. and only during the time that 
 he continues in adual pofieffion of the Throne. And therefore the word A'/»g 
 or Majefiy being indefinite, and without having any refped to his Title, whe- 
 ther by Defcent of Blood, or elfe by his being crowned and recognized by 
 Parliament, it is no Contradidion to fuppofe this Allegiance is only due to 
 the King in this limited fenfe, according to the Statute of Henry WW. Where 
 pray take notice, that I have made this Allegiance to be only due to Kings and 
 Queens de faElo., becaufe they only are within the Intent and Letter of this Sta- 
 tute, as alfo of that of Treafon, according to the legal Government of this 
 [Nation by the fundamental Laws thereof, andean no ways be extended to any 
 other Powers under other Titles, fuch as the Rump Parliament under the Ti- 
 tle of a Commonwealth, or Oliver Cromwel under that of a Protedor^ who 
 tho they took upon them to proted the People after a fort in their Lives and 
 Eftates, yetfinceitwas not according to the true Rights and Privileges of the 
 Subjeds of this Nation, which they highly violated, and in fome points quite 
 deftroyed ; and that they alfo took upon them this Protedion without the fr^ee 
 Confent of the lawful Reprefentatives of the Nation alTembled in a full and 
 lawful Parliament •, I can by no means allow them to have given the People 
 fuch a true and legal Protedion as the Law requires to conftitute a true and 
 perfed Allegiance, or can make them to be the fupreme PoWer of the Nation, 
 and within the Statute of the 25th of Edward III. So that this Statute, and 
 that of the i ith of ElenryVll. muft be our Rules in this Cafe. 
 
 But I cannot but fmile at the Expedient you have found out to hinder the 
 People of this Nation from being ruined, if they do not take the Oath of 
 Allegiance to their Majeftics, which is by a general and abfolute Refufal of 
 it ; and this you fuppofe, if unanimoufly agreed on, would hinder them from 
 fuflering any thing by this their Refufal. And you think they are alfo ftrong 
 enough to oppofe it, becaufe the King has only a fmall Army of Foreigners, 
 which he ftill maintains here •, and this you think may lawfully be done, be- 
 caufe their Majefties do not claim by Conqueft, but by the Eledion of the Con- 
 vention, and therefore that this Cafe does not come up to that of the Subjeds 
 of Flanders and Holfiein : in which Argument I doubt not but to fliew, that 
 every one of your Suppofitions are falfe. For tho the Nation is not conquered, 
 yet it is certain that all private Subjeds are under as great a Reftraint by this 
 legal change of the Government, as if they were in the power of a Conque- 
 ror : for to rcfift would be equally fatal to thera in both Cafes, and there is 
 
 no
 
 Dialogue the Thirteenth. 687 
 
 no vifible Power nor Authority that can defend them againft the prefent 
 Power, in cafe they (hould go about to refufe this Oath when it is offered 
 to them. And therefore tho I grant the King's {landing Army of Foreigners 
 is but fmall, ia comparifon of the whole Nation, fince he does not intend to Iceep 
 Us in fubjcdion by force, but only to hinder any fudden Infurreftionof thofeof 
 yourPaityi yet befides all this, God be thanked, their Majefties have the main 
 Body of the common People of the Nation on their fide, who are fufficiently 
 able to deftroy all thofe that fliall go about to make thofc vigorous Efforts you 
 fo much defire. So that you have nothing elfe to plead, but that which I 
 hope never to fee, that we are not under a Force, becaufe we ftill entirely en- 
 joy our Religion, Liberties, and Properties. And tho the King, out of his 
 great Goodnefs and Modelty, did not think fit to infift upon his Title by Con- 
 quefl over King J^OTf J and his Adherents*, yet I think I have already proved 
 at our laft Meeting, that he may as juftly claim by Conqueft, as his Name- 
 fake ^r/Z/Z^w I. iincehecame not over to conquer the Nation, but to vindicate 
 his former Right \ and after his Conquelb of King Hxrold^ could have no juft 
 Title to the Crown, till he had been folemnly eleded and recognized for 
 King, according to the Laws and Cuftoms ufed at that time. And why the 
 Nation might not do the fame thing now for their Deliverer from King Jamesh 
 arbitrary Power, I fliould be glad if you could give me a fufHcient Reafon. 
 But if the whole Nation fhould have been as peevifh and difcontented as thofe 
 of your Principles, and fhould not look upon the King as their lawful Sove- 
 reign, becaufe he does not claim by Gonqueft, it would be altogether as grate- 
 ful aad reafonable, as if a Woman having, by the affiflance of an honeft 
 Gentleman, been rcfcued from being ravifhed, and he afterwards falling in 
 love with herliimfelf, fhould court her to marry her^ fhe fhould refufe him, 
 becaufe he had not ravifhed her when he might, or at leaft have forced her to 
 marry him whether fhe would or no : apply this Comparifon to the Cafe in 
 difpute, and fee if it does not hold. And therefore I muft ftill maintain that 
 the parallel Cafes of the Subjeds of Flanders and Holftein are good as to 
 thofe of your Opinion, who have no notion how Allegiance can be transferred, 
 unlefs by perfedl Force and Gonqueft •, fince if you pleafe to defire it, I'll un- 
 dertake the Government fhall feize upon your Eltates, and imprifon your Per- 
 fons, till you do take the Oaths, as the Kings of France and Denmark did thofe 
 who refufed to fwear Allegiance to them. 
 
 M. I have heard you a great while upon this Subjeft, and I wifh I could fay 
 I were fully fa tisfied with your Reafons; however, fince it grows late, 1 will 
 not difpute this Point any farther, but will take time to confider what you 
 have now urged : only 1 mufl needs tell you thus much, I could wifh that 
 Princes could find fome other way of ftcuring themfelves of their Subjects 
 Fidelity, befides thisTefl of an Oath of Allegiance, which ferves as a Snare 
 to many pious and confcientious Menj whereas thofe of none, or at leafl of 
 very loofe Principles, will fwallow any Oath that can be impofed upon them. 
 And I am forry to fee fo many of thofe, who I know are in their Hearts of 
 my Principles, prevailed upon to take it, not Out of Gonfcience, but mere 
 worldly Inteieft and Advantage, and whom I am fatisfied will never ferve 
 this Government the more heartily or fincerely for having taken it. And 
 therefore to tell you the truth, I begin very much to incline to Grotiui's Opi- 
 nion, that promiffory Oaths are abfolutely unlawful : yet confidering the fcF 
 yeral Changes and Turns of Government which we have feen in England for 
 above forty years laft paft, 1 am fo far for the Good and Happinefs of my 
 Country, as to think every true EngU^man obliged fo far to obey the Powers 
 in being, as may tend to the common Good and Defence of the Nation, bjf 
 the Adminiftration of Jufticc between Man and Man, and in the Punifhmenc 
 of OfRnders, and for Defence of the Nation againft foreign Enemies. But 
 fure, methiuks, this might very well be done without the impofing any Oath 
 at all, either upon Magillrates or Officers, and much lefs upon ordinary Sub- 
 jcfts i fince if they are perfuaded in their Confciences that it is lawful to ad 
 under this prefent Government, let them do it if they will : but as for the 
 common People, I confefs they are fo ftupid, that they have feldom any other 
 meafures of the Juftice or Lawfulnefs of any Government or Prince's Title, 
 than the Eafe or Advantage they find by it. And therefore upon the whole 
 
 matter.
 
 688 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 matter, 1 think it were much better for the Government, in the unfettled 
 btate it is in, to follow Cromwelh Example, and to impofe no Oaths of Al- 
 legiance at all, fince theGovernraent may be as fecure without it, as (for all 
 that I can fee) they can be with it ^ and as it is now managed, I fee little it 
 can ferve for, but to diftinguilh and divide us one from another. And be- 
 fides its beins^a Snare to the ConfLiences of fo many that take it, it is like 
 aifo to provc^the Ruin of divers of our Bifhops and other honelt Men, both of 
 the Clergy and Laicy, who will certiinly rather lofe their Dignities and Im- 
 ployments than ever take it ; which will alfo caufe a great Schifm in the 
 Church, as I doubt you will find when it is too late: whereas if thefe Men 
 might have held their Bilhopricks, and all other Preferments and Offices, 
 without having this Oath impofed upon them, I doubt not but they would 
 ferve both the Church and State in their feveial Stations, according to their 
 "Duties, and as tar as lawfully they could. 
 
 F. 1 cannot deny but you have fpoken very honcftly, and like a good Eng. 
 Jiflnnyin in many things you have now faid, in cafe your Intentions towards 
 the prefent Government were real, as yrur words are fair-, and therefore I 
 cannot wonder that you who have been formerly a ItifF Aflerter of the Lawful- 
 nefs and KecelTity of the Oath of Allegiance, ihould i;ow be for taking it quite 
 away, fince it grows too hard for your felf, and thofe cf your Opinion to di- 
 geft: as if to oblige Subjefts to defend their Governors, were a neceflary Se- 
 curity for your rightful Princes, but were unneccfTary for thofe whom you 
 Ihall think fit to fuppofe to be Ufurpers. And tho I confefs 1 mull very much 
 pity the overnice Principles of thofe of your way, who are truly peaceable 
 and confcientious, and are like to be ruined by tbeir Refufal of it ; yet for 
 all that, I very much doubt whether it would be for the bed to take this 
 Oath quite away, fince it would make a ftrange Alteration in the Govern- 
 ment to admit all Perfons into ordinary Charges, much lefs into Imployments 
 of Truft and Profit, without taking any Oath at all. Your only Objeftions a- 
 gainft it are thefe : (i.) 1 hat you doubt that it is unlawful to impofe prcmif- 
 Ibry Oaths ^ and the next is, that it will not perform the end for which it is 
 intended, viz.- to diftinguifli thofe who will ferve the Government faithfully, 
 and thofe that will nof, fince you confefs that a great many, who are not at 
 all fatisfied in their Confciencea, will, for Intereft, not only hold their old 
 Imployments, but will alfo take ^new ones under it, which 1 grant is not to 
 be avoided, if Men will venture to be damned. So likewife on the other fide, 
 1 mull tell you, that the quite taking away the Oath of Allegiance will not at 
 all mead the matter, but make it much vvorfe ^ fince then, not only thofe 
 whofe Confciences will give them leave to take the Oaths, but alfo thofe who 
 think they ought not to take them, will be alike capable of Imployments: 
 and when they are in them, tho 1 grant they may be both alike free to ad 
 as they pleafc againll the prefent Government, and for reftoring cf King 
 5f,i»if.f, yet I mull needs tell you for all that, that I am much more fearful 
 of the Ill-will or Malice of thofe who think themfelves obliged in Confcience 
 to overthrow the prefent Settlemeht, and who continue ftiff to their firlt 
 Principles, than of thofe who will fo far comply with this prefent Goyern- 
 jiient and their own Intereft, as to take the new Oath of Allegiance in vvhat- 
 ever fenfe they pleafe. For I am very well fatisfied that fuch Men, tho they 
 are not fo right for the Government as I could wifii them, yet either Fear of 
 punifhment, or elfe the Confideration of their own Self-interefi, will always 
 make them defire to retain thofe Imployments they have already got, 'fince 
 they can never be afiured of bettering their Condition under King 3^<«w« and 
 '^ popilh Government, fhould he ever return; whereas thofe that are bigotted 
 .to Principles, will always think it their Duty, by virtue of this ^otion of a 
 natural Allegiance, as well as their former Oath, to endeavour to reftore him 
 by all the ways and means that can ever lie in their power. But as for the 
 "Unlawfulnefs of a promifibry Oath, fiuce you your felf fpeak doubtfully of 
 it, and few Cafuifts, except Gmttt.t, have been of that Opinion ; I think it 
 is not fafe to quit our antient Laws, which particularly prefcribe, that not 
 only all Magiftrates and Officers, but alfo all other of the King's Subjeds, 
 (hould take the old Oath of Fidelity or Allegiance, (as we now ftile it) in the 
 Court-Leet, or Sheriffs Torne, when they come to the Age of fourteen years: 
 
 ' ' which
 
 Dialogue the Thirteenth dSp 
 
 which Oath (as appears by what we can find of it in Edward the CrtnfefTor's, 
 and King H^»7/»<jot's Laws, which we have already recited i as alfo you may find 
 it in Sir //. Spelman's GlofTary, Tit. Ftdelitas) was made to the King, as their 
 Liege Lord, of Life and Limb, and which implies an active Obedience to defend 
 him againft all his Enemies, without any exception of fuch as may claim by 
 Inheritance, or Right of Blood. 
 
 Kow this being fo, I cannot be perfuaded that the Government ought to 
 quit any lawful means whereby it may preferve it felf, and diftinguifh thofe 
 who would really ferve it from thofe who will not : and tho perhaps the 
 Government may find it felf miftaken in its account in fome Men, whofe Con- 
 jfcientes are large enough to fwallow any Oath whatfoever ; yet I think I may 
 ftill fafely maintain, that it is in lefs danger from a few fuch Libertines, than 
 from thofe of your Opinion, who would not only keep their Places under this 
 Government, but will alfo continue in a perfeft State of War againft it, let 
 them be treated ever fo kindly. And therefore with refpeft to thofe dreadful 
 Confequences of Schifms in the Church, and the lelTening and dividing our 
 Party •, as to the former, we muft run the hazard of it, fince it was never 
 heard of that theBifhops, who are in fome refpefts temporal Barons, held 
 their Bifhopricks under any King fince the Conqueft, without owning his Au- 
 thority ; and I can alfo (hew you, that the King and Parliament have either 
 aftually deprived, or elfe declared fuch Bilhops Traitors to the Government. 
 So that if any fuch Schifm be made, it will proceed from a Scandal unjuft- 
 ly taken by fome fcrupulous Men, and not by the Government. And as for 
 the other Inconvenience, 1 think it is much fafer for the Government to im- 
 ploy fewer Men, than by not knowing who are Friends or Foes, to truft all 
 promifcuoufly j tho perhaps, notwithftanding their utmolt care, fome Men of 
 little or no Confciences will have Places in this as well as they have had for- 
 merly : which can by no other means be prevented, as I know of, but by 
 chufing Men of honeft Principles, and fober Morals, and of a quite different 
 Intereft to thofe imployed in the two laft Reigns. And therefore I am fo far 
 from taking away the prefent Oath of Allegiance, that I rather wi(h that 
 there were a new one more ftricl: and full than the prefent, ordained to be 
 taken by all thofe who fhall take Offices, and Employments of Truft or Profit, 
 whereby they fliould not only declare their prefent Majefties to be true and 
 lawful King and Qiieen of this Realm, but alfo that they will defend them a- 
 gainft all their Enemies, King James himfelf not excepted. 
 
 M- I confefs 1 cannot exped fo great a Tendernefs from this Government, 
 which has been introduced by fo much Artifice, that they fhould abfolutely 
 take away all Oaths of Allegiance whatfoever, fince I doubt not but it will 
 affume to it felf all thofe Advantages which any former ufurped Power could 
 pretend to j yet this much I muft needs tell you as a Friend, the depriving 
 thofe Bilhops and dignified Clergymen who ftiallrefufe this new Oath, will be 
 highly ungrateful, fince many of them have been as violent Oppofcrs of Pope- 
 ry and arbitrary Government as any Men in England, as appears by their late 
 Petition to the King. If therefore the Archbifhop of Canterbury^ and thofe 
 other Bilhops I know to be fo averfe to this Oath, Ihould be deprived upon 
 the refufal of it, fince it will be done uncanonically, by the temporal Power 
 of an Aft of this Convention, without the Sentence of the two Houfes of 
 Convocation, 1 doubt that it will be thought by many to be a fuflicient Canfe 
 of departing from the prefent Church-Communion, and of fetting up diftinft 
 Congregations by thofe who will be deprived, and turned out of their Liv- 
 ings for refufing this Oath •■, and what the Confequence of that may prove, 
 God knows. 
 
 But whereas you think this prefent new Oath not full enough, and there- 
 fore wi(h there were another made, declaring the prefent King and Queen to 
 be lawfully and rightfully fo, &c. fince this would amount to as good as an Oath 
 of Abjuration of King J^ww and his Title, 1 doubt it were better let alone; 
 for I do not think the prefent Government will get any thing by it, fince 
 the intent of the Oath you propofe can only ferve either to gain the prefent 
 Government more new Friends, or elfe to fix the old ones fafter to it, or elfe 
 to difcover fecret Enemies. And if I can prove it will not ferve for any of 
 thefe three ends, I fuppofe you will grant that it were better to let it alone. 
 
 T 1 1 1 Mow
 
 6^0 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITlCA. 
 
 Kow that it will be fo far from gaining it more Friends, that it will rather 
 ferve to drive away a great many from it, is apparent^ fince many Men are 
 now in Offices and Employments, who think they may lawfully take this new 
 Oath of Allegiance, as long as the prefent King and Queen are not therein de- 
 clared to be lawfully and rightfully fo, and 1 believe may ferve them faithfully 
 enough in their feveral Stations ^ who if they fliould come to be put to it, to 
 declare and fwear that they were rightful and lawful King and Queen, would 
 rather lofe their places than take it. Neither will it fix thofe that are for this 
 Government fafter to it, fince thofe that are zealous for it, will be fo whether 
 they took any Oath or not. And I have already proved, that by the word 
 Allegiance in this Oath, it is implied, that the prefent King and Queen are to 
 be defended as lawfully fo by the Swearer to it i which is the main reafon that 
 I, and thofe of my Opinion, can by no means think it lawful to take it. Nor 
 laftly, will it difcover any fecret Enemies to your Government, fince thofe, who 
 being rightly inftrufted in the true fenfe of this Oath, and what is thereby re- 
 quired, fhall notwithftandingtake itagainft their Confcience, will 1 doubt take 
 any Oath whatever the Convention Ihall think fit to impofe ■■, and nothing but 
 the fear of lofing their prefent Employments, or elfe the dehre of getting new 
 ones, could have made them take the Oath as it is, and to my knowledge ic 
 hath been taken by many now in Places much againft their own Judgment, 
 and I doubt the Convidion of their Confciences too. 
 
 I fpeak this only in relation to fome of loofe Principles : but as to my felf, 
 and many more of my Acquaintance who r^fufe this Oath, we Ihould be fo far 
 from taking any place of Truft under this Government, that we fhould not do 
 it, tho no Oath were at all required of us , fince 1 think it not only wicked 
 and diflionourable for any honeft Man to ferve a Party, only to watch an op- 
 portunity to betray it : but I alfo believe my felf obliged by my former Oaths, 
 as well as the Duty of a natural Allegiance which I owe the King and his right 
 Heirs, not to ferve thofe whom we look upon as Ufurpersof their jufl Rights. 
 
 But if you would alfo have this new Oath to be an abfolute Abjuration of the 
 King and his Title, it will not only be ur,juft, but impoffible ; fince who can 
 tell but either by the Help of a foreign Force, or the general Confent of the 
 Nation, tired out by a longexpenfive War, either his Majelty or the Prince of 
 Wales may be again placed upon the Throne ? and then fure, whenever they 
 Ihall call a Pailiament to recognize his Title, they will be, even according to 
 your own Hypothefis, more lawful and rightful Kings than King Willium and 
 Queen Mary^ fiace they will not be only Kings Ac fMo^ but de jure too. And 
 therefore I believe it was out of this Confideration, that iu all thofe long and 
 various Contefts which fo often happen'd between Competitors for the Crown, 
 they never prefumed to propofe to the Parliament the pafllng any Act to im- 
 pofe an Oath to abjure the Title or Perfon of the rival Prince. Thus it was in 
 all the long Wars between King Stephen and Maud the Emprefs, as alfo between 
 the twoHoufesof York and Lancafler; each of whom, as they prevailed in their 
 turns, were very well contented to make the Subjects take the ordinary Oath 
 of Fidelity to themfelves, without abjuring each other's T itle : and even in the 
 later times of the Rump-Parliament, when the moft violent and hot-headed 
 Commonwealths-Men would have impofed an Oath of Abjuration of Charles 
 Stuarr, and all his Family, (as they then termed his late Majefty) the moft wife 
 and moderate Men among them, fuch as Lenthal their Speaker, and others, 
 ftiffly oppofed it, faying it would be a fighting againft Providence to take an 
 Oath never to own his Majefty for their King, if once he (hould come in again 
 without their Afiiftance. And I think there is as much, if not more reafon now 
 againft fuch an Oath of Abjuration, as ever there was then. 
 
 F. I cannot deny but you have fpoken like an honeft Man, in abfolutely re- 
 fufing to ad under this Government, tho without an Oath, unlefs you could 
 be fatisfied of the Lawfuluefs of the Powers to whom it is taken : and 1 muft 
 acknowledge that you therein aft with much more Sincerity and Honour than 
 divers of your Party, who tho they have been, and are of your Opinion as to 
 the Juftice of King Jamesh Title, yet think they may take this Oath well e- 
 nough in that loofer and more qualified Senfe you grant they put upon it. And 
 therefore to anfwer in the firft place what you have faid againft the impofing 
 any more explicit or ftrifter Oath of Allegiance than what is already appointed, 
 
 tho
 
 Dialogue the Thirteenth, 6^i 
 
 tho I think I can very well anfwer all the Arguments you have now brought a- 
 gainfl: it i yet to let you fee I am a fair Adverlary, I will fhew you how far I 
 agree with you, and wherein 1 muft differ from you. 
 
 In the firfl; place therefore let me tell you, that you very much miftake me, 
 if you believe that by this new Oath 1 propofe, 1 do defign an exprefs AbJMra- 
 tion of King James., or the Prince of [Vales, in cafe that King (hould ever hap- 
 pen to recover the Throne, and call a Parliament who (hall agiifi recognize 
 him for lawful King, and the Prince for the right and undoubted Heir ot the 
 Crown. 1 am too fenfible of the frequent Alterations that have happen'd in 
 this Nation, even to defire or propofe any fuch thing, fince a Man may as well 
 abjure the having a Fever or the Small-Pox ^ Change of Government, and 
 confequently our SubmifTion to ic whenever it happens, being no more in our 
 power to prevent, than the having thofe Difeafes. Ail therefore that 1 intend 
 by a ftrider and more explicite Oath of Allegiance, is only for Men who (hall 
 undertake any Employments of Truft and Confequence, either Spiritual, Civil, 
 or Military in the Commonwealth ^ (ince I grant the Oath, as it is now worded, 
 may be fufficient for all ordinary Subjefts, from whom a paflTive Submiirion and 
 true Obedience is a fufficient Performance of their Duty: but as for all others 
 that either now have, or expeft to enjoy Phces of I rufl:, 1 could wifh a ftrifter 
 Oath were enjoin'd, alFcrting their prefentMajefties to be lawful and rightful King 
 and Q^ieen of this Kingdom, and that the Taker will defend them in the prefent 
 Pofllfllon of it, to the utmoll of his power, againft all Perfons whatloever. 
 Kin' Jumes and the Prince of Wales not excepted. And this 1 muft think ne- 
 cefTary, not only from that low and q'jalified lenfe of this Oath, which i gave 
 at the beginning of this Night's Converfation, and in which feufe you cannot 
 deny but that many, if not the greater part of thofe who (till hold fuch Em- 
 ployments, have lately taken it ; and as long as they do fo, how they can ever 
 think themfelves obliged to defend their Majefties agai.ift King7<i/«o, nay, or 
 any French or Popilh Forces that (hall aft by his Commiffi )n, I cannot under- 
 ftand : for fince they now look upon the prefent King and Qiieen to have no 
 other Right to the Crown than what their bare Power and prefent P^fTcffion of 
 it gives them, no wonder if fuch Men take the firft opportunity to revi It, and 
 join with King James as foon as ever he lands with an Army, or appears upoa 
 our Coafts with a Fleet formidable enough to oppofe ours i and they mult alfo 
 (if they are true to their Principles) in the mean time do all they can to pro- 
 teft and indemnify thofe, who, being of tender Confcieaces, cannot Itretch it 
 as far as themfelves, and who underhand do aft as far as they dare for King 
 Jamesh intereft. And tho it is true you have very folidly proved, not only as a 
 Civilian, but like a Lawyer, that the word Allegiance., inferted in this Oath, 
 does of its own nature imply not only that the King or Q.ueen to whom it is 
 taken ought to be rightly and lawfully fo, but that more than a bare Neutra- 
 lity, viz.. a real and vigorous Defence of them and their Right againft all their 
 Enemies, is required and imply'd by it-, and that is one great reafon why you 
 fay you cannot take it. Now tho I confefs the Reafons you have given are 
 very weighty and convincing, yet fince the words are in themfelves too gene- 
 ral, and doubtful for every Perfon that takes or holds fuch Offices or Employ- 
 ments of Truft, to underftand it in that fenfe, 1 could be glad there were 
 another more plain and explicite Oath to be adminifter'd to thofe whoexped 
 to keep or hold fuch Employments-, fince the prefent Government cannot well 
 be fafe without it, as long as fuch Perfons are employed, who can take the 
 Oath with a mental Refervation of ferving King James., as foon as they fafcly 
 may by virtue of that former Oath of Allegiance they have taken to him. 
 
 This being the cafe, I (hall now anfwer all the Objedions you have brought 
 againft it, which indeed are rather framed to keep thofe Men in Places, that 
 they may ferve your Defigns whenever they are able, than to do any fervice 
 to tender Confciences. Firft then 1 think 1 may maintain, that fuch an Oath 
 will, notwithftanding what you have now faid, have contrary hft'etts than 
 what you are pleafed to allow : for in the firlt place, it will gain the prefent 
 Government more new Friends amongft thefe Neuters, who fteer their Alle- 
 giance to it only from its prefent Settlement, and the hopes of its Continuance, 
 when they find that none can be employed in places of publick Truft, who will 
 not take an Oath to acknowledge their prefent Majefties to be lawful and right- 
 
 T 1 1 1 2 ful
 
 6^2 BlBLIOTHECJ^ Pi^hiriCA. 
 
 fulRing and Queen, and who will alfo fwear to defend their juft Right, which 
 will for the molt part put places of Trull into their hands, who will think 
 themfelves obliged faithfully to perform what they have fworn. Secondly, it 
 will alfo fix the old Friends of this Government fafter to it, when they fee 
 none but themfelves, or thofe who will really come into the Government upon 
 their Principles, admitted to fuch Places of Profit and Trufl: , and whoever 
 will take this Oath, are to be prefunned totake.it willingly and wittingly, and 
 underftanding what they do, fince the .words will be of themfelves fo plain ,uad 
 evident, that they will admit none of thofe loofe and doubtful Senfes in which 
 fo many have taken the prefent Oath of Allegiance. But your main Objedioji 
 againfl; this is, that a new Oat;h will not difcover fecret Enemies to the Go- 
 ATernment, becaufe that molt of the fajne Perfons that have taken the forrijer 
 'Oath, will take any other that can be required of them ', which I fuppofe is 
 inot fo, fince you your felf do grant that fuch an Oath would be a Saare to a 
 great many, who if it were not for that, would ferve this Government faith- 
 fully enough, that isto fay, as long as there is no neceflity of fhewing their 
 Good-will to King 3f^w;i?j, or no opportunity given of returning to their for- 
 mer Allegiance to him with fafcty to themfelves : and you your felf caaiot 
 deny but, according' to their .Principles, they mull needs perform it whenever 
 they think they may. >s'ow certainly it were better to be rid of fuch fakfe 
 Friends (if it were pofFible to difcover them) by fuch an Oath, than to keep 
 them where they are, only to take an opportunity not only of doing, a n\i^- 
 chief, but of ferving this Government very carelefly and lukewarmly, whilsi 
 they are in thofe places they enjoy ^ as alfo of favouring and affiifting thofe tijat 
 are the declared AlTertors of King Jamesh Right as far as they dare. So that 
 then all the Difpute remains about thofe, who having Coufciences large enoug)} .jjq 
 fwallow any Oath whatever, provided it will fuit wich their [^elent Advatir- 
 tage; no Oath can tie them, or ferve to difcover their private Sentiments t 
 as 1 cannot deny but that there are too many Men of fuch large Coafcienees 
 as you defcribe, and could heartily wi(h they were fewer. Now tbo 1 grant aa 
 Oath alone will not keep them out, yet it might be in great part prevented, 
 if the King would take a true Charafter of the Men fit for publick Employ- 
 ment from thofe about him, of whofe Worth and former Integrity he is al- 
 ready fully fatisfied. But admitting fome fuch Men Ihould get into places, and 
 confequently when they are in, manage tltings for their own Advantage, (that is, 
 vilely and coiruptly ;,) yet even thefe will not prove half fo fatal to the Go- 
 vernment as thofe Men of half Confciences, who think they may take this Oath 
 in their own fenfe, and for their own prefent advantage j and alfo believe it 
 no Breach of it to aQlft King J^mes whenever fafely they may, becaufe they 
 hold their prefent Oath to be only temporary, but their former to have a 
 perpetual Obligation upon them : whereas thofe of no Principles never efpcufe 
 any Intereft longer than it ferves their own turns. So that as long as tb:y 
 can make their Fortunes under this Government, they will never defire to 
 change it for another, in which they cannot but expeft a much lefs free En- 
 joyment of their Liberties and Properties, which are things that all Men (as 
 well thofe who have no Principles, as well as thofe that have) deCre to enjoy. 
 And laftly, fome even of thefe Men that have been formerly notorious Afler- 
 tors of and advanced in the Arbitrary Government of King James, out of Iharae 
 as well as fear of the lofs of their Credits with thofe of their own Party 
 (which they are not afTured but may again prevail) will flick to take this 
 ftrider Oath, tho they do not that which is now enjoined, fince they can find 
 an Evafion for the one, but will fcarce be able to do it for the other. 
 
 M. But pray tell me, will not this new Oath, declaring King H'i/llam and 
 (iueen Mary to be lawful and rightful King and Queen of this Ke;jlm, and 
 that all Men that take it Ihall alRil them againll their Enemies, pro*re an 
 imply'd Oath of Abjuration of King James^ tho not in txprefs Words ? And 
 you have not yet fhewed me that fuch an Oath hath ever been admiaiftred 
 during all the various Contefts that ^ave been for the Crown fuice riw 
 Conqueft. 
 
 F. I allow that fuch an Oath would be a virtual and implied Abjuration ojF 
 Kia^Jamesh prefent Claim to the Crown, and would alfo oblige all Perfons to 
 fight agaialt him, and hinder his regaining it ■-, which tho I grant to be the (Je-i 
 
 liga
 
 Dialogue the Thirteenth. 6^^ 
 
 fign of it, yet would not fuch an Oath oblige us at all to abjure the obeying 
 Kiug7^»>\v, Ihould he ever by aa irrefiftible Providence be again fee over us j 
 fmce it isnot abjuring of a future, but a prefent Right, which I now contend 
 for. And that the antient Oath of Fidelity and Allegiance (as it is now 
 called) was of the like nature, and taken in the fame fenfe with this I pro- 
 pcfe, i fhall fhcw you from the Form of the Oath of Fidelity, which all Free- 
 men were to fake at fourteen Years of Age, as appears by King William the 
 Fit it's Law, which 1 have fo often cited j " Whereby all Freemen were to Cap. 5. 
 *' affirm upon Oath, that within the Realm and without, they will be true 
 *' and faithful to VJin^WiiUam their Lord, and preferve his Lands and Honour 
 *' with all Fidelity, together with hisPerfon, and defend them againft all his 
 " Enemies." So likewife in the antient Oath of Homage, which was taken 
 by all the Eirls, Barons, and Tenants in capite in England at the Coronation 
 of our Kings were thefe words; " I N. N. become your Liegeman of f'*'^. Spelman'i 
 " Life and Limb, and earthly Honour, and Faith and Troth to you (hall bear g/cj!/:/. 23.H. 
 " to live and die, fo help me God." And in the latter Oath of Fidelity or 
 AUegi.jiice, which Sir H. Spetman gives us out of the Cuftomary of Normandy, 
 the words were much the fame, only the Perfon is there fworn to be true and 
 faithful to the King and his Heirs (which they were not before Edward the 
 Firll's time;) and alfo that they would hear of no Evil or Damage againft 
 them, which they would not hinder to their power. Now pray tell me, .were 
 not all thefe Oaths taken to the King for the time being, as lawful and rightful 
 King ? and fince they were thereby to yield him Life and Limb, that is, were 
 to defend him with their Lives againft all his Enemies, then certainly all o- 
 thers who might pretend to, or claim the Crown, were included within this 
 number. And thoit is true in thefe antient Oaths there is no fwearing to the 
 prefent King, as lawful and rightful King, yet thefe words were needlefs in 
 that Age, when ('as I have pi^ved at our laft Meetir.g) there was no difference 
 between a King de jure, and one de faElo\ and whoever was crowned King, and 
 elected or recognized by the Great Council of the Kingdom, was looked upon 
 as lawful and rightful King, and as fuch, was to be defended againft all his 
 Enemies: fo that till that Diltinclion was broached, that there might be 
 a King de faEho different from the King de jure, (which I have proved was 
 not elder than Edward the Fourth's Reign) there was no need of any men- 
 tion of fuch words in the Oath of Allegiance as lawful King, and lawful Heirs, 
 which are firft found in the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy prefcribed by 
 the Statutes of Queen Elizabeth and King James .- in the latter of which (it is 
 needlefs to recite it verbatim) it is firft fworn. That the King's Majefty is law- 
 ful and rightful King j fecondly, there is an exprefs Abjuration of the preten- 
 ded Authority of the Bifhop of Rome , which fliewsthat the Abjuration of the 
 Temporal as well as Spiritual Right of a foreign Prince (who claims it ever 
 fince King JcWsRelignation) is no new Invention : and laltly, there is an ex- 
 prefs Abjuration or Engagement to defend the King's Perfon to the utmoft of 
 the Swearer's power againft all Confpiracies and Attempts whatfocvcr. And 
 why the fame words may not be inferred into this new Oath, as well as it 
 was in thofe, I can fee no reafon, fince they arc only declarative, and pur- 
 fuant to the late Ad of the Convention, whereby after the Declaration of 
 the Rights and Liberties of the SubjecVs, King William and Queen Adary are 
 declared, " That they were, and of right ought to be by the Laws of this 
 *' Realm, our Sovereign Liege Lord and Lady, and King and Queen of £»?•- 
 « land, 8rc." 
 
 M. Wtlj, it is late, and befides to no purpofe to argue this point any 
 longer, fince it concerns not me nor any of my Principles what new Oaths you 
 make and impofe upon thofe, whofe Confcienccs will never permit them to take 
 them: what I have faid was only to (hew you the Folly and Weaknefs of fuch 
 Oaths, and confequently that they can be fubfervient to no other end than a 
 Renewal and Aggravation of the Sin of Perjury among us, which God forgive 
 this finful Nation, among the many crying Sins it now groans under. Yet give 
 me leave ftill to mind you, that you have not given any Anfwcr to the Objec- 
 tion 1 have made concerning the Schifm that is like to follow, from the de- 
 priving of all fuch Bilhops and Clergy that fhall refufe to take the new Oath 
 by fuch a time j which Deprivation being uncanonically ordained by the mere 
 
 Lay-
 
 6p^ BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 Lay-Power of the Convention, without the Authority of a Convocation or Sy- 
 nod, fuch Proceedings are fufficient caufe for all of our way to break off all 
 Church-Communion with you, as foon as the Archbifhop of Canterbury and 
 thofe other Bifhops (hall happen to be deprived, and new ones put in their pla- 
 ces-, fince all Church-Communion wholly depends upon the Lawfulnefs of the 
 Bifhops, who are the fuprerae Pallors of our Church. 
 
 F. I forgot to fay any thing of this, becaufe I faid fo much concerning 
 the new Oath I propofed as fit to be taken by thofe in places of Truft-, but 
 fince you defire it, I (hall fay fomewhat, tho not fo large as I could fpeak 
 upon this Subjed. Firft, I muft tell you, it is altogether a new Notion, and 
 contrary to the Doftrine of the Church of England^ whereby it is declared that 
 the Kings of this Realm have the fame Power with Perfons in the Church, as 
 the Kings of yuciah and Jfrael had among the Jews; therefore you mull: either 
 depart from the Doftrineof this Canon, or elfe the King and Parliament (who 
 are certainly as much the fuprerae Power of the Nation, as the Kings of Judah 
 were to that of the Jews) may as well deprive the Archbifhop of Canterbury 
 (for example) for Treafon, or Difobcdience to the Government, as 5o/(?wjw did 
 j4bUthar for anointing his Brother Adonijah King. And befides this, 1 can (hew 
 you many Examples of the like Power exercifed by the Roman and Greek 
 Emperors, in depriving and bani(hing not only Bifhops, but Patriarchs, for 
 Matters of State, without any Sentence or Judgment of a Synod, or General 
 Council of other Bi{hops. If your Doftrine were true, the poor Creek Church 
 would be in a fad Condition, and all her Members in a perpetual Schifm for 
 fome Ages palt, fince there have been fcarce any Canonical Eleftions or Depri- 
 vations of the Patriarchs of any of the great Sees, viz.. ConftantinopUy Amiocht 
 and Alexandria., but they are all nominated, and put in and out at the Grand 
 Signior's, nay Vifier's will and pleafurej as any Man, who will but perufeSir 
 Faul Ricauth Account of the Creek Church, may eafily fee. 
 
 But indeed you fall into this Error for want of confidering the Original of 
 Bifliopricks in EngLnd, and the true Meaning of this intended Deprivation: 
 for pray take notice, that tho Epifcopacy was fettled in England in the time of 
 the Britons., yet all the Sees, and Jurifdiftion of the Bifhops of this Realm, in 
 refpedl: of fuch and fuch Diocefles, have been wholly owing to the Bounty of 
 our Kings, and the Authority of our Great Councils, which were alfo con- 
 firmed by the Pope's tiulls j and fince the Reformation, to the Authority of the 
 King and Parliament, as were all the Bifhopricks erefted in Henry the Eighth's 
 Reign. So that the Bifhops mere Spiritual Power of Ordaining, Excommunicat- 
 ing, &c. may be derived immediately from Chrift if you pleafe, yet the Exercile 
 thereof, as limited and appointed to this or that Precinft or See, is as mere a 
 temporallnftitution as that of Parifhes, which was not introduced till long af- 
 ter Chridianity was fettled in this Ifland. So that theExercife of this Eccle- 
 fiaftical Jurifdiftion within the See of Canterbury (for example) being a Civil 
 Inftitution, it hath antieatly belonged to fupreme Powers not only to confer 
 this Power (as appears by tiieir antient Inveftitures of our Bifhops fer BAculum 
 & Annulum) but alfo to take it away for Treafoa or Difobedience againft the 
 State; fince the King and Parliament do not pretend to deprive them of their 
 Spiritual Charafter or Epifcopal Orders, but only of their Right to exercife it 
 within fuch Sees or Dioceffes. Thus, although the Archbifliop of Tor/^, and the 
 Bifhops of London and PVinchefier, with the reft of the Popifh Bifhops, were 
 deprived by Aft of Parliament in the firft of Eliz.abeth for not taking the Oath 
 of Supremacy j the Queen and Parliament never took upon them to degrade 
 thofe Bifhops of their Epifcopal Orders, but only to forbid their afting as 
 Bifhops in their former refpeftive DioceiTes. And therefore I doubt not but 
 notwithftanding this Deprivation, thofe Bifhops might (if they had pleafed) 
 have ordained Priefts, and confirmed Children, and that fuch Ordinations and 
 Confirmations would have been good even in our Proteftant Church, if fuch 
 Priefts or Children had afterwards turned Protcltants ; fince it is very well 
 known that the Church of England owns the Orders of the Church of Rome to 
 be valid, which is more than we do for the Ordinations of mere Presbyters 
 coming^ from thofe Proteftant Countries where there arc no Bifhops at ail : the 
 like 1 may fay for their Confirmations too. 
 
 But
 
 Dialogue the Thirteenth. 6^fy 
 
 But pray, Sir, confider how upon your Principles this Schifm can be To uni- 
 verfal as to influence and involve all England in it i for if the Archbifhop of 
 York (for example) will rather take this Oath than fufFer Deprivation, and 
 that the reft of the Bi(hops of his Province (hould be of the fame mind (as I aca 
 credibly informed they will) pray tell me how the People c.f that Province (be- 
 ing a diftind Church, or Body Ecdefiaftical, from that of Canterbury, as to all 
 fpiritual Matters, as having a diftioft Convocation of their own) can ever be 
 involved in this Schifm by the Deprivation of the Archbifhop and Bilhops of 
 the Province of Canterbury ? 
 
 And pray alfo tell me, in the next place, how all the Members of the two 
 Univerfities can ever be involved in this intended Schifm, fince they owe no 
 Canonical Obedience to the Archbflhops ol Canterbury or Tork^ nor to any other 
 Bifhop, but only to their Chancellor, and the Vi.e Chancellor as his Deputy, 
 who exercife all Ecdefiaftical Jurifdiftion within the faid Univerfities ^ and 
 therefore their Church-Communion cannot depend upon the Canonical or Un- 
 canonical Deprivation of any Biftiops in England. I defire you to confider tnefe 
 things as a Canon-Lawyer, and give me your Anfwer, if you can, againft the 
 next time we meet, and then tell me whether the Caufes cf this threatned 
 Schifm be {o juft and apparent, that it is like to involve fo many ofthewifetb 
 and moft confiderate of the Clergy and Laity into open Separation fiom the 
 Church, as you fuppofe it will. Not but that 1 will grant there be ma .y of 
 the Clergy of this Opinion, who, as well out of CoufLience as for their owa 
 Intereft, will be contented to fet up and encourage fuch a Separation, there- 
 by to make themfelves Heads of feparate Congregations, when they (hall be 
 deprived of their prefent B^n<.fices and Employments, upon their rcfufal of 
 this Oath. 
 
 M. I muft confefs I uever heard fo much faid upon this Head before, and 
 if you could make out to me all the Matteis of Faft you have now inftaiiced 
 in, 1 know not but that 1 may come over to your Opinion i tho let me tell 
 you, this is the firft time that ever you could (hew me that any Bifhops were de- 
 prived in England by the mere Lay-Authority of the King, and a Great Coun- 
 cil or Convention of the Laity, whilft they continued of the fame Church- 
 Communion with thofe Biftiops: for as to your Inftance of the Popifti Bilhops 
 deprived by Parliament in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, I doubt you will find 
 it does not come up to the point in queftion, fince the Q^ieen and PailiamenE 
 having then newly declared themfelves Proteftants, did not own them for 
 true and Orthodox Bilhops, and confequently thought they might jjftly de- 
 part from their Communion, and upon the fame account might deprive them, 
 and the Queen might then nominate others of her own Religion ia their 
 places. 
 
 F. I cannot but differ from you in the Matter of Faft, as you now relate vid. Vr. Bur- 
 it ; for Qjieen Elizabeth and the Parliament were, when they made this Aft, net's Hi/lory of 
 fo far from being feparated from the outward Communion of the Church of'*' Reforma- 
 Rome, that Mafs was then faid, and the Romifli Priefts ftiil continued in ail the """' Pom- 
 Parinies and Churches of England:, and yet they ftill maintained an outwaid 
 Communion, tho their Bilhops were deprived by the Civil Power, and others 
 ordained in their ftead. So that it is plain the Papifts themfelves had thca 
 no Notion of this new Caufe of Schifm, by reafon of their Bilhops being un- 
 canonically deprived j nor indeed can we well vindicate the Honour or Le- 
 gality of our Reformation, if the Proteftant Bilhops who fucceeded in the 
 places of thofe who were thus deprived by Aft of Parliament, could not be 
 Canonical, becaufe their PredecelTors deprived by the Lay-Power were ftill 
 alive. 
 
 And to fhew you that the King and Parliament have deprived even Bilhops 
 of their own Communion, and that fuch Deprivations have been held good, and 
 that the King hath nominated new Bilhops upon the Vacancy, you may fee ia 
 Dr. Burnetts Hiftory of the Reformation-, and in the Appendix to it j where you P. 148. 
 will find a memorable Aft of Parliament of the 25th of Htnry the Vlllth (be- P. 123. 
 fore his Departure from his Obedience to the See of Rome) whereby Cardinal 
 Campegioj and Hieronimo de Chmicci were deprived of the bilhopricks of Salif- 
 hury and Worcefter, which they had held for near twenty Years, afld Campegio 
 had without doubt been inftalled in ir: when he was in England. 
 
 The
 
 6p6 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 The Aft it felf being fo remarkable, I (hall give you forae PafTages out of 
 it verbatim : Firft the Preamble fets forth, " That whereas before this time 
 " the Church of England, by the King's moft noble Progenitors, and the Ko- 
 " blcs of the fame, hath been founded, ordained, and ellabli(hed in the Eftate 
 " and Decree of Prelacy, Dignities, and other Promotions fpiritual, &c" 
 (which fufficiently confirms what I but now afferted, that all the Bifhopricks 
 were founded by our Kings, with the Confent of their Grand Councils or 
 Parliaments-,) and then it proceeds to recite. That whereas all Perfons pro- 
 moted to Ecclefiaftical Benefices ought to refide within the Realm, for preach- 
 ing the Laws of Almighty God, and keeping Hofpitality ; and fince thefe Pre- 
 lates had not obferved thefe things, but lived at ^o««, and carried the Re- 
 venues of their Bifhopricks out of the Kingdom, contrary to the Intention of 
 the Founders, and to the great prejudice of the Realm, &c. in confideratioa 
 whereof, it is enadted by the Authority of this preferyt Parliament, " That 
 " the faid two Sees, and Bifhopricks of 5rf/«^«yy and Worcefier, and either of 
 ** them henceforth fhall be taken, reputed, and accounted in the Law to be 
 " void, vacant, and utterly deftitute of any Incumbent or Prelate." And 
 then follows a Claufe, enabling the King, his Heirs, and SuccelTors, to nomi- 
 nate and appoint SuccelTors (being the Natives of this Realm) to the faid Sees, 
 and the King did nominate Succeflbrs according to the faid Aft. 
 
 But admit this was the firft time that ever it had been thus praftifed, yet if 
 it were then reafonable, and done upon good grounds, I cannot fee but whea 
 the KecefTity of the Church and State require it, and that the Clergy in Con- 
 vocation are fo wilful and wedded to fome old falfe Notions, as not to con- 
 fult the Peace and Safety of the Church and Kingdom j why the King and 
 Queen (who are acknowledged to be fupreme over Ecclefiaftical as well as 
 Temporal Perfons) may not, together with the two Houfes of Parliament, 
 make the like Law now, as was done in the firft of Queen Elizabeth, for a lefs 
 matter: for none of thofe Popifh Bifhops, tho 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 fpiritual Matters. 
 
 So leaving the farther DifcufTion of this Point to thofe who better under- 
 ftand 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 Juftices 
 of Peace : for if, as you your felf allow, there be a neceffity that fome Civil 
 Government be maintained during King Jamesh Abfence, I defire to know of 
 you how it can be managed, and who Ihall manage it, in cafe all the Gentle- 
 men of England were of your Principle, and Ihould pofitively refufe the Oath 
 of Allegiance to their prefent Majefties. For if King James be ever fo 
 much our lawful King, it is not now pofTible for us to be governed by him 
 fince he is gone, and God knows whether ever he may return again. Since 
 then you cannot have him if you would, and that there is a necelTity we 
 Ihould be governed by fome body^ and fince it is alfo as certain, that thofe 
 who aftually govern us will exaft this or the like Oaths of Allegiance from us, 
 as were due to their PredecefTors, and that no Man muft expeft to enjoy or 
 execute any Place or Office, not only of Profit, but of Burden and Charge, 
 for the neceflary execution of Juftice, and the maintenance of Civil Govern- 
 ment (without which we cannot live or fubfift) without taking this new Oath 
 of Allegiance, as the only means to qualify them for it : If then the end, viz.. 
 Civil Government, be abfolutely neceflary, and the taking of this Oath is the 
 only means allowed of to qualify Men tor it; this feems as evident to me, 
 that taking of this Oath is not only juftifiable by Law, but by Reafon and 
 good Confcience, fince it is done for the higheft and nobleft end, viz.. the 
 publick Good of the whole Nation or Commonwealth, which you grant can- 
 not fubfift without fome kind of Civil Government amongft us, 
 
 M. I will fay fomething in anfwerto what you have now alledged concern- 
 ing the neceftity of taking of the Oath, in order to the maintenance of fome 
 Civil Government, without which I grant the King's good Subjefts cannot 
 fubfift till his return i fincelconfefs this is the ftrongeft Argument you have 
 yet brought, all I can fay to it at prefent, is, that if all your Country Gen- 
 tlemen, and all the Lawyers in England^ would be fo firm in their Loyalty to 
 
 his
 
 Dialogue the Thirteenth 6^j 
 
 his Majefty, as unanimoudy to declare that they cannot take this Oath with 
 a fafc Confcience \ the Confequence then would be, that either the prefent 
 ufurped Power mult be forced to give up the Government to the right Owner, 
 or eUe they mull at leaft delifl: from prelTiiig this Oath upon you. 
 
 F. You know well enough this is altogether a vain Suppofition, fince you 
 cannot but be fenfible that their Majefties have not only a fufficient Force both 
 of native EngL^imen and Foreigners on their fide, who can force thofe, who 
 fhould make any oppolition, to the taking it •■, but that there are alfo many 
 Fanaticks and Couimonwcalthfmen, who not looking upon themfelves at all 
 obliged 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 Deftruftion, not only of the Church, 
 but the Monarchy it felf, which is as yet preferved, tho the Perfon that ad- 
 miniftred it is altered. So that it would conduce nothing to King Jamesh Af- 
 fairs, if all the Gentry and Lawyers of the Kingdom Ihould go about to re- 
 fufc this Oath ^ which, as I have already proved, they are alfo obliged to take 
 by the Law of the Land, and alfo that greater Law of profecutir.g the pub- 
 lick Good of, the Nation, to the utmoft of their power. 
 
 M. Well, fince 1 cannot expeft fo great firmnefs of Mind and Courage from 
 your Country-Gentlemen, and efpecially the Lawyers, who have been always 
 but too forward to comply with all Governments, how unlawful foever i 
 and lince you, who think that you may lawfully take this Oath, not only by 
 the Law of the Land, which you have interpreted to countenance your Opi- 
 nion, but alfo from a higher and nobler Law, viz.. that of the common Good 
 of the Nation, or Civil Society ; which i grant muft be maintained during 
 the King's Abfence, fince you fay there is a neceflity for it: tho I am not ful- 
 ly fatisfied of the Lawfulnefs of it fo far as to take it my felf, yet will I not 
 abfolucely condemn you, or any other fincere and honell Men, who do on- 
 ly take it out of a good intent to maintain fome Civil Government amongtb 
 us, and alfo to the keeping out the Fanaticks from having any (hare in it: 
 and I hope the Government will excufe me, if my Confcience will not give me 
 leave to take it my felf, fince there are enough of you who are free to do it 
 without us. So that if 1 cannot keep that fmall Imployment 1 have, without 
 taking this new Oath, 1 will freely give it up, fince 1 am not fatisfied ia my 
 Confcience of the Lawfulnefs of it j and whatfoever is not of Faith, is Sin, as 
 the Apoftle has truly defined it. 
 
 F, 1 coiifefs you fpeak very honeftly and charitably in this matter, and I 
 could wi(h all thofe of your Opinion had the like Moderation, and that they 
 would not condemn of wilful Perjury fo many good Bifhops, Noblemen, Gen- 
 tlemen, and others, both of the Clergy and Laity, who have been perfuaded 
 that they might take this Oath with a fafe Confcience*, and therefore pray, 
 however we differ in Opinion about thefe matters, let us maintain the fame 
 Fiiendfhip for each other as we had before. 
 
 M. Sir, I readily embrace fo fair and kind an Offer ; and as I hope you 
 will do me what kind Offices you can whilft you continue toad under this Go- 
 vernment, fowill I proraifetodo the fame for you, whenever the King (hall 
 come to be reltored to his Throne again. 
 
 F. 1 willingly and thankfully accept the Propofal of the Continuance of your 
 Friendfhip, fince I look upon your diffenting from me, not to proceed from 
 any Wilfulnefsor Obftinacy, but out of a tender Confcience, and too great 
 and high a fenfe of your Duty, which I mult ftill confefs are Errors on the 
 right hand : and therefore now taking my leave of you, fhall only defire you 
 to believe me your real Friend and humble Servant. 
 
 M. I hope you think I have the fame Elteem for you, and therefore muft al- 
 ways own my felf yours. 
 
 Uuuu 2l5iWi03
 
 6p8 
 
 
 iSibltotlfteta $olttifa. 
 
 DIALOGUE XIV. 
 
 That the Arraigning and Murder of King Charles I. can by 
 no means be juftified by the Proceedings of the Conven- 
 tion-Parliament againft King Jatncs II. upon his Abdica- 
 tion 5 the Grounds and Manner thereof being wholly dif- 
 ferent. Proved by an exa6t Relation of the Beginning, 
 Progrefs, and Iflue of the late Civil War. 
 
 I Am come this Evening to difcourfe with you about fomewhat 
 1^ that I have heard to-day, which has very much raifed my 
 Mc Spleen againft all the complying Clergy, who juftify this Re- 
 '-t?j volution •■, and it fatisfies me, that moft of them are no better 
 SS than downright Hypocrites and Turncoats. 
 F. Pray, Sir, be pleafed to tell me what it is that has put you into this Fer- 
 ment. 
 
 Af. I Ihall, and am glad to find you fo willing to hear me. You muft know 
 then, that this being the 3cth of Janvary^ the Anniverfary of the Martyr- 
 dom of that great and pious Prince, who fell on this day by the bloody hands 
 of his rebellious Subjtfts, 1 was refolved to go and hear one of our celebrated 
 Preachers in the City, to obferve how he would manage his Point; (which I 
 mult tell you I thouglit was a nice and ticklifh Subjcd) fince 1 forefaw, that as 
 he muft neceflarily condemn that horrid and barbarous 'Fad, fo he would like- 
 wife at the fame time juftify this Revolution, which was begun and carried on 
 upon the fame Principles, tho not by the fame Perfons. And I was not de- 
 ceived in my Expeftations ; for my City-Doftor was fhreudly put to it, and 
 like an Afs mumbling a Thiftle, tho he condemned the Fad of this Day with 
 great Warmth and Bitternefs of Spirit, yet when he came to handle thofe 
 good old Church-of-£»^/<?»^ Dodrines of Pajfive-Ohedience and Non- Reft fiance^ 
 he touched them very gingerly, becaufe he was afraid they would go near to 
 prick his Chops : therefore being fenfible that this Revolution was not to be 
 juftified upon thofe Terms, he fell into a ftrange fantaftical Hypothefis, of 
 GocCs ways in difpo/ing of Kingdoms \ and that the Prince ot Oravge., by the won- 
 derful Succefs of his Arms againft King 7<«OTir/, was, by a kind of mixed Right 
 of Conqueft and Eledion, become our King, and by God's Providence won- 
 derfully declaring it felf in his favour, he might, nay ought to be lawfully 
 owned and recognized as fuch by all the Subjeds of this Kingdom : but yet 
 that it was ftill downright Rebellion before God for any private Perfons to 
 
 confpire
 
 'Dialogue the Fourteenth. 699 
 
 tonfpire or make war againft the King, which I thought very Arrange Doc- 
 trine : Since the Prince of Orange fct forth in his Declaration (which we have 
 no reafon to disbelieve) that he was invited over by divers of the Bifhops, 
 Peers, and Gentlemen of the Kingdom ^ which was fo far made good, that one 
 of the firlf, and divers of thefccond and third Orders, either declared for him, 
 or adually went in to him upon his Landing, befides thofe who came over 
 with him in a military Pofture. Bat how they could be juftified by this Doc- 
 tor's Principles, let thofe look to it whom it concerns. 
 
 Bat I am fure his whole Sermon was fo far from edifying, that it gave 
 great occafion of Scandal and Offence to all the honefl" and judicious part of 
 his Auditory : for if God's Providence muft be brought in to juftify, at eve- 
 ry turn, a Rebellion or Revolution (as it is now more foftly worded) i cannot 
 fee why the Murder of King Charles I. may not alfo be jultified upon thofe 
 very Principles-, it being fufficiently known to all that lived in thofe times, 
 that Cromwd and the Rumf appealed to their ftrangc and wonderful Succefles 
 and Victories over the King, and God's delivering him into their hands (all 
 which in their Cant they called ProwWfw<r«) as an Indication that God had de- 
 figned him to be taken off" in the manner he was j and that their wicked, il- 
 legal, and tyrannical Power was that which was thereby fanftified and or- 
 dained by God, and to be fubmitted to and obeyed, according to the Apo- 
 ftle's Precept, Let every Soul he fubjecl to the higher Powers^ the Powers that he Rom. 13. i,?. 
 are ord.iined of Cod, &c. So that by fuch a plain and raanifefl wrefting of 
 Scripture, the molt open and barefaced Rebellions and Ufurpations, when they 
 prove fuccefsful enough to carry the outward (hew of a Civil Government, 
 muft prefently beowned as God's Ordinances : and if this muft pafs for found 
 Doftrine, I think it were better wholly to lay afide the Obfervanceof this Day, 
 tho appointed by Ad of Parliament, than thus to mock God, and at the 
 fame time condemn an Aftion, when done by thofe we call by the hard names 
 of Rummers, CommonvDealthfmen^ and Fanaticks j and yet in the fame breath juf- 
 tify the very like Practices of thofe who now call themfelves AlTerters of the 
 Monarchy, and fceming Members of the Church of England^ who have fo- 
 lemnly declared King Jrfwfj to have abdicated the Throne, upon the Breaches 
 of 1 know not what original Contradt, and fundamental Laws i and it thereby 
 becoming vacant, have placed the Prince of Orange and his Princefs on the 
 Throne. And the long Parliament, after their execrable Murder of King 
 Charles, might, with the like Right and Juftice, have proclaimed Cromwel (the 
 chief of his Enemies and Judges) for lawful King, as he fet up himfelf after- 
 wards for Proteftor by the like providential Title. 
 
 And tho, 1 confefs, the Prince of Orange hath not been fo cruel to his 
 Uncle and Father-in-law, as to imprifon him and take away his Life, but gave 
 him an opportunity to make his efcape •, yet whether that did not more 
 proceed from Intercft, than either Mercy or Good-nature, I may have fome 
 reafon to doubt: becaufe had the Prince either imprifoned him, or put him 
 to death, it would have proved difadvantageous to his Intereft, and turned to 
 his Prejudice, even among the common People of the Nation j and befides, 
 would have prevented the notion of the King's voluntary Abdication of the 
 Government, which has been fince fo greedily fwallowed by an hypocritical, 
 or at leaft an unthinking Party of the Houfe of Commons. And how they 
 would have proceeded againft his Perfon (had he ftay'd here) God knows: for 
 they might with the fame Juftice have taken away his Life, as declared him to 
 have abdicated i that is, (as you your felf confelTed at our laft Meeting) for- 
 feited his Crown. So that to conclude, I fee no Difference but the changing 
 of the Names of the Perfons, that can juftify this Revolution from the fame 
 Imputations of Treafon and Rebellion, as the Murder of King Charles \. for 
 tho his Son is ftill (God be praifcd) alive in France, yet the Party you have 
 fo much vindicated have done all they can to deftroy his politick Perfon, by de- 
 claring him aftually deprived of all Sovereign or Regal Power as lawful King 
 
 of England. 
 
 F. You have made a (harp Difcourfe againft the Murder of King Charles I. 
 and Abdication of his Son King James 11, in great part of which, as I (hall 
 not oppofe you, fo, I hope, the unwary and indifcreet handling of this Sub- 
 jedl by forae of our City-Preachers, will not prejudice you againft the late 
 
 U u u u 2 Revolution,
 
 70Ci BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA, 
 
 Revolution, and placing the Prince of Orange on the Throne. For I agree 
 with you, that a temporal Succefs or Victory of any Party of Men, nay of a 
 whole Nation againft an Enemy, either foreign or domeftick, ought not to 
 be urged as an evident Token of God's approving the Caufe they were en- 
 gaged in \ being fenfible, that this Argument has been made ofe of not only 
 by Cromwel and his long Parliament, both before and after the King's Murder, 
 and is indeed the common Topick and Refuge of all unjuft Force and Vio- 
 lence committed in the World, and ferves theTwr*^ at this day for their maia 
 Argument of the Truth of their Religion, and the Juftice of their Arms a- 
 gainft the Chriftians : and therefore before ever we give a Judgment con- 
 cerning God's Allowance of fuch Adions (thoever fo amazing and fuccefsful) 
 we ought to diftinguifli between God's permilTive, and his declared and ex- 
 prefs Will or Providence \ without the former of which, no human Adions, 
 whether good or bad, could ever be brought about: fince tho he has fo wife- 
 ly contrived all the Affairs of the World, that even the wicked Anions of 
 Men do turn to his own Glory, and the common Good of Mankind, yet his 
 direct and declared Will ought never to be made ufe of as an Argument, but 
 where the Scriptures fo declare it, or that the apparent Jullice and Merits of 
 the Caufe may make us prefume, that God, by his granting Succefs, does like- 
 wife allow the Juftice of the Caufe. 
 
 I have not therefore, in whatfoever I did or (hall fay on this Subjeft, drawn 
 any Argument for the prefent Government from that head, nor found their 
 Majefties Right to the Throne on the fallacious Topitk of Succefs. But as for 
 your main Objedion, and which fo much ftandalizes a prejudiced and incon- 
 fiderate Parly of our Church, that this Revolution (if adhered to) will ferve 
 to jullify the depofing and murdering of King Charles I. I utterly deny \ fince 
 there are a great many, and thofe very material, Differences between that 
 Fact, and the Abdication of the late King. 
 
 I fliall therefore proceed to (hew you thefe grand DilFerences between thole 
 two Tranfaftions i which I fliall do, Firft, by enquiring into the Beginning 
 and Original of the Difputes between King Charles and his Parliaments, and 
 then comparing them with thofe which lately happened between the late King 
 James II. and his Parliament, and his Proceedings after its DifTolution : So 
 that if we look back upon the Adlions of both thefe Princes, and the Pro- 
 ceedings of the Parliament and People of England in oppofition to them, we 
 fhall find them vaftly different. Firft, As to the Original of them, King Charles 
 was left involved in a War with Spain by his Father, and being not long after 
 unluckily engaged in another with France^ and denied any Affiftance in three 
 fuccelTive Parliaments, 1 grant he was forced, for the carrying on of thele Wars, 
 to take very illegal Courfes by Loans, and Privy Seals, and other ways to raife 
 Mony ■^ and being fo often difappointed of his Expedations of receiving any 
 Benefit by Parliaments, it was no wonder if that Diflike was afterwards, by 
 fome evil Counfellors about him (who feared to be called to an account for 
 v;hat they had aded contrary to Law) heightned to a perfett Averfion to them,, 
 and he put upon to raife Ship-mony by the bare Opinion of the major part 
 of the Judges, contrary to Law. Yet to fay truth, this Mony was not vain- 
 ly fquandered away, but really laid out for the ufe of the Navy, in buying in 
 of Naval Stores, and building of Men of War, the Royal Sovereign being made 
 out of that Mony. But when the necelfity of the King's Affairs, upon the 
 breaking out of the Scoti^ War, obliged him to call a Parliament, he then of- 
 fered, if he might have a fufficient Affiftance againft them, to have redrefled 
 all thofe Grievances v and had certainly done it, had not the Houfe of Com- 
 mons, by denying the King that reafonable Aid he required, obliged him to 
 difFolve them. But when the long Parliament in 1640. came to fit, the King 
 having then, upon the Earl of Strajfordh and Archbifliop LawA being im- 
 peached and committed to the Tower^ and the Lord Keeper Finch and Secretary 
 IVindebanW withdrawing themfelves beyond Sea, altered his Meafures as well ^ 
 as his Counfellors, he condefcended to pafs whatever Laws the Parliament 
 thought fit to offer, to fecure the Nation againft thofe juft Fears of Popery 
 and arbitrary Government, which then fo much perplexed them ; So that 
 after all thefe unparallel'd Condefcenfions, they had no juft reafon longer to 
 coutinue their Jealoufies and Difcontents, unlefs they could wreft from the 
 
 King
 
 Dialogue the Fourteenth yoi 
 
 King the whole Power of the Militia^ which gave the firft occafion to that 
 onhappy Civil War. 
 
 M. I grant what you fay to be in great part true -^ and yet upon your Prin- 
 ciples this will not do thebulinefs; for if the King, upon any wilful breach of 
 t\\t Origtnal Contrail (as you call it) and obftinately perfifting in it, m.iy be re- 
 fifted by the People, and declar'd to have aM/cafed the Government, upon fuch 
 wilful Invalions of our fundamental Laws and Liberties; (King C/^ar/ei I. having 
 alfo knowingly perlifled in thofe Violations after his granting the Petition of 
 Right fo folemnly, in his third Parliament i and after many Petitions of divers 
 of his Subjeifts againfl: thofe Oppoiitioas, yet they wereftill continued:) fure he 
 might with as much Law and Juftice have been refilled, and have had Arms 
 taken upagainft him by the People of England, as have been lately againfl: his 
 Son : And upon King Charles's refufal to redrefs them, might alfo have been 
 declar'd by the Parliament to have abdicated the Kingdom, by renouncing the 
 lawful way of Government of it, according to your fuppofed fundamental Con- 
 ftitutions thereof. And yet for all that, the Long-Parliament it felf, tho they 
 declar'd that the King's fetting up his Standard at Nottingham was an adual 
 making War upon the People of England in their Reprefentatives ■■, yet neither 
 then, nor in the very heat of this War did they ever arrive to that degree of 
 Impudence, as to declare the King to have broken hi% Original Contrail^ and 
 thereby to hivc abdicated the Government; but ftill continued their AddrefTes 
 to him for Peace, if they might have had it upon their own Terms : nor yet 
 when they had voted no more AddrefTes to the King, did they ever declare that 
 he had forfeited the Crown by his wilful Breach of the Laws, and making War 
 upon his People Thefe things, I fay, were never done by them, till Cromwell 
 and the Army, with the Independent Party in the Houfe, firft: declar'd at Sr. 
 jilbans^ That the King, by beginning a War upon the People, had committed 
 Treafon againfl them. Mnf^onx Convention has quite outftiipt the old Presby- 
 terians^ and have not only laid afide the King as they did, but have alfo taken 
 from him the very Title of King, and have declar'd him to have abdicated the 
 Government \ which Aft, I doubt, can never be juflified by your Notion of ma- 
 king him forfeit the Throne by a tyrannical Adminillration, and fo to depofc 
 himfelf. 
 
 F. I am very forty to fee you fo hard put to it, as to find no way to judify 
 the late King's Mifcarriages, but by comparing them with thofe of his Father's 
 Reign ; which tho I grant them to be very great, and in fome things worfe 
 than thofe of his Son's, yet were they chiefly at the beginning of his Keign, 
 and indeed before he had granted the Petition of Right, when he had in truth 
 very much violated the Laws of the Kingdom, by exafting iliegal Loans, and 
 Jmprifoning thofe that refus'd to pay them ; as alfo by levying Soldiers, and 
 requiring the Counties to furnifh the Charges of Coa( and ConduCl-Mony for them, 
 contrary to Law. I grant alfo that his appointing Commiflioners to try, con- 
 demn and execute Soldiers by Martial Law in time of Peace, was againfl: the 
 known Laws of the Land, as alfo quartering them in private Houles, whether 
 the Owners would or not •■, and then his imprifoning divers People of Quality 
 without any Caufe fhewn, or Time limited, and without fufFering them to be 
 delivered by Habeoi Corpus, as by Law they ought. All which Grievances being 
 briefly fummed up in the Petition of Right, were (tho not without fome diffi- 
 culty) at lall redref 'd by the King, in that remarkable Anfwer, I have al- 
 ready cited, Soit Droit fait come il elt de/ire'. And altho there may be a great 
 deal faid by way of Excufe in the King's behalf, for thofe Illegal and Arbitrary 
 Proceedings; as that he then found himfelf engag'd in a War with the £>n- 
 feror and Houfe of Aujlria about the Palatmatc, and that at the delire of the 
 Parliament; and notwithftanding when he could receive no afrifl:ancc from 
 them in the three firfl Parliaments of his Reign, he was forc'd tomakeufeof 
 thckfe exorbitant Methods to raife Mony to carry on an unfuccefsful War againfl 
 Spam and the Emperor, in order to refl:ore the Prince £/f(7oi' his Brother in-law 
 to his Inheritance: tho who were the Caufe of this NeccfTity, whether the 
 King or the Houfe of Commons, Ifliallnotnow difpute. But whoever was in 
 the fault, it was fufficient that the King redrefs'd all thofe Grievances in the 
 third Parliament of his Reign. And yet even before that time, I affirm there 
 was no juft Caufe for the People to take up Arms, fince (ai i faid at firfl) thofe 
 
 Opprcflions
 
 702 
 
 BiBLioTHEcA Politic A. 
 
 bppreflions were either but light, or elfe fell only upon fome Trading Men ; 
 and I have already laid it down for a Rule, *•' That it is never lawful to refifl 
 " the King's Commands by Force, but when they ftrike at the very Root of 
 " the Conltitution, and become not only general, but infupportable by the 
 *' Subjefts, and that there are no hopes left of redrefs by Parliament 5; which 
 " I do not fee was the Cafe at tint time, feeing the King at lafl did remedy 
 *' all thofe Grievances by a Parliament.'' 
 
 M. 1 grant it might be as you fay ^ but did not the Nation quickly fall into 
 frelh Difcontents by the King's exacting of Tonnage and Poundage from the Mer- 
 chants, before thofe Duties had been new granted and confirmed by Aft of Par- 
 liament? And alfo, by his clapping up divers of them for refufing to pay it ? 
 Nay, did he not alfo, fome time after this, by the Opinions of almoft all his 
 Judges, and Advice of his Privy Council, levy Shi^-Mony upon the whole 
 Kingdom by his own Proclamation, and committed divers Gentlemen to Prifon 
 that re fu fed to pay it, nor would admit of any Habea/i Corpus to releafe them ? 
 1 Ihall omit divers other things ot lefs moment, fuch as his difpenfing with the 
 Statutes againft Popifh Priefii and Jefuits^ and his releafing and pardoning of 
 them, when they were conderan'd : as alfo his making feveral Popifhiy inclin'd 
 Lord Lieutenants, Deputy- Lieutenants, and Jultices of the Peace ; his turning 
 out the Lord Chief- Jultice CKfro, becaufe he declar'd himfelf againll the Z,ofl« ^ 
 and imprifoning the Refufers of it during pleafure •, and would alfo have turn'd 
 out the Lord Chief Baron Walter \y\ion the lame account, had he not held his 
 Place by Patent, Quamdiu bene fe gejftr'n -^ and yet neverthelefs he was for- 
 bidden fitting in that Court any more : which things are but the fame Iq 
 efFeft, as the Convention have put into their late Declaration againft the prefenE 
 King i and therefore 1 muft lay again, that the one is no more to be defended 
 than the other. But if thefe things did not defer ve any Refijlance^ or Abdication 
 of the Father ^ why fhould the like, nay lefs, matters have that tragical effedt 
 upon the Son ? 
 
 F. 1 (hould not have defirM to enter upon this odious Gomparifon, or to rake 
 into the Afties of the Dead ■■, yet, fince you will put me upon it, give me 
 leave to tell you my Opinion freely, of this part of the Reign of King Charles I. 
 that thofe Violations upon the Laws you mention, were fo great and general^ 
 that had they been as obftinately perfifted in, when the Parliaments met in 
 1640, and 41, I doubt not but they might have produc'd (and that lawfully) 
 the like EfFcfts, as his Son's Mifcarriages have fince brought upon him, by bis 
 going away, rather than he would fuffer them to be redrefs'd by a Free Parlia- 
 ment. But his Father was better advis'd, and either redrefs'd thofe Grievances 
 and OpprelTions the Nation complain'd of before thofe Parliaments fat, or elfe 
 yielded to the Parliament's Declarations againft them, and gave up the Offen- 
 ders to be punifh'd according to Law. Thus for example, before the Parlia- 
 ment fat in 1640. he releas'd ail thofe Gentlemen and Merchants that were 
 in Prifon, for not paying Shtp-Mony^ Tonnage zx\A Poundage^ &c. And as for 
 Ship-Mony, he acquiefced with the Judgment of both Houfes, who conderan'd 
 it as illegal i and left all the Judges that gave their Opinions for it, to the 
 Judgment of the Parliament. He alfo lign'd a Bill to take away Tonnage and 
 Poundage -, as alfo another to attaint the Earl of Strafford for endeavouring to in- 
 troduce an Arbitrary Government, and fubveit the laws of the Kingdom. He 
 alfo pafs'd feveral other Afts for the taking away of the Star-Chamber^ and High- 
 Commijfwn Courts^ and even for taking away the Votes of the Bifliops in the 
 Houfe of Peers : And laft of all, he pafs'd that unparalkl'd ACt 1 now men- 
 tion'd, of making the Parliament not capable of being adjourn'd, prorogu'd, 
 ordiftblv'd, without their own Confents: fo that he omitted nothing (as I 
 know of) that was defir'd of him for the redrefs of all thofe Grievances that 
 the Nation then juftly complain'd of j thofe Perfons who were accounted the 
 Authors of them, being either executed, imprilbned and fined ■■, or elfe fav'd 
 themfelves by Flight. 
 
 . But as for what you fay about that King's pardoning Popifli Priefts, and fuf- 
 pending the Laws againft Roman Catholicks, and turning out of Judges i they 
 were nothing like what his Son King James hath fitely done in that kind. For 
 inthefirft place, his Father never did more in pardoning Priefls, than what 
 Queen Elizabeth^ and King James I. had often done before-, who feldom or 
 
 never
 
 Dialogue the Fourteenth, joo 
 
 never executed any, only for being Priejh, unlefs they had affo been found 
 guilty of fome other Treafon : Nor do I know of any Law there then was ia 
 force againfl Roman CathoUds., the Execution whereof was openly fufpended 
 by any Proclnmation ^ tho I contefs chofe Juflices of Peace, who were round 
 moftaftive inputting fuch Laws in execution againfl Papijls^ were commonly 
 put out of Commiflion : but as for the turning out of Judges, you can inftance 
 only in one who was fo turned out, becaufe he would not agree to the Loan, 
 and as for the other, you your felf grant it was only offer'd at, but could not 
 be done: But what is this to the turning out of three, or four, oi five Judges 
 at a time, becaufe they would not confent to give their Opinions as the Court 
 would have them, even in matters of the higheft Importance; and then put- 
 ting Papilts, or elfe Men of the loofeft Conlciences, and leafl: Law, in their 
 Places, as was lately done? What is the paidoning of a few Priejis^ and the 
 lilent exempting fome Fnman Catholicks from the Penalties of the Laws made 
 againfl; them, in comparifon of a general and avowed Sujpen/totj^ not only of all 
 Laws againll them, butalfoof all thofe concerning Religion whatfoever? This 
 fure was never pradis'd by any King of England before our Times. 
 
 To conclude : Let us now fuppofe that in the Year 1641. the King, inflead 
 of rcdrefllng all thofe Grievances and Violations of the Laws we have now 
 mention'd, fhould have withdrawn himfelf into Ireland, and there have join'd 
 himfelf with the Irifh Rebels, and by the adiftance of the King of France, had 
 made war upon this Kingdom ; declaring that he would never put up his Sword, 
 till he had made hirhfelf abfolute Mafter of all our Laws and Liberties : What 
 think you the Parliament which was then fitting would have done in this Cafe? 
 Can you believe they would have fat ftiil, without pafilng a Vote againfl: the 
 King's Arbitrary and Tyrannical Proceedings ? No certainly, they would ne- 
 ver have flopped, till they had declared him, by thus becoming a pablick Ene- 
 my to his People, to have abdicated, or forfeited all his Right to the Govern- 
 ment of this Kingdom ; or elfe, 1 think, they could by no ways have fecured 
 the fafety of it. 
 
 Af. But pray let me ask you one Qiieflion more, before you proceed farther, 
 fince you have not yet anfwer'd my Objeftion : Why did not the Parliament 
 then do fo, when the King did afterwards adtually declare War againit 
 them ? 
 
 F. There were feveral good Reafons for that: As Firfl:, Becaufe they could 
 not but know in their own Confciences, that the King, before his departure from 
 London, had already given them all the Security, againfl thofe OpprefTions and 
 Violations that had been formerly committed, as they themfelves could defire. 
 And Secondly, Becaule they knew what they inlifted upon with fo much heat, 
 to wit, the difpofing of the Militia of the Kingdom, had been in the King's 
 and his Predecedbrs difpofal, from time beyond Memory ; fo that there needed 
 an exprefs Aft of Parliament to take it from him by Law, (as they themfelves 
 at firfl acknowledg'd :) And it was nothing but the Tumults that wereraifed 
 in London by the Rabble's coming down to petition the two Houfes, and by 
 their violent infiftingto have the whole Power of the Militia out of his hands 
 (which was indeed to take from him the chief Regal Power, that of the Sword) 
 could have thus forced him from the Parliament, and to take up Arms, when 
 he had neither Men nor Mony to pay them, the Parliament having flopped his 
 Revenues, ever fince his going to Hull. And therefore, feeing they had no 
 other Caufe, but their own Fears and Jealoufies to juflify what they did ; they 
 had no way to do that, but by laying all the fault upon the King's evil Coun- 
 fcllors, who had carried him away from bis Parliament, to incite him to make 
 war againfl: it; to remove him from whom, and to bring him back to his 
 Parliament, they made the chiefefl pretence for the War : yet notwithftanding 
 there were flill left in the Houfe a great many honeft well-meaning Men, call'd 
 Puritans (the Name of Presbyterian being not yet in fafhion;) and who, tho 
 they were againfl all Arbitrary Proceedings, yet neverthelefs loved Kingly 
 Government, and did not defire his Majefty's Ruin, fo long as there were any 
 hopes lett of coming to an Agreement with him, upon fuch Terms as they 
 thought would beft fuit with the Presbyterian Difcipline, and the Rights and 
 Liberties of the People : and thefe were for ending all Differences by a fair 
 Treaty, and afterwards voted the King's Conccflions at the Ijle of Wight to be 
 
 fatisfaftory ;
 
 704 B I li L I O T H E C A P O I. I T I C A. 
 
 tatisfai^ory •, and being for this alone driven out of the Houfe by CrommU^ and 
 his /ndeiitn:knt ■faCx'ioiij were call'd the excluded Members, and were the 
 very Men, who being afterwards brought again into the Houfe by Genera! Monk^ 
 join'd with him in vocing for a Free Farliament, or Convencion, which (you 
 know) recaii'd and refloi'd the King and Royal Family. 
 
 M. i cannot deny, but you have given me a fair Account of thefe Tranf- 
 a£f ions \ yet methinks, according to your Principles, I can fee no reaibn why 
 the People might not have nlcn up in Arms againit the King in that long Inter- 
 val of Parliaments, wlen iie levied 5/;;/)A/o«)', and (as you own) did fo many 
 illegal things, and that to force him whether he would or not, to call a Par- 
 liament, toredtels thole OpprefTions and Grievances the Nation then lay under ; 
 and yet you cannot fhew mc any Man in England^ who had either the Will or 
 Iniereft to raii'e a Rebellion againft the King, during thofe eleven Years that 
 thofe things were tranfafted \ fo well were the People fatisfied with hisMajefty's 
 Government, notwithftanding all the fecret Murniurings and Difcontents of 
 fome leading and fadious Men againft his Proceedings. And therefore, when 
 the Scots firlt invaded England upon the account o\ the New Service- Book, I 
 cannot find but the major part of our Nobility and Gentry were well enough 
 fatisfied with the King's Proceedings, and ferv'd him with great Courage and 
 Fidelity at bis firft Expeditiou againit the Scots. 
 
 F. If this be fo, you your felf have given me a fuflicient Reafon, why neither 
 the People, nor any p^rt of them, ought then to have taken up Arms againit 
 the Kingi for if the Major part were fo well fatisfied, as you make them to 
 be, it was align that the OppieUions were either not general, or elfe but very 
 light, and eafy to be borne ^ and therefore (no doubt) they ought to wait the 
 King's time when he would call a Parliament, rather than involve the Natioa 
 in a bloody Civil War, which 1 never fuppofe hwful, but as the lafl and only 
 Remedy, (as our Cafe lately was.) And befides all this, you know very well 
 th-dt Ship- Many (which was the chitfeft and luoft illegal of thefe Oppreflions) 
 was dedar'd to be according to Law by all the judges of Etigland in the Excbe- 
 quer-Cbamber^ except two, who I grant argued againit it, with greater Law 
 and Reafon, than the Majority of them could produce on the other fide, as 
 appears by their Argument?, fince printed in Dr. Franlilm^s Annals : yet, how- 
 ever, fo long as the Judges aie look'd upon as the Interpreters and Declarers 
 of what is Law in doubtful Cales in the Intervals of Parliament ^ I told you 
 at our laft Meeting, that whatever is done under fuch a Colour of Law, fup- 
 ported by their Determinations rightly given, ought not to be oppofed or 
 lelifted by the Subjeds, till their Judgment be levers'd and declar'd illegal by 
 Parliament. 
 
 But indeed you are fomewhat miftaken in matter of Faft : for tho I admit 
 that Ship-Morty wis a very light Tax in compariion of what we have felt fince, 
 and that moll of thofe Imprifonments you complain of, fell only upon fome 
 particular Gentlemen and Merchants, who refus'd to pay Ship-A^ony, and To«- 
 nage and Pomdagt :, yet was the Nation very highly dilTatisfy'd for all that, 
 when the Scots came in, efpecially after the Parliament (in 1640.) was diflblv'd, 
 becaufe they would not agree to the King's demands, of fifteen intire Subfidies 
 for the ScotifiiV/aT : and tho 'tis true, the Nobility and Gentry attended the 
 King in the firft Expedition againft the Scots with a feeiring Alacrity, as they 
 were by their Tenures bound to do, and that there: was alfo a meicenary Army 
 raifed upon Pay ; yet it is very plain, by the great unwiliingnefs of the gene- 
 rality of the Soldiers, as well as Commanders, to fight againft the Scots^ as 
 alfo by the InterceQlon of the major part of the tngli/h Lords for Peace, 
 and the mighty Joy which appeared at the Pacification \ I fay, it is very plain 
 upon thefe Conliderations, that moft of the E»gli/h Nobility and Gentry were 
 not well fatisfied with that War, becaufe they very well knew. That when once 
 the Scots were wholly fubdued and brought under, the King might then take 
 upon him to do even what he pleafed with his Engl'/h Subjeds. 
 
 M. I Ihall not farther difpute what you fay concerning this matter j but 
 defire you only to confider, That according to your own Argument, if the 
 Opinion of the major part of the twelve Judges, in the Intervals of Parlia- 
 ment, be fuch a Declaration of Law to the People (how illegal foever it might 
 Se in it felf) as they ought by no means to gainfay or refift ; then by a parity 
 
 of
 
 Dialogue the Fourteenth, 705 
 
 of RcafoD, the taking up Arms by thofe Noblemen and Gentlemen Who joined 
 with the Prince of Orange is not to be juftified, feeing that the King had the 
 Judgment of moft of his twelve Judges on his fide for difpenfing with the 
 Aft concerning the Oaths and Teft. 
 
 F. I own what you have now faid would have been clofe and home to the 
 Cafe, had this been fo declared by their Judgments upon a folemn Argument 
 of the point in the Excheejuer-Chambcr, as had been done in the Cafe of Ship- 
 Muny : but it was fo far otherwife in this, that you may very well remember 
 the king would not permit the Judges fo much as to argue the Cafe, or give 
 their Opinions in publick, but only in private in Serj cantos -Inn, and that too 
 after they had been clofetted by my Lord Chancellor ■, and thofe were turned 
 out that would not be brought over to his Opinion, and fuch put into 
 their places as promifed to comply. And befides all this, the King's De- 
 claration of Indulgence was not a Difpenfation in one particular Cafe, or 
 Aft of Parliament alone, but an aftual ijufpenfion of above forty Penal Sta- 
 tutes at once concerning Matters of Religion, which (as I have already proved) 
 was as good as a downright Abrogation of them *, and fuch a Sufpenfion had 
 been before declared unlawful in the Cafe of Thomas and Sorhl., in the Lord 
 Chief Juftice ^<»j/^Lt«'s Reports, which 1 mentioned at our laft Meeting. Now 
 if you can fliew me any thing like this done by King Charles the Firlt in the 
 bulinefs of Ship-Mony^ 1 grant your Objeftion to be good, otherwife not. 
 
 Af. But pray give me leave to urge this matter a little farther concerning 
 the Lawfulnefs of the War made by the Parliament againft Charles the Firft, 
 in defence (as they pretended) of their Religion and Civil Liberties, againib 
 the King's Ufurpations upon both j for which they had a very fpecious pre- 
 tence, fince the King had left the Parliament, not upon any direft or 
 open Force or Compulfion, but only upon a bare Surmife^ follow'd by a De- 
 claration, that he thought he could not be fafe any longer at London^ for fear 
 of the Tumults of the Rabble. Now when the Parliament bad upon this de- 
 clared, That hisMajelty's Departure and continuing from his Parliament, not» Ruth. Hfft. 
 withftanding their humble Petitions for his Return, was an Obftruftion to the ^°"«'*- Par.3. 
 Affairs of Ireland-, and that thofe who advifed him to go away were Enemies ''°'- '• P-534* 
 to the Peace of the Kingdom, and juftly fufpefted to be Favourers of the Infl} 
 Rebellion : and farther, upon his going to Hu/l, and his hoftile Preparations 
 againft that place, the two Houfes had in a Declaration, publifhed for their 
 Juftification, that all that Sir John Hothum had afted in that Affair, had been I'^- 'b. p.6ii. 
 done by their Order; and that the King's Proceedings were unfuitable to his 
 Declarations of never having an intention to make war againft the Parlia- 
 ment : And farther, upon his Majefty's ifluing out his Commiffions of Array^ W. ib. 658. 
 they voted them contrary to Law, and againft the Liberty and Property of 
 the Subjeft •, and that all thofe that afted in putting thofe Commiffions in ex- 
 ecution, were Difturbers of the Peace of the Kingdom, &c. and farther de- 
 clared it lawful to refift by force of Arms all thofe Noblemen and Gentlemen ^d- p. 766. 
 who had endeavour'd to put it in execution: And laftly, his fetting up his 
 Standard at Nottingham, and marching with an Army towards London, was an lb. 787. 
 evident Declaration of his aftual beginning a War againft them i whom then could 
 the Nation better believe in this cafe, than their Reprefentatives in Parliament ? 
 
 So that if you will fuppofe our prefent ¥J\Q'^James to have forfeited or ab- 
 dicated the Kingdom, becaufe the Convention hath lately declared fo, you 
 ought then to quit your old Cavalier Principles, and tO/Own the late War 
 againft King Ch.irles the Firft, being only defenfive on the Parliament-fide, 
 to have been juft and lawful by like parity of Reafon, as you faid ; for furely 
 a Declaration of both Houfes of Parliament, called by the King's Writ, ought 
 to be looked upon as of much greater Authority than that of a Convention, 
 who have met and afted without any legal Authority to call them together. 
 
 F. You have indeed played the part of a ftout Advocate for the Presbyterian 
 Party in the Long Parliament, which I know you urge againft me only as -^r- 
 gumcntum ad homtnem, whereby you would prove me an Apoftate from my for- 
 mer Principles i but I hope, for ail that, fo far to vindicate the late Proceed- 
 ings of the Convention, as to fhew that they have done, and declared nothing 
 in their Vote or Declaration concerning Kiag James, but what may very well 
 be juftified upon my old Cavalier Principles. 
 
 Xxxx In
 
 7o6 BiBLlOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 In Older to which, pray take notice, fiift of all, that I lay down as a ground 
 of what I have to fay on this Subject, That the greateft part of the Nobility 
 and Gentiy, who took up Arms on the behalf of King Charles againfl: the Long 
 Parliament, never believed any abfolute iirefiftible Power in the King, or thofe 
 commiflTioned by him, if they aded againfl: the known Laws of the Land ^ for 
 this indeed is a new Doftrine, preached and fet up fincc that time only to ferve 
 a turn. Secondly, That the Nobility, Gentry, and People of Englnndy who 
 underftood any thing of the Grounds of this Q<iarrel between the King and 
 the two Hoiifes, by fighting on the King's fide, and fupporting his Caufe, 
 never intended thereby to make him an Arbitrary Monarch, and to give him 
 a power over the Perfons, Eftates, and Liberties of the People of this King- 
 dom, but only (as his Majefty himlllf fet forth in all his Declarations) to de- 
 fend the King's juft Rights, as alfo thofe of the Church of EngLwd eftablifhcd 
 by Law ; both which were then invaded by that Parliament. Thirdly, That 
 no fober Man of the King's Party then did (any more than we do now) fup- 
 pofe the Judgment either of the whole, or major part of the Parliament, to 
 be an infallible Rule of Law or Obedience, but only as far as it agreed with the 
 antient and kndwn Laws of the Kingdom: and hence it was that many No- 
 blemen and Gentlemen, who were for the King, refufed to yield Obedience to 
 thofe commilTioned by the Parliament, according to their Ordinance for fettling 
 the Militia. And therefore as they refufed to own the Power of the Parliament 
 when it was illegal, fo I freely grant, that upon the fame grounds both you 
 and I, and any confidering Man, have alfo the like Right to examine whether 
 the late Votes and Declaration of the prefent Convention were according to 
 the antient fundamental Conttitution of the Kingdom, and the publickGood 
 and Safety of the Commonwealth, or not i for otherwife all the Difcourfes 
 that you and I have had upon this Subjedl are altogether in vain, and to no- 
 purpofe. 
 
 M. But to urge this matter a little farther ^ tho it be lawful (upon your 
 Principles) for the Parliament, when fitting, to be Judge of its own and the 
 Peoples Danger of lofing their Religion and Civil Liberties, and of the King's 
 Encroachments upon them j yet when the King came to the Houfe of Com- 
 mons, to demand and feize the five Members, and had failed in the Un- 
 dertaking, they were never after that fatisfied with his ceafing farther Profe- 
 cution, but judging themfelves and the Nation in imminent danger, as long 
 as the King had any power to hurt them, they would not be fatisfied unlefs 
 the Militia of the Kingdom were wholly put into Commifiioners of their owa 
 Nomination ; efpecially when after the breaking out of the/r;/?; Rebellion, &c. 
 Sir Phelim Oneale^ their General, pretended to ihew the King's Commiflion for 
 what they had done. So that (to argue on the fame Principles) if the Nation 
 were then in great danger, and that its Reprefentative, the two Houfes of 
 Parliament, weie the fole and proper Judges of this Danger, then upon the 
 King's refufal to pafs a Bill to fettle the Militia out of his power into indif- 
 ferent Hands, was certainly a Denial of granting all means neceffary for the 
 publick Peace and Safety of the Kingdom, and confcquently the Parliament 
 might upon the fame grounds juRify their raifing an Army to force it. 
 
 F. I confefs you have urged all that ever was, or can well be faid in Jufti- 
 fication of the beginning of that unhappy Civil War by the Long Parliament : 
 yet give me leave to tell you, that I think it will not do the bufinefsi for 
 whenever the King and Parliament differ about the Exercife of any part of 
 the Supreme Power, fuch as is that of the Militia, that great Power of the 
 Sword, which when there is any Difpute about it, or even when it is feared 
 the King will abufe that Power to enflave the Nation, ought to refide in King 
 and Parliament jointly j whereas it became then divided, both the King and the 
 Parliament feparately claiming their Right to it. But at this prefent Revolu- 
 tion, the King being gone away without leaving any Deputy or Vicegerent be- 
 hind him, or calling a Parliament before his Departure, the Qjiellion now a- 
 j-ifcs, Vv'hethcr by his Departure his Right to govern be loit or not ? And 
 tho the prefent Convention have determined that it is, yet I mad itill own, 
 that neither you nor I are obliged to Itand to their Judgment any farther 
 than formei;- Precedents from Hiftory, and Declarations of Parliament, and 
 Statutes Ihall incline us ^ for we mult not blindly take the ordinary Books of 
 
 Reports
 
 Dialogue the Fourteenth. 707 
 
 Reports (wliich arc but the Opinions of private Judges) for Law in fudi great 
 Cafes: therefore fince nothing but the Juftice and Reafon of the thing ought 
 to determine us in thefe matters, 1 Ihall endeavour to examine them to the 
 bottom- 
 Therefore the Parliament is not infallible, and always in the right, nor the 
 King always in the wrong j fince that may fall out either way, according as 
 cither of them, through an Excefs of Ambition or Defire of Power on one 
 fide, or too much Encroachment upon the Prerogative on the other, may give 
 the firll occafion for a War. I (hall now comply fo far with you, as to 
 grant, that the breaking out of the Rebellion in Ireland, and the Queen and 
 thofe of her Party fo notorioufly favouring the Papifts, and Sir Phelim 0- 
 veaWs pretending to have the King's Commiflion to raife Rebellion, and mur- 
 der the Froteftants in Irelund, together with the King's Attempt to feize the 
 five Members, might then feem juft Occafions for the two Houfes of Parlia- 
 ment to defire to have the Militia fettled in fome hands that they could con- 
 fide in. Yet truly to determine whether the King or Parliament were in the 
 wrong, he in denying, and they ftill urging to have the Militia fettled accord- 
 ing to their own pleafure, will give us occafion to lookback, and take a Ihort 
 View of the molt material Tranfaftions of thofe Times. 
 
 My next bufinefs therefore fliall be to Ihew you what great things the King 
 had done to fatisfy the Parliament and the whole Nation, that he did not in- 
 tend to govern arbitrarily, but to make a general Reformation of whatever 
 had been amifs in the former part of his Reign : for at the beginning of this 
 Parliament, befides the declaring of Ship-Mony, Tonnage, and Poundage, with 
 feveral Monopolies, to be illegal, he palled a Bill for Trienmd Parliaments ^ 
 by which, in cafe of a failure of the ifTuing out of the King's Writs in due 
 time, the Sheriffs were impower'd to iifue out Precepts for the Choice of 
 Members to ferve in Parliament, who were required to meet accordingly. 
 After this he pafied that unparallel'd Aft, which was indeed the main caufe 
 of all the Wars and Confufions that followed i whereby, under the pretence 
 of giving the Parliament credit to take up Moneys to pay off the Scott^} and 
 Engiifl} Army, the King tied up his own hands from proroguing, adjourning, 
 or difiblving that Parliament without their own Confents: by which Aft the 
 Supreme Power became divided, and the Parliament was made wholly indepen- 
 dent on the King ; which indeed produced a great Alteration in the very Gon- 
 ftitution of the Government it felf. At the fame time (tho with much diffi- 
 culty) he pafied the Bill of Attainder againft his late chief Minifter the Earl of 
 Strajfordy for certain Crimes and Mifdemeanors, which certainly were not High 
 Treafon at Common Law. 
 
 Then the better to fatisfy his People, the King within lefs than two Months 
 after paffed two Afts for taking away the Star-Chamber and High-Commijfion 
 Court i and having done all thefe unparallel'd Afts of Grace, he adjourn'd the 
 Parliament, and went into Scotland^ in order to quiet the late Commotions of 
 that Kingdom. 
 
 But to let you fee that nothing lefs than the depriving of the King of his 
 antient and undoubted Prerogative would ferve the turns of an unquiet Fadion, 
 you mull know, that during the King's abfence, this difcontented Party in the Ru(h. ib.437. 
 Houfe of Commons took a frefli occafion of afperfing his Majelly's Govern- 
 ment, by contriving a Petition with a Declaration, called a Remonftrance oi the 
 State of the Kingdom ■■, which being brought into the Houfe of Commons aC 
 their re-fitting after their late Adjournment, was pafied by a very fmall Ma- 
 jority of Votes, notwithftanding Sir Edward Deenngi, and divers other worthy 
 Members arguing and protefting againfl; it : fo that the Debate lafting from three 
 of the Clock in the Afternoon till ten the next Morning, it caufed many of ^^^ ., 
 the Members, through Weaknefs or Wearinefs, to leave the Houfe before they p, ^^[ 
 came to a Vote •■, which made Sir Benjamin Rudyard compare it to the forced 
 VerdiEl of a fiarved Jury. 1 his being prefented to the King, contained an 
 invidious Repetition of all the paft Mifcarriages and Grievances of his Reign, 
 tho they had been all, or moil of them, either long fince over, or already re- 
 dreficd, and taken away either by particular Afts, or Votes of Parliament. 
 This Declaration and the Petition, tho they were anfwered by another pub- 
 lifhed by the King for that purpofe, and written with great Strength of Rea- 
 
 X X x X 2 fon •,
 
 7o8 
 
 B I B L I O T H E C A P O L I T I C A. 
 
 Diigdaie'j fon ; yct Uieir Paper iiad fo far obtained the end for which it was publiflied, 
 j7)«rr r;m',&c. as to lender his Government and Minifters odious to a great many well-meaii- 
 p. 78. Seethe- \>(.Qp[p y^j^Q pave entire credit to whatever their Reprefentatives had 
 
 Anjwer at ^^ c .t 
 larie ^^^ lOrCh. 
 
 Runi'ib.p4'52. I'iut indeed all this tended towards their main end of getting the Militia 
 into their own hinds, fmce they knew when they had that, they could ea- 
 illy accomplifh whatever elfe they had a mind to ^ and for this purpofe fome 
 of that Faftion invented and fpread abroad divers horrid Plots and Confpi- 
 id. p. 76,77. racies againft the State, of wliich the Houfe of Commons bad feveral falfe 
 Informations, and feemed to give credit to them ^ as that a great multitude 
 of Papifts and other Malignants were al)out to rife in Arms \ alfo ot great 
 Forces to be fent out of France and Denm.irk to afTift the King to enflave the 
 Kation, and alter the Religion eftablilhed : of which Reports there was not 
 a word true, as the People were afterwards convinced of, when it was too late. 
 
 Yet at prefent thefe Stories had fo far wrought the eflect for which they were 
 raifed, that divers Apprentices, and others of the meaner fort of the City of 
 Id. p. 78. London^ coming down in great multitudes toWhitehall andlVtftminfifr^ peti<- 
 Rufl).ib.p462. tioned againft the Bifhops, and demanded them to he excluded the Houfe : 
 Id, p. 465. which Clamours, with other fjucy refleding Language againit the King, fo far 
 provoked him, that he thereupon ilTued out his Proclamation againft fuch tu- 
 multuous AlTemblies, as contrary to Law ■■, and at the fame time, by the Ad- 
 vice of the Judges, he iflued forth an Order to the Sheriffs of Aliddlefex, and 
 Juftices of Peace of Wtftminfler^ for thefettingof a Watch or a Guard about 
 the Hall and Parliament-Houfe: at which, when it came to be put in execu- 
 tion, the Houfe of Commons took offence, and having examined the Confta- 
 Id. ib. 4';6. bjej a,jd Under-sheriffs that fet the faid Watch, they voted it a Breach of 
 Du^d. lb. Privilege to fet Guards about their Houfe without their Confent, and there- 
 upon fent their Serjeant to them to order their Difcharge-, and Mr. Long^ a 
 Juftice of Wejtminfter who had figned the Warrant, was fent to the Tower, 
 as having exceeded the Authority given him by the Writ, in fending dovPn 
 armed Men to the Parliament-Houfe, without acquainting them with the fame. 
 And yet, which was moveftrange, a few days after they thought themfelves 
 in fuch danger of a malignant Party (as they called them) that they addrefled 
 Ru(li.ib.p47i. to the King that they might have a Guard out of the City, to be commanded 
 by the Earl of Ejfex\ which Requeft being deny'd, and civilly put off by his 
 Majefty as unnccelTary, they thereupon order'd Halberts to be provided and 
 brought into the Houfe for their better Security : But the truth was, the Fac- 
 tion looked upon themfelves in no danger from that Party of the Mob that 
 cried out againft the Bifhops, tho at the fame time they infolted both the 
 King and the Lords that were not of their Party; whilft the fame Men pre- 
 tended they were afraid of having their Throats cut by certain malignant 
 Officers of the late disbanded Army. But this was only a pretence in order 
 to put the Nation into a pofture of Defence under confiding Perfons of their 
 own Nomination, and to get the Militia, or whole Force of the Nation, into 
 their own hands. 
 
 M. I think fo far you are in the right \ pray go on to fhew by what means 
 they obtained it. 
 
 F. I fhall proceed to do fo in as few words as is pofTtble, for the true Rela- 
 tion of fo rnsny and fo various Tranfaftions, as quickly followed each other. 
 Dujid.ib.p.Si. When the King found that there was a malicious, prejudiced, and turbulent 
 Party in both Houfes, who made it their bufinefs, inftead of healing the 
 Breaches between the King and them, to make them wider; and the Ring- 
 Leaders of this Fadion were the Lord Kymbolton in the Houfe of Peers, and 
 in that of the Commons, Mr. Hambden, Mr. Pyw, and three others whom I 
 need not particularly name, and who were alfo believed by his Majefty to have 
 had a chief hand in exciting the Scots to take up Arms, and enter England as 
 R III ib p ^'^^y ^^^ done: he thought fit by his Attorney-General to impeach thofe 
 47"^ 474. Members at the Bar of both Houfes of High Treafon, upon feven Arti- 
 ' cles then exhibited ; and then for the better Profeaition of this Accufation, he 
 
 commanded their Chambers and Studies to be fearched, and their Trunks 
 with their Papers to be fealed up. This was not only voted a high Breach of 
 Privilege by the Houfe of Commons, but the Lords alfo thereupon order'd, 
 
 that
 
 Dialogue the Fourteenth. 709 
 
 that they (hould be forthwith opea'd and deliver'd to their Owners, And 
 when the King did by his Serjeant at Arms demand the Taid Members to be id. p. 476. 
 taken into cuftody, they were fo far from complying with that Demand, that 
 the Speaker, by the Order of the Houfe, commanded them to attend de die m 
 diet»f till the Houfc fliould take farther order about it. So that tho Treafon, 
 Felony, and Breach of the Peace, have been at all times excepted out of the 
 Privileges of Parliament, yet it fcems the Law was otherwife with them, and 
 they declared that none of their Members were to be feized on any account 
 whatever, without the Leave and Confent of the Houfe of Commons. Where- 
 fore, when the King found he was not like to obtain any thing by his Impeach- 
 ment, unlefs thefe Members could be firft fecured, he was by the Queen, or 
 fome others near about him, put upon a rafh and violent Adtion, which was to 
 •go in Pcrfon to the Houfe of Commons not only to demand, but feize the Per- vi'hui. ib. p, 
 fons of the five Members^ which, being attended with his Guard of Penfio- 50. 
 ners, and about two hundred other Courtiers and Gentlemen armed with 
 Swords and Piftols, he endeavour'd to perform : but when the King came into 
 the Houfe of Commons, he found none of thofe Members he looked for, for 
 they having notice of his coming, were withdrawn before he could get thither. 
 But as I do not juftify the King's Proceedings, in going to the Houfe of Com- 
 mons in Perfon to arreft thofe Members, fince the King cannot in Perfon exe- 
 cute the Office of a Meflenger, or other inferior Officer i for then there could 
 be no Perfon left to whom the Subjed might appeal : fo thus much may be faid 
 in his excufe, that he did not take this Courfe till he found all other gentle 
 i\lethods utterly defperate. 
 
 But to proceed: When upon the Votes of the Houfe of Commons, that U- p.479' 
 this Adion of the King's, in coming to the Houfe in a warlike manner to feize 
 their Members, was a high Breach of Privilege ; and when, upon the feveral 
 Petitions from the City and divers Counties in their behalf, they were brought 
 by a Rabble of Watermen, and other defperate Fellows, as it were in tri- Dugd. p. Si2. 
 umph i then he found it in vain to profccute his Impeachment againft them 
 any farther: and fo he gave the Houfes of Lords and Commons notice, That 
 he would for the prcfent not only wave his former Proceedings, but, as a far- Rudi. P.4SS. 
 thcr Teftimony of his unfeigned Intentions towards his People for the better 
 compolrngof this matter, and removing all their Fears and Jealoufies, he of- 
 fer'd to grant fuch a General Pardon to all his loving Subjeds, as ffiould be 
 thought convenient by both Houfes. But this was refufed by the Commons, 
 and nothing would ferve to quiet their Minds : but being full of needlefs Fears 
 and Jealoufies, put into their heads by falfe Reports, and feigned Letters of 
 flrange Defigns to feize on, and murder the Members of Parliament ; they not Rufh.Hlft.Col. 
 only ordered a Guard for their own fafety, confifting of the City Trained- Par- ^- Vol. i. 
 Bands, under the Command of Colonel Skippan^ but likewife ordered a Guard P-469- 
 to be fet upon the Tower, that fo no Ammunition nor Provifions ffiould be car- ^'^" '''■ P-'*^^- 
 ried from thence without the Authority of Parliament : and alfo that Sir John 
 Hotham ffiould take the Command of the Town of Hull, and fecure (that is, 
 feize) the King's Magazine of Arms there, and ffiould not deliver them with- 
 out the King's Authority, fignified to him by the two Houfes of Parliament : 
 which was indeed to take away the Command of the King's Arms andStores^ 
 bought with his own Mony, without any juft caufe ffiewn, except, as I faid 
 before, their own caufelefs Jealoufies. But the better to difcover the ftepa 
 this Faction took to get the Militia of the Kingdom into their own hands, I 
 ffiall now look back to what was done a little before this : When the City and 
 illation were put in a flrange Ferment by the above-mention'd falfe Reports, 
 that fame Party in the two Houfes excited underhand divers of the meaner 
 fort of the City of London, and County of Middlefex, as well as other Coun- 
 ties, to petition the Parliament, that all Papifts ffiould be difarmed, that all Vid. A fltort 
 Bifljops and Popiffi Peers ffiould be excluded out of the Lords Houfe, and the V'^w of the 
 Kingdom fpeedily put in a poftare of Defence-, and to this end, that the Mi- ^'■''«*'". &'^- 
 litia flioold be committed to fuch hands as the Nation might mofl; confide in. ^' ^' 
 Now to quiet and fatisfy the Houfe of Commons and City, whofe Minds were 
 ftill much difturbed about the bufinefs of the five Members, the King on the 
 twentieth of January fcnt the two Houfes of Parliament a moft gracious Mcf- 
 fage in writing ; wherein he propofed, " For the preventing the Diftradions RulKib.p.siS 
 
 " that
 
 7IO BiBLioTHECA Politic A. 
 
 *' that were now likely to enfue, that they (hould fall into a ferious Confide- 
 '' ration of fuch Particulars as they fhould judge neceflaiy for the upholding 
 " and maintaining his Majefty's juft and regal Authority, the fettling of his 
 '* Revenue, and for the prefent and future Eftablifhment of their Privileges, 
 " the quiet and free Enjoyment of their Eftates and Fortunes, the Liberties of 
 " their Perfons, the Security of the true Religion profelTed by the Church of 
 " England, and appointing of Ceremonies in fuch a manner as may takeaway 
 " all juft Offence •, which when they (hall have compofed and digefted into one 
 ** entire Body, that fo his Majelly and themfelves may be able to make the 
 " clearer judgment of them, it fhall then appear, by what his Majefty [hall 
 " do, how far he hath been from intending thofe things which the great Fears 
 " of fome Perfons feem to apprehend, and then how ready he fhall be to ex- 
 *' ceed the greateft Examples of the moll indulgent Princes : and it concludes, 
 " that if the prefent Diftradions, which apparently threaten the Ruin of 
 *' this Kingdom, do not end in a happy Accommodation, his Majefty fhall call 
 " Heaven and Earth to witnefs, that it hath not failed on his part." 
 
 To this reafonable Propofal, the Houfe of Commons alone return an An- 
 fwer, by way of Petition, to this effeft : " That to give them a fure Ground 
 " of Safety and Confidence of what he would be pleafed to do, he fhould 
 " forthwith put the Toirfj- of London^ and other principal Ports, together 
 " with the whole Militia of the Kingdom, into the hands of fuch Perfons as 
 " Oiould be recommended to him by the Petitioners," (vIt.. Houfe of Com- 
 mons.) But the King being unwilling to part with thofe Powers and Preroga- 
 tives, which his PredccefTors from time immemorial conftantly enjoyed, re- 
 plied to this purpofe. That he hoped his laft gracious Meflage to both Hou- 
 fes would have produced a better efled. As to the Tower of London, his Ma- 
 * sir John jefty did notexpeft, having preferred a * Perfon of known Fortune and un- 
 h'^°'^- queftionable Reputation to that Truft, that he fhould be prefled to remove 
 
 him without any particular Charge laid againft him ; yet if upon due exa- 
 mination it (hould appear, " That his Majefty was miftaken in his Opinion of 
 " this Gentleman, he would make no fcruple to difcharge him, which other- 
 " wife he fhould be loth to do: That as for the Forts and Caftles of the 
 " Kingdom, his Majefty is refolved they (hall always be in the hands of fuch 
 *' Perfons as the Parliament may confide in-, but the nomination of the Per- 
 " fons to thofe Places being a principal and infeparable Prerogative of the 
 " Crown, derived from his Anceftors by the fundamental Laws of the King- 
 " dom, &c. he will referve to himfelf." And then proceeds, " That as for the 
 " Militia (which by Law is fubjeft to no Command but that of his Maje- 
 " fty, and of the Authority lawfully derived from him) when my parti- 
 " cular Courfe for the ordering the fame (which his Majefty holds very necef- 
 " fary for the Peace and Security of his Kingdom) fhall be propofed to him, 
 " he will return fuch an Anfwer as fhall be agreeable to his Honour, and the 
 " Safety of his People;, being refolved only to deny thofe things, the grant- 
 " ing of which would alter the fundamental Laws, and endanger the very 
 " Foundation upon which the publick Happinefs and Welfare of his People 
 *' is founded and conftituted, and would nourifh a greater and more deftruc- 
 *' tive Jealoufy between the Crown and the Subjeft, than any of thofe which 
 *' feem to be taken away by fuch a Satisfaction." And then further goes on, 
 " That he found his having granted more than any King ever had done be- 
 *' fore, encouraged his Houfe of Commons to ask more of him than ever Sub- 
 *' jefts had asked j yet, however, if they fhall thiuk fit to acquaint him with 
 " the particular Grounds of their Doubts and Fears, he will very willingly 
 *' apply Remedies proportionable to thofe Fears ; for his Majefty calls God 
 *' to witnefs, That the Prefervation of the publick Peace, the Law and Li- 
 " berty of the Subjed, is, and fhall always be, as much his Majefty's Care and 
 *' Induftry, as his own Life, or the Lives of his deareft Children." Then 
 he concludes " with conjuring the Houfe of Commons by all the Afts of 
 *' Favour they have received from him, as alfo by divers other Motives, that 
 " they would not be tranfported by Fears of impofFible Dangers, to put 
 " themfelves or his Majefty into real and prefent Inconveniences •, but that 
 " they would fpeedily purfue the way propofed by his Majefty's former Mef- 
 '■'■ fage, which in human Reafon is the only means to compofe the Diftraftions 
 
 *' of
 
 Dialogue the Fourteenth, 7 1 1 
 
 " of the Kingdom, and with God's BlcfTing to reftore a great meafure of Fe- 
 " licity to King and People." 
 
 But the Faftion in the Commons-Houfe was not at all fatisfied with this rea- 
 fonable and moderate Anfwer, and not having as yet been able to procure the 
 Houfe of Peers to confentto join with them in their farther petitioning his 
 Majefty for the Militia, they defifted from returning him any Reply for fome 
 time, till they were again backed and encouraged by feveral Petitions from Dugda!e'> 
 thofe of their Party in the City, and divers Counties of England-^ and had \i^ f><»t view^ 
 that, andfcvcral other Artifices, obtained a Majority in the Houfe of Peers, P" ^^' 
 to join with them in another Petition for putting the Militia wholly out of his 
 Majefty's power. 
 
 //, I fliould be glad to underftand by what means there was fo fuddcn and 
 fo great an Alteration wrought in fo judicious and auguft a Body, as that of 
 the Houfe of Peer?. 
 
 F. 1 fhall comply with your Defires, and to make you the better to under- 
 ftand it, you may pkafe to take notice, That this could never have been 
 brought about, had not feveral of that Great Council been clapt up in 
 Prifon, and divers of the Popilh and other Lords frightned from coming to 
 the Houfe by the Tumults and Petitions of the Rabble. But as to the Bi (hops, 
 you may remember, that they having been feveral times not only menaced, 
 but alfo violently adaulted by a rude multitude of Apprentices and other or- 
 dinary Fellows, that came down in great numbers, armed with Staves and 
 other Weapons, under pretence of petitioning againft the Bifhops and Popifh 
 Lords having their Votes in Parliament : the former thought it from thence- 
 forth not fafe for them to come any more to the Houfe, till the Caufe of 
 their jult Fears were removed too. And twelve of the Bifhops (of whom 
 the Archbilh-jp of York was the chief) prefented a Petition and Proteftation to 
 the King and Houfe of Peers, fetting forth their undoubted Right to fit InRudi. utfu- 
 Parliament, and demanding his Majefty's Proteftion for the fame, declared P"> /"• 4^^' 
 their Hatred to Popery j and that fo lang as they fhall be thus menaced and af- 
 faulted, they cannot attend to perform their Services in the Houfe : and 
 therefore protefl againft all Laws, Orders, and other Proceedings, that have 
 or fhall be palfed in their Abfence. 
 
 This Petition being delivered by the faid Archblfhop of York., and the other lb./-. 457. 
 Bifhops-, and the Houfe of Peers taking offence thereat, the Houfe of Com- 
 mons laid hold on that advantage, fo as thereupon to impeach all thofe that 
 had figned it of High Treafon. And the Peers alfo too much refenting it, 
 tbey were by their Order not long after (all except two, who were com- 
 mitted to the Black Rod) fent to the Tower^ where they continued till fuch 
 time as the King had palfed the Bill for difabling them, and the reft of the 
 Bifhops, to fit and vote in Parliament, and then they were difcharged : For 
 the Faftion having obtained the end for which they had accufed them, they 
 were profecuted no further, but were all fet at liberty except the Archbifhop 
 of Canterbury and Bifhop of Norwich, who had been fomctime before committed 
 upon another account j and the former of thcfe continued clofe Prifoner for 
 near three years after, until he was beheaded, and the latter for near twenty 
 years without ever being brought to Trial. But this by the by ^ only you 
 may obferve, that the reft of the Bithops and Lords, who looked upon them- 
 felvcs as obnoxious to the Faftion, cither forbore coming to the Houfe at all, 
 orelfe, if they came, durft not oppofe the Defigns that v/ere then fo furioufly 
 driven on. 
 
 Nor did the Party reft contented yet, till they had ftirred up and procured 
 feveral faftious Petitions from theCitv of London, and the Counties of Effex, Dugd.^.85, 
 Hertford, Suffolk, Northampton, Kent, Oxford^ Lincoln, and York: fome com- 86, 87, SS>. 
 plainiiTgof the Lofs and Deadnefs of Trade, and others that there was no 
 Redrefs to be expefted, unlefs the Bifhops and the Popifh Lords were put 
 cut of the Houfe ^ whilft others defired that the Kingdom fhould be put into 
 a Pofturc of War. And^ the Faftion having laid fuch a Foundation for the 
 carrying on their Defigns, by enfnaring the People with their own Petitions, 
 which were delivered by many thoufinds in Perfon ^ as alfo from feveral falfe 
 Stories and Reports of dangerous Plots and Defigns of the Papifts in Lanea- 
 /fc^cf and other Places, it ftruck fuch a Terror in tbc Lords that remained in 
 
 the
 
 712 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 the Houfe, that upon Mr. Hollish again moving them at a Conference, 7'hdi 
 their Lordjhips would now join with thenjy without any further delay^ in petitioning 
 his Majefiy^ that the Kingdom Jliould be put into a Poflure of Defence : I fay, 
 ♦he Lords, who refufed to join with them at firft in their Petition of tiie 
 26th of January^ were fo far brought about, that the Majority of them at 
 lafl; confented to it, being prefented to tlie King on the 2d of February^ which 
 was to thiseffeft : 
 
 ku(h./». ^18. " In the firft place they fet forth the prefent Evils and Calamities where- 
 " with his Majefty's Kingdoms were moll miferably entangled, and the im- 
 *' rainent Dangers, which (as they pretended) threatned his Royal Perfon : 
 " and tho they feemed to receive hi? Majefty's late Propolition of the 2cth 
 " of January with great Thankfulnefs, and would with Earneftnefs of Af- 
 *' feftion endeavour to purfue the fame ; yet for the Safety of his Royal Per- 
 *' fon, preferving the Honour and Authority of his Crown, and removing 
 *' all jealoufies betwixt his Majefty and his People, fupprefling the Rebellion 
 " in Ireland, preventing the Fears and Dangers in this Kingdom, and the mif- 
 *' chievous Defigns of thofe who were Enemies to the Peace of it ; they ftill 
 *' infifted, That for the accomplilhing their Duties therein with more Com- 
 *' fort and Security, his Majefty would be pleafed forthwith to put tbcTowef 
 " of London, and all other Forts, with the whole Militia of the Kingdomj 
 *' into the hands of fueh Perfons as fhould be recommended unto his Majefty 
 *' by both Houfes of Parliament : and which they afture therafelves would be 
 " a hopeful Entrance into thofe Courfes, which (thro God's BlelFing) would be 
 " efFeftual for the removing all Diffidence and Mifapprehenfions betwixt his 
 *' Majefty and his People, and (as they faid) for eftablilhing and enlarging 
 " theHonour and Greatnefs of his Royal Pofterity. And then conclude, that 
 '* they expeded his Majefty's fpeedy and gracious Anfwer, the great Diftrac^ 
 " tions and Diftempersof the Kingdom not admitting any delay." 
 
 The King being much furprized to find the Houfe of Lords now brought 
 over to the fame Sentiments with the Commons, and that his late fo reafo- 
 nable Propofals to both Houfes had met with fo unfutable a Return, feemed 
 however not at all tranfported at it, but foon gave them a lliort, but very 
 
 Id. />, ^19. handfome and reafonably Reply to this efFedt : *■*■ That having well confidered 
 " their Petition, and being defirous to exprefs how willing he was to apply fu- 
 " table Remedies, not only to their Dangers, but even to their Doubts and 
 *' Fears-, he therefore returned an Anfwer, That when he Ihould know the 
 *' Extent of the Power which was intended to be eftabliftied in thofe Perfons, 
 *' whom they delired to be Commanders of the Militia in the feveral Coun- 
 •' ties, and likewife to what time it fhould be limited, that no Power (hould 
 " be executed by his Majefty alone, without the Advice of his Parliament j 
 *' then he would declare, That (for the fecuring them from all Dangers or 
 " Jealoufies) his Majefty would be content to put into all Places, both of his 
 *' Forts and Militia in the feveral Counties, fuch Perfons as both the Houfes 
 " of Parliament Ihould either approve of, or recommend to him i fo that they 
 *' declare before to his Majefty the Names of the Perfons whom they fhould 
 " approve of or recommend, unlefs fuch Perfons ftiould be named againfl: 
 " whom he Ihould have juft and unqueftionable Exception.'' 
 
 Id. ib. But to return again to the matter of Fad : So foon as the Fadion faw it 
 
 felf thus backed and encouraged in the two Houfes, they then joined in an Or- 
 dinance to regulate the Militia of the City, which was the firft Encroach- 
 ment they made upon the King's Prerogative in this kind ., and to fecond 
 this, they again petitioned the Kin^ for fettling the Militia of the feveral 
 Counties on luch as they had nominated, giving him at the fame time a Lift: 
 of the Names of thofe whom they defigned for Lords Lieutenants in the fe- 
 veral Counties, being all of them of their own Party. 
 
 Rudi, /. 820. The King refpited his Anfwer till his Return from Dover, whither he had 
 accompanied the Queen and his Daughter that were then going for Holland, 
 and at the fame time they prefented him with a Form of an Ordinance, where- 
 by they would have fettled the Militia of the Kingdom in the hands of thofe 
 Lords they had already nominated. But when the King demurred to grant it, 
 they pretended to be fo tranfported with Fears and Jealoufies, by certain 
 feigned Reports of dangerous Plots defigned by the Papifts, to burn down di- 
 vers
 
 Dialogue the Fourteenth, • 710 
 
 vers of the chief Cities and Towns in the Kingdom, " That they thereapon y. p. 521. 
 
 " difpatched away another Petition to his Majefly (ftill at Dowr) for ordering 
 
 " the Militia. To which they defired fuch a fpeedy Anfrver^ as might raife in 
 
 " them a Confidence (to ufe their own words) that they fliould not be expofed to 
 
 *' the PraBices of thofe, whofe Endeavours were to kindle that Combuflion in Eng- 
 
 *' land, which they had in fo great a meafure effeBed in Ireland, and which no- 
 
 *' thing could do (as they laid) but the granting that Petition." 
 
 Hi*. Majefly's Anfwer thereunto was juft and moderate, " That as for the id. ib. 
 *' City of London^ and other Corporations, which by any antient Charters 
 " had power of ordering the Militia, he conceived it unfit to alter theii Go- 
 " vernment, but that he could not confent to the indefinite time propounded 
 *' for this Pofture of Defence. On his Refufal they voted this Anfwer to be Duod./-. S3. 
 *' unfatistaftory, and as good as a flat Denial, and that his Majelty's Advifers 
 " thereto were Enemies to the State, and mifchievous Projeftors againit the 
 " Defence of the Kingdom ^ alfo that this Denial was of fuch dangerous con- 
 " fequence, that it would hazard the Peace and Safety of all his Kingdoms, 
 *' unlefs fome fpecdy Remedy were applied by the Parliament." And imme- 
 diately they fcnt another Petition to his Majefty (who was then at Theobalds) 
 wherein they protefted, That if he did not fpeedily pafs his AlTcnt to the Satif- 
 faftionof their Defires, they fhould be neceflitated to difpofe thereof by Au- 
 thority of both Houfes, and that they did accordingly fo refolve to do. 
 
 And they farther voted, That the Kingdom Ihould be forthwith put into Id. ;'.89. 
 a Pofture of Defence by the Authority of both Houfes, and that the Navy 
 fliould be fpeedily rigged under an Admiral of,their own Nomination, and that 
 a Declaration of the Reafons of their juft Fears and Jealoufies fhould be forth- 
 withdrawn upi declaring the Grounds of their former Votes, for putting the 
 Kingdom into this Pofture by Authority of both Houfes, to fecure them from 
 the future from all Miftrufts and Jealoufies. 
 
 And to carry on this under colour of the Peoples Defires, divers new Peti- id. ib. 
 tions were daily brought up from feveral Counties.^ as one from Staffordfturey 
 pretending fuch Dread of Papifts rifing there, that every Man was conftrained 
 to ftand upon his Guard, not daring to go to Church unarmed j others from 
 Worcejlerjhire^ lierkflnre^ Norfolk \ as alfo from Norwich^ LynnCy Salop^ &C. all 
 of them earneftly defiring this Pofture of Defence. « 
 
 So that the Faction being highly encouraged by thefe Petitions, the Ordi- id. /.Sp. 
 nance for ordering the Militia of the Kingdom by Authority of both Houfes, 
 was the very next day afiented toby the Lords ^ and thereupon new Lieute- 
 nants were by them nominated throughout all England and Wales^ without his 
 Majefty's Confent. 
 
 And having in a grand Committee, fitting at Merchant-Taylors- Hall, con- 
 trived the Declaration (mentioned in their Votes of March 2.) wherein they 
 made a very great noife of a Defign to alter the Religion in this Kingdom, 
 and that the Wars with Scotland and Ireland were framed to that end ^ they Rudi.^. 523. 
 prefented the fame to his Majefty, firit it Theobalds, and then again at New- 
 market within a few days after : which being then denied, they voted the 
 King's Commifilons of Lieutenancies in the feveral Counties to be illegal, tho 
 they had not been altered fince this Difpute-, as alfo that there was an urgent 
 and inevitable ncceflity for putting his Majefty's Subjedtsinto a Pofture of De- 
 fence, and that the Ordinances of both Houfes for the Militia, being obliging 
 to the People, ought to be obeyed by the fundamental Laws of this Kingdom: 
 And, laftly, That the Earl of Warwick ftiould be appointed Vice- Admiral of 
 his Majefty's Ships, tho he did by no means approve of him. 
 
 M. But pray, Sir, tell me what were the Motives that perfuadcd his Maje- 
 fty to leave London, and travel Northward, at a time when the grand Affairs 
 of the Nation rather required his Prefence with his Parliament, to compofe 
 the Differences that were now begun between them ? 
 
 F. To do this, it will be requifite to look back a little, and give you a 
 more exaft Relation of thefe Tranfadions: That his Majefty fome time before 
 thinking his Perfon in danger, and his Authority cxpofcd by thefe exorbitant 
 Courfcf, as alfo by the frequent Tumults and Affronts from the Mob (as has 
 been already related) did not think it fate to return any more to London after 
 his going down to Dover with the Queen ■■, but coming no farther thdrnGreen- 
 
 Y y y y with.
 
 JI/^ .BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 xvich, he fent for the Prince and Duke of Tork from Hampton-Court to meet 
 him there •, and during his (hort ftay at that Place, he feat the two Houfes his 
 Wliiil. />. 54. Anfwer to their Petition concerning the Militia, (hewing the Inconveniences 
 Rufti. ib. and Breach of his Right to have it fettled as they defired. From whence he 
 viciM to Theobalds, where he received that bold Petition of the two Houfes a- 
 bovementioned ■■, and being removed from thence to Newmarket^ on the pth 
 of yl/;<?-c/j the Earls of Pembroke and Holl.md were fent thither to him, with 
 that yet more bare-faced Declaration of the two Houfes already mentioned i 
 fetting forth the King's Mifgovernment and unjuftifiable Aftions (as they 
 called them) and in which they ripped up all that could be thought of tomif- 
 reprefent his Perfon and Government, being to thisefFeft : 
 
 1. By attempting to incenfe the late iVorrfofrw Army againft the Parliament, 
 ^frwtVs treafonable Adion?, and Tranfportation by the King's Warrant. 
 
 2. The Petition delivered to Captain Leg by the King's own hand, and 
 iigned C- R. 
 
 3. The Bufinefs of the Lord Kimbolton and the five Members, the fufplclous 
 Deiign of a Guard about the King's Perfon, the underhand promoting the Iri^j 
 Rebellion. 
 
 4. The ordering of Sir John Penn'mgton to land the Lord Digby., thereby to 
 alienate the King from his Parliament, and to procure foreign AlTiftance to the 
 King. This appeared more credible, by his Removal from London with the 
 Prince, and the many Advertifements from Rome, Vtmce, Parii, and other 
 Parts, of great foreign Aid to be given to the King, in reference to fome 
 grand Defign againft the Proteftant Religion and the Parliament ■■, tho (as it 
 proved by the Event) there was'no fuch thing ever deligned or tranfaQed a- 
 broad. 
 
 Id. ib. Then they dedre the King to put away his wicked Counfellors, and to put 
 
 his Truft in the Parliament i which if he would do, they would facrifice their 
 Lives, Fortunes, and utmoft Endeavours to the Supportation of his Sove- 
 ' reignty. 
 
 The Lords, that then attended his Majefly with this Petition, moved him to 
 come nearer to the Parliament, but it was refufed. And when they further 
 urged, that the Militia might be granted, as was defired by the Parliament, for 
 a time ; his I^lajefty replied with an Oath, No, not for an hour .- fo jealous was 
 he of that great and important Power of the Sword, which no wife Prince 
 can or ought altogether to truft out of his own hands. Then he told them in 
 fhort, that as their Fears, Doubts, and Jealouiies were fuch, as he muft take 
 time to fatisfy the whole World to be need lefs-, fo his own were not trivial, 
 occafioned by fo many fcandalous Pamphlets, feditious Sermons, and fundry 
 publick Tumults, hitherto unenquired into, and unpunifhed. 
 
 Then a few days after, fo foon as his Majcfty came to Huntingdon, he pub- 
 li filed a Declaration, for further Anfwcr to theirs, to this effed : 
 
 1. That he had no evil Counfellors about him, but leaves fuch to their Cen- 
 fure where they fliould find them. 
 
 2. That he wifiied the Judgment of Heaven might be manifefted upon thofe 
 who had any Defigns againft the Proteftant Religion •, and as to the Scottflj Dif- 
 turbances, they were already filenced by the late Aft of Oblivion. 
 
 3. That the charging him with any Inclinations to the hifh Rebellion, was a 
 high and cauflefs Injury. 
 
 4. That he never intended to exafperate the late Army, or to ufe them a- 
 gainft the Parliament. 
 
 5. That he figned Captain Z-fg's Petition only to fatisfy the Army, and Sir 
 Jacob j4j}}Uy was of his Opinion as to the Reafonablencfs of ic. 
 
 6. That Digby and Jermin were not at Whitehall, nor had any Warrant from 
 him after their Reftraint. 
 
 7. That he had given fufficient Anfwers about Kimbolton and the five Mem- 
 bers, enough to fatisfy any reafonable and unprejudiced Perfons. 
 
 8. That the care of his own Safety caufed him to raife a Guard at White 
 hall, and to receive the Tender of the Service of the Gentlemen of the Inns of 
 Courts and that he looked upon thofe foreign Advertifements to the Parlia- 
 ment asfalfe, idle, and incredible Stories. 
 
 Whiift
 
 Dialogue the Fourteenth jit 
 
 Wbrlft the King continued at Huntington^ he fent a Medage to the two Hou- 
 fes, M^rch 1%. that he i.itended to make his Relidence for fome time at Yorky 
 anddeliied them to haften their iiuccoursfor Ireland-., and not upon any pre-, 
 teiiteof ail Oidinance, to which his Confeiit was not given, (as by Liw it 
 ought) to adt againft Law, which he himfelf was to obferve, and his Subjeds 
 to obey. 
 
 Islotwithftanding which, the Parliament voted their Ordinance for the De- WiiuiockV 
 feiice of the Kingdom, not at all prejudicial to the Oath of Allegiance, but to Memoirs, 2- 
 be obeyed, as being agreeable to the fundamental Laws^ and the King's Com- 't^' 
 mands for the Lieutenancy over the refpedtive Counties, to be illegal and void : 
 which was indeed a downright forcible dilTeizing and oufting of his Majefty of 
 his jufl: Right and Prerogative in the Militia of the Kingdom, and necellkry 
 Defence of it, as well as his own Perfon and Authority. 
 
 , M. I cannot deny but that you have given a fair account of all the confide- 
 Table Tranfaftions relating to this great Affair of the Militia, which was the 
 chief Ground of that unhappy Quarrel between the King and the two Hou- 
 fes : yet give me leave to urge what I have heard feveral well-meaning Per- 
 fonsto obferve concerning his Majefty's leaving London^ and going to York -^ 
 that it was a great wonder to all prudent Men that the Kinglhould leave the 
 capital City, the Place of his and his Predeceflbrs ufual Refidence, where molt 
 of his Friends and Servants were about him, the Magazine of all Provifions 
 both for War and Peace, the Seat of Intelligence and Supplies ^ and betake 
 himfelf to the Country, where thefe things were fcarce to be had : and by his 
 leaving the Town, bring great Troubles and Difadvantages upon himfelf and 
 his Affairs, unlefs he had fully refolved, before ever he had left the Town, to 
 have begun a War againft the two Houfes. 
 
 And whereas you alledg that his Majefty could not be fafe zX. Whitehall., by 
 reafon of the Tumults and Infults of the Mob j I pray tell me why he mighe 
 not have fecured himfelf iufiiciently againft them, either by continuing at 
 Hampton-Court, or elfe by removing to IVtndfor ; which, belides the diftance 
 from London., is a Place of that competent Strength, that he might have con- 
 tinued fafeenough there againft any Attempts, except a formal Siege, tho the 
 Citizens and Apprentices fhould prefume to come down thitherto petition 
 him with Arms in their hands. And admit they had made any Aflault upon 
 the Place, they could have done him no prejudice -, fince at the worft, befides 
 his own ordinary Guards, he might have ordered the Pofe Comhatm of the adja- 
 cent Counties to come in, andfupprefs thofe tumultuous Forces. But inftead 
 of this, the King went away to Tar^ i and tho the two Houfes, as well before 
 he went, as after his Arrival there, often petitioned him to return to them, yet 
 he ftill refufed to do it : and fo the War began (as they faid) by his raifing a 
 Guard of the Gentry and People of that County, for the Security of his Perfon, 
 and going to feize the Ammunition at Hull., when no Array was as yet raifed 
 againft him. 
 
 f. 1 confefs what you now urge does carry a confiderable fhew of Reafon 
 with it, and was much argued Pro and Con by the Politicians of thofe times ; 
 but if we may give the King the liberty (as every Man elfe ought to have) of 
 judging of the Greatnefs of his own Danger, and fince (as you your felf con- 
 fefs) he could not be fafe at ^T/fe/Vf/w//, by reafon of the Tumults of the Rab- 
 ble, it might have been as hazardous for him to have ftay'd any where elfe fo 
 near the Town. For fuppofe the City-Rabble had comedown with Arms in 
 their hands to H.impton-Court and IVtndfor., to petition him to grant the two 
 Houfes the Command of the Militia, or any thing elfe they had a mind to, the 
 Pojfe ComitatMy you mention, would I doubt have ftood the King in little or 
 no ftead, and have hardly fupprelfed them :, fince the common People of molb 
 of the adjacent Counties had (as appeared by their late Petitions) been as mucli 
 poifoned and prepoflefled againft the King, as the People of London: So that 
 he might have been ailaultcd and imprifoned, nay taken in his own Houfe, and 
 the Parliament might (for ought I know) have taken their parts that did it, 
 and declared, that they were not to be kept out, or denied thofe Petitions, 
 which the two Houfes had voted to be according to Law, as well as they had 
 done before, when, after a great Concourfe of the Rabble coming down to 
 Wefiminfier., they cried out no Bifliops, and gave faucy Language to the King him- 
 
 X ^"j^j 2 felf;
 
 7l6 BiBLIOTHECA PoLiTlCAi 
 
 felf : Therefore for the better prevention of any more fuch dangerous Tu- 
 mults and Uproars fo near his own Palace, and the two Houfes of Farlian»ent, 
 he had directed his fpecial Writ unto the Sheriffs of London to place a Guard at 
 Weftminjier. But the Houfe of Commons prefently voted it to be a Breach of 
 their Privileges, and an Offence of an high nature ; and thereupon not only 
 ordered the faid Watch to be difcharged, but queftioned and committed the 
 juftices for fetting it, as hath been already related. Now what can be a more 
 exprefs Proof, that the prevailing Faction in the Houfe of Commons were fo 
 far from fuppreffing, that they rather encouraged thofe Tumults, and there- 
 by not only tool? away the Liberty and Sifety of both Houfes of Parliament, 
 but alfo rendred itunfafe for the King's Peifon to remain in his own Palace ? 
 
 But-asfor his Majefty's going down to Tor*, and his farther Proceedings af- 
 ter became thither, 1 (hall, for his clearer Juftification, give you a fhort ac- 
 count of them. As to the Bufinefsof Hull^ and the King's taking a Guard at 
 Tork for the Security of his Perfon, there will be, I hope, little need to doubt, 
 whether the King might not very well jultify his Aftions at that time, and 
 in fo dangerous a Conjundure : for he now plainly favv that the Parliament had 
 already endeavoured to get the Militia of the Kingdom both by Sea and Land 
 into their own hands, whereby they might, whenever they pleafed, compel 
 him to do what they had a mind to ; it was fure then high time (if ever) to 
 prevent them from feizing all the Magazines of the Kingdom, and to fecure 
 ibmewhat whereby he might be able to manage a defenfive War, in cafe they 
 Ihould proceed to extort the whole Power of the Militia by force. Therefore 
 iince thofe Arms in //a// were his own proper Goods, being bought long fince 
 for the War againft the Scots-, he might, I think, difpofe of them to any ufe 
 he pleafed, unlefs it were to make war upon his People, which he always ut- 
 terly difavowed and declared agiinfl. And therefore for Sir John Hotham to 
 prefume to fhut the King cut of his own Town, tho be offered to enter it but 
 with twenty Horfe, was certainly an Ad of downright Rebellion ^ for he might 
 as well have (hut him out of any other, nay all the Towns of England as that : 
 fo that this Adt alone could be no Declaration of his Intention to make war 
 againft the Parliament, efpecially after Sir John Hotham had alfo fummoned the 
 Trained Bands of the adjacent Country to come in to his alTifcance ; befides 
 thofe Forces that he had already brought with him from London^ before the 
 King had done any hoftile Aft upon that Place : All which was as plain and 
 . open Declaration of War againft the King as any could be, unlefs he had ac- 
 tually difcharged the Cannon on the Town- Walls againft his Majefty. There- 
 fore upon thele Proceedings the King might be very well juftified, if he alfo 
 raifed all the Militia of Torkjl)ire to reduce that Place to his Obedience : For 
 if the Parliament by their own Authority could keep the King out of his own 
 Town by force, they might as well have appeared in Arms againft him in the 
 open Field, as they did not long afcer. 
 
 M. But I fuppofe you are fenfible enough what they infifted on in their Juf- 
 tification of this Aftion, viz.. That tho Sir John Hotham did firft keep the 
 King out of Hull by their Order; yet this (faid they) was only done to pre- 
 vent his beginning the War upon them, which they were very well fatisfied 
 he defigned when he went into the North. And this (they fay) was evident 
 by feveralof his Aftions: For elfe to what purpofe did he fend the Queen in- 
 to Holland^ with the Princefs her Daughter, together with the rich and antient 
 Jewels of his Crown, and divers Piftures of great Value, which were there 
 pawned or fold outright, and the Mony laid out to buy Arms and Ammuni- 
 tion, which fhe brought over with her not long after, when (he landed at 
 Burlington-Bay in TorkJJjire ? Or to what end elfe did the King leave his Parlia- 
 ment and go toTorkj and there, under the colour of a Guard for the Security 
 of his Royal Perfon, raife Forces, which in a little time after increafed to 
 an Army ? And admitting it to be true, that the Parliament firft ilTued out 
 Commillions for railing of Men, and muftering the Militia for their Service; 
 Rudi. p. iJ';^. yet it was not till the King had endeavoured to enter Hull, to feize the Arms 
 vid. May's that were laid up in that Place, and alfo till there had been divers Bickerings 
 Htpry^ &c. gjjj Skirmilhes in feveral Counties between the Militia that had been muttered 
 and commanded by the King's Commiffioners of Array, and the like People 
 that were headed by thofe who were fent by the Parliament to mutter and difci- 
 
 pline
 
 Dialogue the Fourteenth yiy 
 
 pline tbem *, fo that what the Parliament did, they looked upon as done in 
 their own Defence. And had they ftaid till he had aftually raifed an Army to 
 bave marched up to London, the King might then have furprized them, quite 
 unprovided for their own Defence i fo that they could have made no confide- 
 rable Refiftance, for the Safety and Prefervation of the Parliament, and confe- 
 quently of the Liberties of the Kation. And if this had been, as they them- 
 felves fet forth, it puts a much better colour upon their Caufe and fubfequent 
 Adtions; fince that makes it only a defenfive War againft the King, which is 
 Juftifiable enough upon your own Principles. 
 
 F. I will not deny but that when the Queen, and her Daughter the Prin" 
 cefs, went over into Hollmd, with the Jewels and Ptdtures you mention, it 
 might be done with an intent to pawn them for Mony, in cafe a War could 
 not be avoided •, but that there was none then defigned by the King that 
 Summer, appears plainly enough by the Queen's not coming over with thefe 
 Arms till the Year fjllowing : fince otherwife (he went early enough in the 
 Spring to have bought thofe Arms, and fent them over to the King, or re- 
 turned her felf with them the fame Year, And as for your other Objedion, 
 That the King defigned a War by his going into the North, and there raifing 
 a Guard, and endeavouring to feize the Town of //«//, it was the violent Pro- 
 ceedings of the Parliament that forced him to that Refolution \ for befides that 
 he did not think himfelf fafe any where near London, where the Militia of 
 that City was commanded by its own Officers, regulated by the Parliament, 
 they might, under the pretence of removing evil Counfellors, not only have 
 feized them, but his own Perfon likewife. And when upon his lirlt Depar- 
 ture from London to Theobalds^ they fo earneftly preflTed him to fettle the Mili- 
 tia of the Kingdom by Aft of Parliament, in the hands of Commiflloners of 
 their own appointing j what was it but to tell him in plain Terms, that the 
 Forces thereof were no longer to be trufted in his power ? For after he had 
 fo openly attempted to feize their MemberSj they no longer now looked upon 
 him as their Friend, and fcarcely as their King, any more than in Title j becaufe 
 when once they were pofleffcd of the Sword, that main Prerogative of the 
 Crown, they knew that he and all thofc that adhered to him, were abfoluteiy 
 in their power: and therefore he had very good reafon to tell theCommlf- 
 fioners, whom the Parliament had fent to him to Theobalds for his Affent to 
 the Bill for the Militia, Thai he would never truft that Power wholly out of hn own 
 hands, no not for an hour. 
 
 M. 1 (hall not infift farther as to this point j but pray give me the reft of 
 this Year's Tranfaftions. 
 
 F. With all my heart, and I will do it as briefly as I can ; but muft firft farther 
 inform you, That a little before this, the King himfelf ofTer'd a very good 
 Expedient to compofc this Difpute, by a Bill for the Settlement of the Militia 
 for a certain time \ wherein he was content to name but one half of the Lords 
 Lieutenants and other Officers, and fo leave the reft to the Nomination of the 
 Parliament. But neither would this fatisfy them, unlefs they had the fole 
 Power of it fettled in Commiflloners of their own Nomination, and that with- WhitL M«m. 
 out any time limited ; and to that end they refufed the Bill the King had of- ^ 55- 
 fered, and drew up another (that 1 laft mentioa'd) by which they put that 
 great Truft wholly in certain Lords and Gentlemen, whom they look'd upon to 
 be entirely in their Intefefts, quite excluding the King from having any more 
 to do with it, than if he had been a Duke of l^enice : and the unreafonable urg- 
 ing of this Bill proved that Rock of Offence, on which the common Peace of 
 the Nation was not long after fplit. 
 
 M. But pray tell ifie. What did the King after he came to Tork ? 
 
 F- I fliall obferve your Directions. You may remember, that after he had Whitl. ib. 
 been denied entrance into Hull (which has been taken notice of by your felf) Ru11j./'.567« 
 he proclaimed Hotham a Traitor, and fo returned to Xor\, and from thence 
 lent to the Parliament to have exemplary Juftice againft him, and that the 
 Town, together with the Magazine, fliould bedeliver'd to him^ but they were 
 fo far from complying with his reafonable Demand (tho he fent more than 
 once about it) that after fome Mefljgcs which pafled between the King and 
 them, they ilTued out a Declaration, wherein they jaftilied Sir fohn tlotham\ 
 late Adion, and fet forth the King's Defign upon Hull as an infringement of 
 
 the
 
 7i8 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTlCA. 
 
 the Liberties of the Subjedt, and a Breach of the Law of the Land (tho hov7,~ 
 Of wherein, had been a hard matter to (hew ^ and then they fent certain of 
 their own Members down thither for the better fecuring of the Town. Hotham 
 being thus backed by the Parliament, prefently fent out Warrants in his own 
 Name to fummon the Trained-Bands of the adjacent Country to march in with 
 their Arms for the Defence of that Places which being obey'd by feveral of 
 them, he then pretended he had no prefent occafion for them : and fo having 
 difarmed them, turned them home again. 
 Du"d * 94. A little before this, the two Houfes not only pafTed their Ordinance for the 
 RuL'/.'526. Militia, againft his Majefty's Confent, and without letting him have any Ihare 
 in the Difpofal of it •, but alfo to reinforce it, iflued out a ftrict Order, requir- 
 ing all Perfons, lb authorized by themlelves, immediately to put that Order 
 Id. /. 535. in execution : which was done, notwithftanding the King's Declaration to the 
 contrary •■, wherein he fet forth, that it was illegal, and commanded them not 
 to obey it, fiuce the two Houfes had no lawful Authority to make any fuch 
 Ordinance without his Confent. But this Declaration found no Obedience, for 
 the Parliament-Commiflioners had already mufter'd it, and exercifed iheTrain'd- 
 Bands in feveral Towns and Counties where they were able to do it^ of the 
 Succefs of which you fhall hear farther by and by, 
 Dugd. />.92. Whereupon the King having hitherto had no Guards, but his Gentlemen 
 Penfioners and his ordinary Yeomen, and knowing the Parliament had fome 
 time before raifed a Guard for their own Security, he therefore ilfucd out his 
 Letters of Summons to the Gentry of YorkJInre to attend him at York i who 
 Rufti. ib. /. coming to him accordingly, he then acquainted them with the late illegal Pro- 
 622,624- ceedings of the Parliament ; and that he looked upon his Perfon to be no lon- 
 ger in fafety without a greater Guard, and therefore delired their Afliftance 
 for thatpurpofe: and this being cheerfully complied with by mofl: there pre- 
 fent, they returned home to raife the Forces he told them were neceflkry for 
 his prefent Service. And not many days after he farther fignified to them by 
 his Letters, that he fliould take it kindly if they would attend him fo armed 
 and provided as they (hould think fit, for he apprehended himfelf in fome 
 danger. 
 
 This was readily obey'd, and many of them came in to hira purfuant to his 
 
 Summons. At this the Faftion of the two Houfes were fo highly alarmed, 
 
 that thereupon they immediately voted, that what the King had done at York^ 
 
 Whitl. p. 57. in raifing of a Guard, was a Preparation for a War againft them, and a 
 
 Col. I. Breach of the Truft repofed in him by his People contrary to his Oath, and 
 
 Ditjd. /'.93- tending to the Diflblution of the Government i and that all fuch as ferved 
 
 him therein, were Traitors to the Laws of the Kingdom. 
 
 Kow by what Law they could judge it fo, I am yet to feek, it being exprefly 
 
 declared by the Statute of the 7th of Edward the Firft, That it belongs to the 
 
 * 7i« Frendi j^/„»- ^/(,„j to * prohibit Force of Arms, and all other Force, when it jliall pleafe him. 
 
 Word IS De- ^^^ ^^ ^^^-^ Offenders which jhall do contrary to Law ; and herein every Subject is 
 
 to be aiding and ajftfiing. 
 
 But to return to the matter in hand : Immediately after this the Faftion at 
 Wejiminfter publiihed another Declaration^ in the name of both Houfes of Par- 
 liament, " forbidding all Men to attend his Majefty at his pleafure, except 
 " fuch as were bound thereto by fpecial Service ; and that if the Trained- 
 " Bands, or any other his Majefty's Subjefts, fhould upon any fuch Command 
 " be drawn out in a warlike manner, they (hould be efteemed as Difturbers 
 " of the publick Peace :" wherefore the Sheriff of each County was thereby 
 ordered forthwith to raife the Power thereof to fupprefs the fame, and to 
 keep his Majefty's Peace according to Law. 
 Dugd. p,r. And having already voted, that the Magazines of each refpeftive County in 
 England and Wales (hould be prefently put into the power of fuch Lords Lieu- 
 tenants, &c. as the Parliament moft confided in : They alfo publifhed ano- 
 ther Declaration, " highly reflefting on his Majefty's late gracious MefTages, 
 " Anfwers, and Declarations, taxing him with Breach of his Word and Pro- 
 " mifes ; as alfo with continued OpprefTions and Violations of the Laws, and 
 " with an intent to bring up his Northern Army to awe the Parliament." 
 1^^ it, And having fo done, they voted farther the next day, " That the King 
 
 « (feduced by wicked Counfel) deligned to make war againft his Parliament i 
 
 which
 
 Dialogue the Fourteenth, yip 
 
 ** which (m they pretended) in all their Confultations and Aftions, propofed no 
 *' other end unto themfelves but the Care of his Kingdom, and the Perform- 
 " ance of all Duty and Loyalty to his Perfon." 
 
 IMor was this all, but at the fame time they made as great Preparations for 
 a War, as if it had been againlt a foreign Enemy. 
 
 Having managed theic point thus far, they goon, and fet forth another lar- Dugd. Hilt, 
 ger Remonftrance in Juftification of all their Proceedings i in which they had /"• 93- 
 this bold ExprefTlon, That now they had brought their Work to fuch an height and 
 degree of Succefs^ that uothing fecmed t9 be left in their way able to hinder the 
 full yiccomplifl'ment of their Deftres^ unlefs God in hiiJufUce JJiould fend a grievous 
 Curfe upon them. 
 
 Then within three days after they fent a Petition to the King, in the Name ^'^- 1- 94* 
 of both Houfes, which was delivcr'd to him at Tork\ wherein they boldly 
 blamed him for the Breach of his many fair Promifes and Pretences, and de- 
 fired him to disband his Guard, it being a caufe of great Jealoufy and Danger 
 to the whole Kingdom: otherwife they told him. That they (hould employ 
 their Care and utmoft Power to fecure themfelves and future Parliaments, and 
 to preferve the Peace and Quiet of the Realm. And (hortly after they pub- 
 lifhed a third Remonftrance, ftill juftifying their former Adions, and farther 
 blaming him for every thing he had done, and challenging the Obligations of 
 bis Oath (upon that tquivocal Conftruftion of cjuas Fulgta elegerit) to pafs all 
 Bills which they Ihould tender unto him. About this tune alio they removed 
 the iMjgazine from Hull to the Tower of London ■■, and farther voted, That 
 whofoever fhould lend or bring any Mony into this Kingdom upon the King's 
 Jewels, &c. Ihould be adjudged an Enemy to the State. 
 
 M- i5ut had they not a plaufible Defence to make for this, if they were fa- 
 tisfied that the King had raifed this Guard not only upon pretence to fecure 
 his Perfon, but indeed to feize //«//, with the Magazine of Arms there, in or- 
 der to make war agairtll the Parliament ? And were not the Crown-Jewels 
 now ready to be pawn'd by the Queen in Holland, to buy Arms and Ammuni- 
 tion for the fame purpofe ? 
 
 F. I can eafily take oiT this Objeftion j for fure it was high time for his Ma- 
 jefty to provide for his own Safety, when the Parliament had fome time before 
 began to borrow all the Mony and Plate they could upon the Publick Faith, as they 
 then called it : And in this the Citizens of London fhewcd themfelves fo zealous, 
 that they not only brought in great Quantities of Plate, but their Wives de- 
 livei'd up their Caudle-Cups, Thimbles, and Bodkins, to maintain the ^ao,^ 
 old Caufe \ which their Preachers fo highly encouraged, that they denounced all 
 thofe, who refufed to contribute to it, accurfed from God, cunningly applying 
 that Text to their prefent purpofe, Curfe ye Meroz, &c. I fuppofe you know judg. 5. 23. 
 well enough what follows, without my repeating it. 
 
 And farther, as to his Majefty's Guard, was it not as lawful and necelTary 
 for him to have one, as the Parliament, who had raifed one (as they preten- 
 ded) for their own Security fcveral Months before ? But indeed the prevailing 
 Faftion in the two Houfos reprefented every thing they did themfelves as very 
 juft and lawful ; but as if they had been the fole and fupreme Power of the 
 Nation, they declared the fame thing, when done by the King, as illegal and 
 arbitrary: for he (poor Gentleman) was wholly to fubmit to their diftates, 
 and lie at their mercy ^ as appears about this time, by their feizing of Portf" 
 mouth, and ail other ftrong places near London, into their hands, together with 
 the Royal Navy, and then pafPrng that ftrange Vote above-mention'd, upon 
 his Majefty's railing but one Regiment of Foot, and a few Horfe, for his own 
 Security. 
 
 M. But pray. Sir, tell me what cfTcft thefe violent Proceedings then wrought 
 upon the Minds of the chief of the Nobility and Gentry of the Kingdom. 
 
 F. 1 thank you for minding mc of it ; and 1 muft now take notice, that not 
 long after his Majefty's coming to Tork, and continuing there, many of the chief 
 Nobility, as likcwife of the Members of the Houfc of Commons, with other 
 Gentlemen of Note and Eftates, being fatisfied in their Coniliences of the 
 Juftice of his Caufe, from his Majefty's Declarations, and the whole Progrefs 
 indeed of Affairs, reforted to him at that City; and the Lord Keeper L»rr/^- 
 ton himfelf, tho at firft he fecmed inclinable to the Parliament in the bulinefs 
 
 of
 
 720 BlBLIOTHECA PoLITlCA. 
 
 of the Militia, yet now, having deliver'd the Great Seal to one whom the King 
 had fent foi- it, he prefently after followed it himfelf, and then had it recom- 
 mitted to him^ and his coming in at that time very much conduced to his 
 Majcfty's Service, as being a Man of great Courage, Parts, and Learning. Not 
 long after his Ariival, upon his Majefty's Declaration that he would not require 
 any Obedience from fuch as attended him, but what was warranted by the 
 known Laws of the Land; and that he would defend the Proteftant Religion 
 eltablilhed by Law, the Liberties of the Subjedt, and Privileges of Parliament, 
 againft which he would not engage them in any War, unlefs it were for his 
 own necelTary Defence: Thereupon the Lord Keeper, together with the Duke 
 of Richmond, the Marquifs of Hertford, and divers other Earls and Lords, to 
 the number of above forty, fubfcribed in Writing a Promife, whereby they 
 engaged themfelves not to obey any Orders or Commands whatfoever, not 
 warrantable by the known Laws of the Land^ and farther, engaged to defend 
 his Majelty's Perfon, Crown and Dignity, together with his juft and legal Pre- 
 rogatives, againft all Perfons and Power whatfoever: as alfo to defend the 
 true Proteftant Religion, eftablifhed by the Law of the Land, the legal Liber- 
 ties of theSubjefts of England, and juft Privileges of his Majefty, and both his 
 Houfes of Parliament. And laftly, they engaged themfelves not to obey any 
 Rule, Order, or Ordinance whatfoever, concerning the Militia, that had not the 
 Royal Aflent. This was dated the 13th of June 1642. 
 
 M. Thefe were indeed very fair Proteftations from Perfons of fo great 
 Worth and Honour i but pray what effeft had thefe Proceedings upon the two 
 Houfes at Wtftminfter ? 
 bugd. /.95. F. Why, juft none at all; fori cannot but alfo obferve, that a few days 
 before this the two Houfes, being flufhed with their Succefs, and confident of 
 their own Power, fent down to the King certain Propofals for a Peace and 
 Agreement, which were called the Nineteen Propojitions ; by which they not on- 
 ly demanded the whole Power of the Militia, but alfo in effeft the whole Regal 
 Authority into their hands : unto which he foon after returned a full and clear 
 Anfwer by the Marquifs of Hertford and Earl of Southampton. 
 Rulli. />. 551, To fecond thefe Propofitions, within four days after they fet forth another 
 bold Declaration againft his Proclamation of the 27th of May, whereby he had 
 forbid all Obedience to the Parliament's Ordinances for the Militia : now (in 
 oppofition thereto) they declared it to be void in Law, requiring all Officers to 
 mufter, raife, march, and exercife according to their late Ordinance, affiiring 
 them, forfo doing, of Proteftion from both Houfes of Parliament. 
 Du3J.;>.96,97. And within few days after this, they R-nt out an Order, in the name like- 
 whiii./,. 57. ^^ife ^f botii Houfes, with frefh Propofals for the bringing in of Mony and 
 Plate ; as alfo for providing Horfes, Horfemen, and Arms, in purfuance of 
 their " late folemn Vow and Proteftation, for fupprelling the traiterous At- 
 " tempts (as they called them) of thofe wicked and malignant Counfellors, 
 '■'■ who fought to engage the King in the War againft his Parliament-, and 
 likewife with Inftrudions for the Deputy-Lieutenants to proceed therein, 
 " themfelves firft making Subfcriptions accordingly that very day :" And a- 
 bout the fame time they fent down divers of the rooft aftive Members to ex- 
 ecute their Ordinance for the Militia, in the Counties of Leicefier, Lincoln, 
 F-Jfex, Kent, &c. whp infufcd into the People ftrange Apprehenlions of very 
 j^ieat Dangers, that fo they might be the better prepared to take up Arms in 
 their defence (as they pretended.) After this they borrowed Mony, Plate, 
 and other things, of the Inhabitants of the City of London on the Publick Faith, 
 for the buying of Arms, and raifing of Men, under a pretence of a Guard for 
 both Houfes; notwithftanding the King had fent a Letter to the Lord Mayor, 
 Aldermen, and Sheriffs of London, forbidding to give or lend any Monies, or 
 jirovide any Horfes or Arms; fince it was only out of Malice given out, that 
 he defigned to make war upon the Parliament. 
 
 This i the more particularly take notice of, for you to obferve hov/ the two 
 Houfes were providing all things ready for a War themfelves, whilft the King 
 had as yet neither Men, Mony, nor Ammunition, and was hitherto attended 
 with no more than his ordinary Retinue: So that all the effeft his Majefty's 
 Letter produced, was only an Order, in the name of both Houfes, That the 
 Deputy-Licutcnants throughout the Kingdom Ihould tender Propofitions to the 
 
 fcveral
 
 Dialogue the Fourteenth, 721 
 
 feveral Counties, for raifi-ng of Horfe for the Service of the King and Parlia- 
 ment : and foon after that, a Declaration of both Houfes was IfTued outj 
 whereby they jiiftified their raifing of Forces, alledging them to be for main- 
 tenance of the Proteftant Religion, the King's Authority and Perfon, the free 
 Courfe of Juftice, the Laws of the Land, Privilege of Parliament, c~c. for- 
 bidding any OfRcers whatfoevcr to fpread that Paper, (for fo they ftiled his 
 Majefty's Letter) juftifying their former Votes, that the King intended to levy 
 War againft his Parliament j intimating that neither his Majcfty's Commands 
 nor Threats could withdraw or deter fuch as were well affected to the Publick, 
 from contributing their Mony, Horfes, and Plate. 
 
 M- Bat pray. Sir, what effedt had thefe Declarations ? 
 
 F. I'll tell you as fall as I can : in fhort, they fully anfwer'd their Expefta- Dugd. /.97. 
 tions^ for (having thus deluded the People) large Proportions were daily 
 brought in, and the County of Ejfex alone contributed twenty feven thoufand 
 Pounds and upwards, and eight hundred Horfe j Hertford^iire^ eight thoufand 
 Pounds, and three hundred Horfe, &c. as appears by the Calculation thereof, 
 made upon the 20th of Augvft enfuing. The King therefore, taking theR- their 
 violent Praftices into Conlideration, and that they had fet up Lieutenants and 
 Deputy-Lieutenants in all Counties, declaring his Commiflions of Lieutenancy 
 illegal ; upon mature Deliberation and Advice (about this time) he ilTucd out 
 his CommifTions of Array into all parts of the Realm ^ which Courfe had beea 
 antiently ufed by his Royal Progenitors, for prevention of Invafions, ov fup- 
 prefling of any Infurreftions, and approved by divers antient Statutes. And 
 thereupon he fet forth a Proclamation, informing all his loving Subjeds of the 
 Lawfulnefs and Ufe of them, commanding their Obedience thereunto ; which 
 Commidioas, the Lord Strangcy Son to the Earl of Derby^ in Lanca^iire and 
 Chejhire, the Earl of Huntington, and Mr. Henry Hafiings his Son, (afcerwards Rudi. />, 680* 
 Lord Loughbtrengh) in Leicefierflnre, with others in thofe Counties, to whom 
 they were direfted, did firft put in execution, but not without great oppofi- 
 tion from the CommilTioners of the Militia appointed by the late Ordinance of 
 both Houfes, as you will hear farther by and by. 
 
 But hereupon the Members atWefiminfter publilTied a large Declaration, in Rurti. /,. 66 r; 
 the name of both Houfes, reprefenting thofe Coinmiirions ot Array to be con- ad 667. 
 trary to the Laws of the Land, deftrudive to the Liberty and Property of the 
 Subject •■) yea (if they might be believed) fo full of Danger and Inconvenience, 
 that it would bring a heavier Yoke of Bondage upon them, than any that had 
 been taken away by this Parliament. Their fadious EmifTaries were in the 
 mean while employ'd in frftidry parts of the Realm, to perfuade the People that 
 thofe CommifTioas were to reduce the E'tates of all the Yeomanry oi England 
 to ten Pounds per annum-, and to enflave them beyond all expreffion : and left 
 thofe, who were thus feduced by thefe their fubtle lllufions, Ihould receive 
 any fatisfadion from his Majefty's gracious Declarations, whereby the Up- 
 rightnefs of his Aftions, and Candour of his Intentions, might any ways 
 appear, they fent out Orders, ftrictly forbidding the publifliing of them, pro- 
 iniling Protedion from the Parliament to thofe who fliould refufc fo to do. 
 
 But to make (hort of the reft of this Narrative of matter of fad^ after 
 both Houfes had fet out two other long and Ipecious Declarations, wherein Ruf^. /• 691, 
 they pretended their whole Endeavours to be tor his Majcfty's Honour aud 757- 
 Safety, the regaining the antient Laws, Rights, and Libcrtie,s,of the Kingdo:n, 
 which had been fo much invaded, the fettling the Proteftant Religion in Peace 
 and Purity, &c. they at the fame time tax'd the King with an Endeavour of 
 a Change both in Religion and Government, as alfo with Breath of folema 
 Proteftatiohs •, and that he had already begun a War againft them, being fe- 
 duced by Pdpifh Counfels, and a malignant Party, who had delign'd aoihing 
 but Slavery and Confufion : and that this gave them a juft occalion to raife 
 Forces for the Defence of Religion and the Laws of the Land. To which, 
 tho his Majefty publifhed full and rational Anfwers, yet the Party at ^^^/?wi;w- 
 fter and the adjacent Counties were fo prepolfefiod with Prejudice, that they 
 had little or no effeft. 
 
 M, But what was the Ifl'ue of thefe Declarations ? 
 
 F. Why, from Skirmifhes in Paper, they proceeded by degrees to real Hof- 
 tilitics i for fo foon as the Parliament had prevailed upon a great many Teifons 
 
 Zziz of
 
 722 BibliothecaPolitica. 
 
 of the City of London^ and eighty Miles about it, to bring in their Mony, Plate, 
 and Horfes upon the publick Faith (as they called it) they began therewith to 
 buy Ammunition, and to raife Men, tho they were not formed into an Army 
 tin fome time after. 
 Id./>. 680,684, In the mean while the War was in a manner begun by divers petty Confiids 
 ^*5' in feveral Counties, between the Commiflloncrs whom the Parliament had or- 
 
 der'd to mufter and command the Militia, and thofe other CommilTioners, wha 
 afted for the fame purpofc by virtue of the King's Comminions of ^rr^)>, groun- 
 ded on the Statute of the 5th of Henry the Fourth j which being by both Houfes 
 voted illegal, and againft the Liberty of the Subjed, thereupon happen'd many 
 petty Engagements in feveral Counties between the Trained-Bands in thofe 
 places, which were divided into two different Parties, of the King, and the 
 Parliament, fome of the Nobility and Gentry fiding with the one, and fome 
 May'i Hift. with the other, according to their difTerent Interefts and Principles: as parti- 
 /. 109. cularly in LancaJI)ire^ where the Lord Sirange, Son to the Earl of Derby, having 
 
 , railed great part of the Militia of Lancafliire, with an intent to feize Manchefier 
 
 for the King's Service, was repulfed by Sir Tho. Stanley, and others, with the 
 lofsof one Man on the Parliament's fide, which is fuppofed to be the firft Blood 
 that was filed in this unhappy Quarrel^ and not long after the like Contefts 
 happen'd in Oxfordjhire, DorfetflnrCy and Warrrickfijircy and that with various 
 Succefs, and the lofs of fome Men on either part. 
 
 M. But you have not yet told me what the King hath been doing at HuU 
 all this while, which feems to have been the main buiinefs of this Summer. 
 
 F. I Ihall tell you as fait as I can ■■, but 1 could not do it till 1 had given you 
 an account of the Succefs of this great Affair of the Militia. Sir John Hotham 
 having now provided his Garifon of Hull with Men and Ammunition, the King 
 about the middle of Jvly refolved to beliege that place •■, and having raifed 3 
 fmall Army of about three thoufand Foot, and a thoufand Horfe, out of the 
 May,/. 92,93. Militia of Torkpire, marched againfl the Town, tho but with ill Succefs j for 
 fo foon as the Governour heard of their Approach, he immediately pulled up 
 the Sluices, and laid all the low Grounds about the Town under Water: fo 
 that all that could be afterwards done, was to block it up, and reduce it by 
 Famine. • - 
 
 But the Garifon in Hull would not let it go fo far, but boldly fallying out 
 to the number of about five hundred Men, under the Command of Sir John Mel- 
 etrum^ they beat off the King's Forces, which confiding chiefly of the Country 
 Trained-Bands, prefently ran away •, and the Horfe being thus deferted by the 
 Foot, quickly followed them towards Beverly: bafupoa the retiring of the 
 Parliament- Party, the Siege was again renewed, but was fome time after quite 
 raifed. When the Governour had received frefii Supplies from London, Sir 
 John Meldrum made another Sally, and killing about twenty Men, and taking 
 about as many more Frifoners, and fetting fire to the King's Magazine of Gun- 
 power and other Ammunition, it fo difcouraged him, that by the Advice of 
 a Council of War, he refolved to raife the Siege, and retire again to Tork i and 
 fo the Summer palTed, till the King, by a Reinforcement of his Army, fet up 
 his Standard at Nottingham. 
 
 M. But I forgot to ask you what became of the Fleet all this time \ and 
 how it came to pafs that the King made no ufe of it to ftrengthen and block 
 up the Town of Hull by Sea ? 
 
 F. 1 thank you for putting me in mind of this, and I will give you an eafy 
 Anfwer to it. In fiiort, the Parliament had now made themfelves mailers of 
 almoft the whole Royal Navy, and putting out Sir John Vennington-, Admiral 
 for the King, gave the Earl of Warwick the chief Command of it j who un- 
 dertook it, notwithftanding the King's Commands to the contrary \ and im- 
 mediately failing out with a flrong Squadron of Men of War, eafily reduced 
 all fuch Ships, whofe Captains refufed to obey his Orders : and in the Bovns 
 they feized upon a Man of War, then bound for Nevacaflle for his Majefty's 
 Service, together with a fmall Veflel laden with Gunpowder i which, as it proved 
 a great addition of Strength to the Parliament, fo it was a great weakning 
 and difappointment to the King's Interell. 
 
 M. This
 
 "Dialogue the Fourteenth. 723 
 
 Af. This Action of my Lord of Warwick was indeed very bold and violent, 
 and fuitable to the Charafter of that Nobleman, who afterwards proved one of 
 the greateft Enemies the King had. But pray, Sir, proceed. 
 
 F. Matters being arrived to this height between the King and the two Houfes, 
 they did not long continue in this uncertain State ; but after a tedious Debate 
 in the Houfe of Commons, notwithftanding the Oppofition of divers moderate 
 Men of their own Party, it was at lafl: voted on the 12th of July, and after- WlnU /. 5?. 
 wards agreed to by the Lords, " That an Army (hould be railed forthwith ^^^- /'•753) 
 " (as they pretended) for the Safety of the King's Perfon, the Defence of both ^'^' 
 ♦' Houfes of Parliament, and of thofe who had obey'd their Orders and Com- 
 *' mands •■, and for preferving of the true Religion, the Laws, Liberty, and 
 " Peace of the Kingdom:" And then they alfo voted, That the Earl of £//fAr 
 Jhould be General of it, with whom they declared they would live and die. 
 All that in their Votes fhewed of any Moderation, was. That they then alfo 
 voted a Petition to be fent to his Ma jelly, to move him to a good accord with 
 his Parliament, and to prevent a Civil War ; but it was only to this efteft, That 
 he (hould difmifs his Forces from about Hull, Newcafile, and other places, and re- 
 cal his CommifTions of yirr ay, and return nearer to his Parliament, and hearken 
 to their Advice: And that they would then ceafe thofe Preparations they had 
 made for their Defence, and would put the Town of Hull in the fame condition 
 as It was before S\r John Hotham brought his Forces into it. But as for their 
 Ordinance for the Militia, they infifted to have it fettled by a Bill, in fuch a 
 way as fhould be honourable and fafe for his Majefty, moft agreeable to the 
 Parliament, and effedual for the Good of the Kingdom \ which fignified no 
 more in general Terms than to tell the King, that the Militia fhould be fettled 
 as they pleafed themfelves. This was not to be done neither, unlefs the King 
 would leave all Delinquents (that is, all thofe who had obey'd his Orders) Rufli. /-.Cot. 
 wholly to their Juftice, or rather Difcretion. 
 
 But his Majelty having difpatched the day before, being the nth of July^ 
 a Meflage to them, upon his fending Forces to Hull, requiring that Place to be 
 delivered to him, together with his Proclamation ^ wherein he fet forth how 
 ill ^\x John Hotham had dealt with him by divers Hoftilities committed in and 
 from the faid Town ; and of the Ships under the Command of the Earl 
 of Warwick, keeping that Port and PalTage by Sea to it, in order to feize 
 fuch Ships as were employ'd in his Service: he fummons all his good Sub- 
 jefts in general to come into his AlTiftance, for the reducing it to his Obe- 
 dience j and concludes with a Proteftation, That he would continue to defend 
 the true Proteltant Religion, as it is by Law eftablifhed in the Church of 
 England, tiie Laws of the Land, the Rights and juft Liberties of his Subjects, 
 equally to and with his own juft Prerogative ■, and other things, needlefs here 
 to be repeated. 
 
 But before the receipt of this MefTage, the two Houfes having already pre- id. p.60%, 
 pared the above-mention'd Petition, they refolved to return no other Anfwer 
 to it than the Petition it felf ; to which, being deliver'd by the Earl of Hoi* 
 land. Sir John Holland, and Sir Philip Stapleton, the King immediately after re- 
 turned a very reafonable and folid Anfwer ^ wherein he bids them remember. 
 That (which all the world knows) his Majefty was driven from bis Palace of 
 IFhitehall for the Safety of his Life, and that not till both Houfes of Parlia- Id./>.6o$. 
 menf, upon their own Authority, raifcd a Guard to themfelves (having got- 
 ten the Command of all the Trained-Bands of London for that purpofe) with- 
 out the leaft colour or ftiadow of Danger •, That they ufurped a Power by their 
 pretended Ordinance (againft all Principles of Law) over the whole Militia of 
 the Kingdom, without, and againft his Majcfty'sConfent i That they took pof- 
 fefTion of his Town, Fort, and Magazine of Hull, and committed the fame to 
 Sir John Hotham, who had (hut the Gates againft his Majefty, and by force of 
 Arms deny'd Entrance thither to his Perfon ; That they juftify'd this Ad, and 
 took Sir John Hotham into their Protedion for whacfoever he had done or (hould 
 do againft him : And all this while his Majefty had no other Attendants thaa 
 his own menial Servants. 
 
 That as for his Forces, he fliould not difmifs them till Hull was again reduc'd 
 to his Obedience j and as for the CommilTions of ylrray, he infifted that they 
 were legal, and which he promifes to prove fo by a Declaration to be ftinrtly 
 
 Zzzz 2 publifh'd.
 
 y24 BiBLlOTHECA PoLITlCA. 
 
 publilli'd. As to bis coming nearer to his Parliament, he faid, he hath exprefs'd 
 tiimfelf fo fully as to his feveral Medages,' Anfwers, and Declarations, and fo 
 particularly avow'd a real Fear of his Safety, upon fuch Inftances as cannot be 
 anfwev'd, that he hath reafon to take himfelf to be fomewhat neglefted. He 
 fays, he is alfo forry, that lince upon futh manifeft Reafons it is notfafefor his 
 Majefty to come to them, both his Houfes will not come nearer to his Majefty, 
 or to fuch a place where the Freedom and Dignity of Parliament might be pre- 
 ferv'd. And as for the Tumults that had driven him from London^ he Ihould 
 be glad to hear of fome Examples of the punifhing the Authors of them ; which 
 he knows not how to expeft, fince the Houfe of Commons had already de- 
 clar'd, that they knew not of any fuch Tumults, tho the Peers had defired, 
 both for the Dignity and Freedom of Parliament, that the Houfe of Commons 
 would join with them in a Declaration againfl; them, which they refufed : and 
 notwithftanding the Complaints that he himfelf had made of things of that 
 nature, yet they had neglefted to enquire out the Authors of divers feditious 
 Anions, Speeches, and Writings. 1 lien he proceeds, That as for the leaving 
 Delinquents to the due Courfe of Juftice, his Majefty is well alTured he hath 
 given no flielter to any fuch : But if by Delinquents, fuch are underltood, who 
 refufe to fubmit to the pretended Ordinance of the Militia, and that of the 
 ISavy, or to any other which his Majefty hath notconfented to, or thofe whQ> 
 had publifhed his Proclamations, or had read his Meffages and Declarations, 
 (as divers Minifters about Z,o»^o« and elfewhere had done) or fuch as had lent 
 his Majefty Mony in the Univerfities, or any other places ^ his Majefty declares 
 to all the World, That he will proteft all fuch with his utnioft Power and 
 Strength, it being no lefs his Duty to proteft thofe who are innocent, than to 
 bring the guilty to condign Punilhment ■■, of both which the Law is to be Judge. 
 And then concludes with fhewing, that much greater Delinquents ad on their 
 fide i yet agrees that all Delinquents fliall be proceeded againft according to the 
 known and unqueftionable Rules of the Law. 
 
 Having faid thus much of the Particulars of their Petition, he then proceeds 
 to complain, that fince the fending thereof they had beaten their Drums for 
 Soldiers againft him, armed their own General with a Power deftrudive to the 
 Law and Liberty of the Subjed, and chofen a General of their Horfe j That 
 Sir John Hot ham, befides his burning and drowning the Country, had feized 
 his Wine and other Provifions for his Houfe ; and therefore demands. That 
 the Town of Hull, with its Magazines, be forthwith deliver'd into the hands 
 of fuch as he Ihall appoint-, That his Navy be forthwith deliver'd into fuch 
 hands as he hath direded for the Government thereof i the detaining of it, 
 after his Majefty's Diredions publilh'd and receiv'd to the contrary, and em- 
 ploying his Ships againft him in fuch manner as they are now ufed, being no- 
 torious High Treafon in the Commanders of thofe Ships: And then concludes 
 with a Demand, That aU Arras, Levies, and Provifions for a War, made by 
 Order of both Houfes (by whole Example his Majefty hath been forced to 
 make fome Preparations) be immediately laid down, and the pretended Ordi- 
 nance for the Militia, and all Power of impofing Laws upon the Subjed, with- 
 out his Majefty's Confent, be difavowed ^ without which the fame Pretence will 
 remain to produce the fame Mifchiefs. 
 
 Thefe things being done, and the Parliament adjourn'd to a fafe and fccure 
 place, his Majefty promifes in the Prefence of God, and binds himfelf in all 
 Confidence and Alfurance on the AfFedions of his People, that then he will in- 
 ftantly and moft chearfuUy lay down all the Forces he hath raifed, and dif- 
 charge all his future and intended Levies, that there may be a general face of 
 Peace over the whole Kingdom , and then he will repair to them, and defires 
 all Differences may be freely debated in a Parliamentary way, whereby the Law 
 may recover its due Reverence, the Subjed his juft Liberty, and Parliaments 
 themfelves their full Vigour and Eftimation j and fo the whole Kingdom a blef- 
 fed Peace, Q;iiet, and Profperity. 
 
 And if thefe Propofitions fhould be rejeded, his Majefty doubts not of the 
 Protedion and AlFiftance of Almighty God, and the ready Concurrence of his 
 good Subjeds, who can have no hope left them of enjoying their own long, if 
 their King muft be opprefs'd and fpoil'd, and muft be remedilefs: And tho 
 his Towns, his Ships, his Arms, and his Mony be gottea and taken from him, 
 
 he
 
 Dialogue the Fourteenth. 725 
 
 he hath a good Caufe left, and the Hearts of his faithful People, which, with 
 God's Blc(Ting, he doubts not will recover all the reft. And then his Majefty 
 concludes, That he expefts a full and pofitive Anfwer by Wednefday the 27th 
 of this Inftant July\ till then he would not make any Attempt of Force upon 
 Hull, hoping in the Affeftion, Duty, and Loyalty of the Petitioners j and that 
 in the mean time no Supply of Men be put into //«//, or any of his Majefty's 
 Goods taken from thence. 
 
 M. Thefe Offers appear very fair and reafonable^ but what Return did the 
 two Houfes make to them ? 
 
 F. I'll tell you prefently : To this Anfwer the Lords and Commons a few 
 days after fent the King a Replication by the Earl of Holland-, the effed of 
 which was, to let him know that they could not agree to his Majefty's Demands 
 for the Delivery of Hull, and the Magazine, together with the Navy, or the 
 recalling the Ordinance of the Militia \ the laying down of all Arms raifed by 
 Authority of the two Houfes of Parliament, and adjourning themfelves to 
 fome other place : becaufe the reafon wherefore they took the Town of Hull, 
 with the Magazine and Navy, into their cuftody; and why they pafTed the Or- 
 dinance of the Militia, and made Preparations of Arms-, was only for the Se- 
 curity of Religion, the Safety of his Majefty's Perfon, Kingdom, and Parlia- 
 ment : all which they did fee in evident and imminent Danger. From which, 
 when they fhall be fecured, and the Forces of the Kingdom (hall not be ufed 
 for the Deftruftion thereof, they fhall then be ready to withdraw the Garifon 
 of Hull, to deliver the Magazine and Navy, and fettle the Militia by Bill in 
 fuch a way as fhall be honourable and fafe for his Majefty, moft agreeable to the 
 Duty of Parliament, and effeftual for the Good of the Kingdom, as they have 
 profelTed in their late Petition. And for adjourning the Parliament, they ap- 
 prehend no reafon for his Majefty to require it, nor Security for themfelves to 
 confent to it: And then conclude. That his Majefty need not fear returning to 
 London, confidering the Loyalty and Fidelity of that City to his Majefty. And 
 as for laying down of Arms, they excufe it, till the Caufes that had moved 
 them to tike them up fliall be removed ; and then they fay, when this is done, 
 they fhall be v/illing to forbear making any farther Preparations, &c. But of 
 all this they make themfelves the fole Judges. 
 
 But I cannot here omit, that tho both the King and Parliament commanded 
 thefe their Declarations, MclTages, and Petitions to be printed and publifhed, 
 and alfo to be read in Churches*, yet the latter either miftrufting the Juftnefs 
 of their Caufe, or fearing left the People fhould receive any due Information 
 concerning the Juftnefs of the King's Caufe, and the Sincerity of his Inten- 
 tions, ftraitly forbid any Minifters or other Officers from reading or publilhing 
 any Declarations, Meilages, or Anfwers fent them by the King j and thofe that 
 refufed to obey, were committed to Prifon : as in particular they dealt with 
 Sir Richard Gurney, Lord Mayor of London, who for publifhing the King's Cora- 
 niifTion of Array, was not only depofed from his Office, but alfo committed 
 to the Tower, where he lay a long time. 
 
 1 have given you the more particular Account of this Petition, and the King's 
 Anfwer, with their Replication thereto, that you may the better obfcrve how 
 things ftood between the King and the two Houfes, and who were moft in the 
 fault, that they could by no means come to a better Underftanding. I fhall 
 therefore now proceed further to fhew you how they daily grew into greater 
 Afts of Hoftility, till it came to that height as engaged the whole Nation in 
 a Civil War, which ended in the Ruin of the Royal Party, the Murder of the 
 King, and the enllaving of the whole Nation. 
 
 M. But pray, Sir, before you go on farther, tell me whether, according to 
 your and their Principles, the Parliament had not a fair colour for what they 
 didi for who, faid they, can or ought to judge when the Kingdom is in dan- 
 ger, or that the King goes about to deftroy the Liberties of the People, and 
 to make War upon the Parliament, but themfelves, the Reprefentativcs of the 
 l\iation, and [oU Judges and Jnt(rpreters of what is Law? Now when they had 
 thus folemnly declared their own lincere Intentions, that they did not defign to 
 begin any War againft the King, but only to take him from his evil Counfeilors, 
 and therefore ftill earneftly befeeched him to return again to his Parliament at 
 London •■, and he refufed to do it, but ftaid in the North, providing Arms, and 
 
 raifing
 
 -726 BlBLIOTHECA PoLITlCA.' 
 
 raifing Men for his Guard-, why fhould it be fuppofed that this was for any 
 other end than to make war upon the Parliament ? 
 ^F. I grant that this was the EfTeft, and indeed chief, if not only Reafon, in 
 ail their Declarations and Remonftrances, why the Nation fhould put full Trult 
 and Confidence in whatever they faid ^ yet the King did not fail in his MefTa- 
 ges to them, as alfo in his printed Declarations, in anfwer to whatever could 
 be urged upon this Head, to fee forth, that the Parliament were not the fole 
 Judges and Interpreters of the Law without himfelf : for upon that ground 
 (unlefs the two Houfes (hould be fuppofed infallible, and not capable of judg- 
 ing or aftingany thing amifs) they might engrofs all the Power of the King- 
 dom to themfelves, and fo leave him the empty Title and bare Name of a 
 King, as they had in effeft done by their Ordinance concerning the Militia j 
 over which they allerted, that he had no more Authority but as it was de- 
 clared, and iillied by and from themfelves. Now granting it to be according 
 to their own Allegation, that the King was one of the three Eftates of the 
 Kingdom (whereas he is indeed the Head of the whole Body Politick) yet even 
 upon this ijuppofition they could not, nor ought to judge and declare what 
 was Law without him. For fuppofing him to be but equal with them, it is a 
 known Maxim among Equals, that Par in parent nulUm hahet potefiatem, and 
 that in diftinct Perfonsand Powers each of them mult be endued with an in- 
 dependent Right to aft and judge for themfelves: Therefore fince they had 
 made , the King's ftay in oi ae^r London unfafe for him, by the Tumults raifed 
 and fomented by the Faftion in both Houfes, could any but himltlf judge when 
 his Perfon was in danger, and what were the belt means for his own Security ? 
 If therefore they thought it convenient feveral months before to have a Guard 
 affigned them for their Defence againlt a malignant Party, might not the King 
 have a like Right to a Guard for his Defence, againft thofe that had now got 
 all his Fleet and naval Stores, with his Magazines of Arms in the Toip^r and at 
 //«//, into their own hands, whether he would or not ? And had by thus violent- 
 ly invading his Prerogative without his Confent, not only put themfelves in- 
 to a Poftureof War, but indeed aftually begun ir, by the Commiffions they 
 had iflued out for muftering the Militia of the Kingdom, before the King's 
 Commiffions of Array were aftually put in execution for the fame purpofe^ 
 but efpecia 11 y after they had avowed and juftified Hothams (hutting him out 
 of Hull., and thereby treated the King as if he had been a publick Enemy to 
 the Nation ? 
 
 To conclude : If they had their Fears and Jealoufies of his Proceedings, 
 why might they not be mutual, and he likewife have the fame of theirs ? For 
 when once Men ceafe treating each other like Equals, by Reafon and Perfua- 
 fion, and come to Force, they are then difcharged of all Civil Obligations, and 
 in that ftate it is lawful, vimvi repellere, to repel Force by Force. Therefore 
 lince neither the King nor Parliament could agree upon thefe Points, and that 
 neither of them were infallible, all they could do was to appeal to the People 
 which fide they would take and adhere to : tho as their Condition was very 
 unhappy, whilft they knew not which of thefe contending Powers to follow 
 or obey, yet certainly thofe that took part with the King had the Law on 
 their fide^ fince by the Statute of the nth of Henry Vll. none can be called 
 in queftion for afiifting the King in his Wars againft his Enemies, whether fo- 
 reign or domeftick. 
 
 M. But pray, Sir, tell me then why you have not hitherto called the two 
 Houfes, and all that aflifted them, downright Rebels and Traitors, as certain- 
 ly they were (according to our old Church-of-£«^/.w£;; Principles) notwith- 
 ftanding they were at firft chofen for the Reprefentatives of the Nation ? And 
 if the Cavaliers had (as you fay) the Law on their fide, then the other Party 
 afting againft Law, muft deferve that Title by your own ftiewing. 
 
 F. I do not at prefent concern my felf with what they were indeed, but 
 (hall decline giving them or their Adherents thofe hard Names of Rebels and 
 Traitors, for feveral Reafons : As firft, Bccaufe I am now to declare my felf 
 direftly of no Party, but to ibew wherein the King and Parliament were both 
 to blame, as certainly they were, as well in the beginning, as carrying on of 
 that unhappy Civil \X^ar. And in the next place, I forbear calling them plain 
 Rebels, becaufe the King having made the two Houfes, by his own Aft, not 
 
 fubjeft
 
 Dialogue the Fourteenth, 727 
 
 fubjeSto any Diflblution or Prorogation, otherwife than by their own Con- 
 fen:, had fo far made them independent upon himfclf, and had given them 
 thereby a Power of looking into and centring his Aftions, whether he would 
 or not i efpecially fince they put fuch a fpecious Glofs upon all they did, that 
 it was hard for many well-meaning and prudent Men of the Long Robe a- 
 mongrhem to believe their Party in the wrong, but that they afted in defeice 
 of the Proteftant Religion, and the Liberties and Privileges of the Nation, 
 with an Acknowledgment of a SubmifTion to the King's Authority, as far as * - 
 
 they thought it according to Law. I (hall not call them dircft Traitors for ^ 
 what they at firfl; did, till the Independent Party in the Houfe of Commons 
 having got the afcendant of the Presbyterians, and alfo beaten the King in 
 the Field, and had his Perfon delivered to them by the Scots^ not only kept 
 him in Prifon, but voted no more AddrelTes fhould be made to him, and took 
 the whole Power both Civil and Military into their own hands \ and from 
 that Period of Time 1 Hiall not Itick to call them Traitors : Since no Man can 
 juftify the imprifoning of the King, without committing Treafon, by the \di of 
 the 25th of £<iir<«r^Iil. wherein 1 find no Exception, whether it be done by 
 one or both of the Houfes of Parliament, or by any other Perfons whatfoe- 
 ver i fince they are all the King's Subjeds, as well in their politick as private 
 Capacities. 
 
 1 Ihall now return from whence I have digrefTed, and proceed with the Nar- RuOi. {b. p, 
 rative of what remains of this unhappy Civil War, till the Murder of the 769. 
 King. The Parliament having raifed a powerful Army under the Command 
 of the Earl of Ejfcx (as you have already heard) the King thereupon iflued a 
 Proclamation, whereby that Earl and all his Adherents were declared Trai- 
 tors, yet with Pardon to fuch as (hould return to their Obedience within fix 
 days. But this gracious Offer was fo much contemned, that fo foon as it came 
 to their notice, the two Houfes publiihed a Declaration in their Names, con- W. /. 771, 
 taining many Ihameful Invedives againft his Majefty, declaring all fuch to be 
 Traitors that were Contrivers or Countenancers of this lalt Proclamation of 
 jiuguft 9. and that if his Majefty would disband his Forces, abandon thofe 
 wicked Counfellors, and hearken to the wholefome Advice of his Great 
 Council, they would endeavour then to make him and his Pofterity as great and 
 rich as any Prince that ever fwayed the Scepter. But thefe were but fpecious 
 Pretences : for they had already taken the Town of Ponfmouth by Siege, toge- ^^iy'^ "'fi- 
 ther with Dover-CaftU by Surprize j and having now borrowed an hundred ^*^' •^' '°''* 
 thoufand Pounds of that Mony that had been raited for the Service of Ireland 
 (with which the King not long after taxed them in a particular MelTage) they 
 proceeded to raife frefh Forces, tiU they had compleated an Army of above 
 thirty thoufand Horfe and Foot ; whilft the King's Forces were as yet weak 
 and inconfiderable, for want of Mony to pay them: till going down into the 
 Borders of IValesy as far as Shrewsbury^ and there having fome Mony lent him, 
 and good ftore of Plate brought in from divers of the loyal Nobility and 
 Gentry of thofe Parts, he therewith raifed foconfiderable a Force, that he was 
 fome time after able to give the Earl of EJfcx Battle, as he was marching in pur- 
 fuit of him towards London. 
 
 But I ought to have firft told you, that on the 25th of ylugufi preceding, the 
 King had ereded his Standard of War at Nottingham^ tho he then wanted a 
 complcat Army to encounter the Parliament, till he found means to recruit it, 
 as 1 have now related: which Particular deferves your notice, fince the Par- 
 liament declared that this was the beginning of a War againft them •■, whereas 
 indeed the War was aftually begun fome months before on their fide, by Ho- 
 tham's feizing upon and keeping the King out of Hull^ and by their reducing 
 all other Towns and Places of Strength into their power, and by their Ordi- 
 nance for the Militia, and feizing the Forces of the Kingdom into their own 
 hands, ordering a vigorous Refiftance to be made againft all fuch as (hould 
 dare to oppofe them, by virtue of the King's CommilTion of Array, as hath Ruih. />. 784. 
 been already mentioned. But 1 cannot omit taking notice, that immediate- 
 ly upon his Majefty's Arrival at NottinghAw, he fent the two Houfes a gra- 
 cious Melfage, wherein he told them, that confidering the many Miftakes 
 which had arifen by the Mcllages, Petitions, and Anfwcrs, that had palled be- 
 tween him and the two Houfes of Parliament, and which might be prevented 
 
 by
 
 728 BiBLlOTHECA PoLITiCA* 
 
 by fonie other and nearer way of Treaty ^ he therefore propofed, that fit 
 Perfons fhould be enabled on either fide to treat of and conclude all Differen- 
 ces between them, for the publick Peace of the Kingdom,- and farther pro- 
 mifed all Safety and Encouragement to thofe that Ihould be fo appointed by 
 the Parliament i and concludes, That if this Proportion fhould be by them 
 rejeftcd, God rcould abfolve him from the Guilt of the Blood which muft be fpilt. 
 
 Id. f. 785. To which the two Houfes returned a very high and pofitive Anfwer, where- 
 in they refufed to enter into any Treaty till the King had recalled his Decla- 
 rations, whereby the Earl of EJfex^ and both Houfes of Parliament, with all 
 their Adherents and AfTiftants, had been declared Traitors, and that his Ma- 
 jefty take down his Standard i fince whilfl: they remained in that ftate, they 
 cannot (as they faid) by their fundamental Privileges of Parliament, give 
 
 Id. p. 7^6. him any other Anfwer. To this the King however foon returned a (hort and 
 fair Reply : Firft he protefted that he never intended to declare both his 
 Houfes of Parliament Traitors, or fet up his Standard againft them j and 
 therefore to remove all Scruples which might hinder the Treaty he fo much 
 defired, he promifed, fo that a Day were appointed by them for revoking 
 their Declarations againft all Perfons as Traitors for aflifting him, he would 
 then, on the fame day, willingly recal all his Proclamations and Declarations, 
 and would alfo take down his Standard in order to a Treaty. 
 
 Id. ib. But all that he could obtain from the two Houfes, was. That they could 
 
 not recede from their former Anfwer; and pofitively inCfted, that the King 
 fhould firft rccal his Declarations, and take down bis Standard, and leaving 
 Iiis Forces, return to his Parliament, without any thing to be done or yielded 
 to at all on their fide ; faying, they. would not allow themfelves to be fet ia 
 equal Ballance with thofe Perfons, whofe Counfels had ftill prevailed to hin- 
 der the Relief of Ireland : and immediately publifhed a Declaration, that the 
 Arms they were forced to take up for the Prefervation of the Laws Md Liber.* 
 ties of the Kingdom, could not be laid down, until the King fhould with* 
 draw his Proteftion from fuch Perfons as had been voted Delinquents by both 
 Houfes, and leave them to the Juftice of the Parliament. 
 
 UifsHifl. To this the King, within a few days after, made another Reply ; the Sub- 
 
 p. 128. ftance of which was. That he could neither do nor offer any more than he had 
 
 done already, and that he (hould think himfelf clear and innocent from any . 
 Blood that might be fpilt in this Qiiarrel, praying Cod fo to deal with hira 
 and his Pofterity, as he defired to pi eferve Religion, Law, and the Liberty of 
 the Subjeft, and Privilege of Parliament. The two Houfes Return to this 
 was ineifed no more than to repeat their former Anfwer, That whilft the 
 King thinks himfelf bound in honour to proteft fuch Delinquents, in whofe 
 Prefervation the Kingdom cannot be fafe, nor the Rights of Parliament at 
 all maintained i they cannot enter into any farther Treaty with his Majefty, 
 befides other reflcfting Language •, too long to be here repeated. And 1 have 
 been the moie particular in relating thefe laft Petitions, with their Anfwers, 
 fince ic will from thence plainly appear, hov/ unwilling the King was to ea- 
 ter into a State of War with the prevailicg Faftion in the two Houfes, who 
 would come to no other Terms with his Maj'.fty than an Indemnity for them- 
 felves, and a Power to inf^id what Penalties they pleafed on all fuch as had 
 any ways alfjfted him in this Quarrel \ which was utterly to difcourage and 
 deter all Perfons, that fhould go about for the future to aid or proted him 
 from their Infults and unjuft Invafions of his known Prerogatives. Thus did 
 they facrifice the publick Peace of the Kation to their own private Malice and 
 Revenge. 
 
 I fhall now draw to a Conclufion, and (hall but lightly mention the parti- 
 cular Adlions of this unhappy War, and what followed thereupon ; as the 
 Battels of Edge-WU^ Marfion-Moor^ and Nafeht ^"^ ^^^^^ Places, in moft 
 of which the Parliament-Army obtained compleatVidories, under the fortu- 
 nate Conduct of their two Generals, the Lord iv?»V/<?x and Oliver Cromrve I y till 
 at laft the King, being reduced to the loweft Ebb of Fortune, was forced to 
 quit Oxfordj and fly to the Scotijli Army for Succour : By whom he being fome 
 time after given up to the Parliament, upon fuch Terms as had been agreed 
 between them, he was by them confined to fome of his own Houfes, and up- 
 on his Refufal to pafs fuch Bills as they offered to him, which were in effed to 
 
 diveft
 
 Dialogue the Fourteenth, 729 
 
 divefl himfelf of all his Regal Power, they thereupon voted, That no more 
 Addrefles fhould be made to him in any kiiid^ which was in efTed to difown 
 hira for their lawful King. And tho during the War, as well as after it was 
 ended, there were feveral Treaties fet on foot for the Accommodation of thofe 
 unhappy Differences between the King and the two Houfesj yet they ftill 
 proved abortive, through the predominant Humour of fome leading and fac- 
 tious Men, either of the one or the other Party, who not defiring to fee aa 
 end of the War, ftill infiftedupon higher and more exorbitant Conditions thaa 
 were fit either for the King or Parliament to grant, with any Honour or Safety 
 to themfelves; as happen'd particularly at the Treaties of Oxford and Vx- 
 hridge^ at the latter of which nothing would ferve the prevailing Parties of both 
 Houfes, but the King's abfolute yielding up the Power of the Militia, and the 
 total Abolition of Epifcopacy, and the Book of Common Prayer, and giving up 
 ail thofe that had adher'd to him, and aflifted him in the prefent War, to be 
 fin'd and iraprifon'd, and punifh'd at their difcrction. 
 
 But when the Presbyterian Faction in the Houfe of Commons was over- 
 power'd by that of the Independent, which was back'd by Cromwel, and the 
 major part of the Array, by whom no lefs than eleven Members were forced to 
 quit the Hnufe at once, and molt of them to fly beyond Sea; after this, and 
 that the King had been frightned from Hampton-Court., wheix Cromivei and the 
 Officers of the Army had for a time treated him with all feemini Freedom 
 and Honour, till he tied to the Ifle of Wight in difguife, and there was for 
 fome Months kept a clofe Prifoner . but at laft, vih\\it Cromrvel and his Army 
 were gone into Scotland^ to reduce the more moderate Kirk-Party there, which 
 under the Conduct of Duke Hamilton had raifed an Army (tho with ill Succefs) 
 to fet the King at liberty ^ then the major or prevailing Party of the Pref- 
 byterians in both Houfes feeing their Error, and finding their Caufe defpe- 
 late, refolved to take this opportunity of treating and making a full and final 
 Agreement with the King upon certain Conditions, which however hard and 
 unequal in themfelves, yet fince they were fomewhat more tolerable thaa 
 thofe that had been before offer'd him, and confidering in what defperate Cir- 
 cumftances his Affairs then were, he was obliged to fubmit to : and had he 
 done fo at firft, he might have, by a fpeedy coming up to London, and join- 
 ing his Intereft with that of the Parliament and City, raifed an Army fuffi- 
 cient to cope with that which Cromwel was bringing out of Scotland, which he 
 had now reduced. But whilft they were infifting too long upon feveral un- 
 necefTary Punftilio's, the General with his Independent Army, march'd up td) 
 London, and foon put an end to the Treaty by a forcible Exclufion ot the 
 major part of the Houfe of Commons, which had voted the King's Concef- 
 iions fatisfadory -, and rhen the remaining part (not being fixty in all) upon 
 the Houfe of Lords refufing to join with them, not only voted them ufelefs 
 and dangerous, but alfo kept them from meeting any more. After which it 
 ■was very eafy for them to pufs an Ordinance for the Trial of the King, by 
 certain Judges appointed for that purpofe, who both condemn'd him, tho he 
 utterly denied their Power, and likewife order'd him (beyond what can be 
 parailel'd in Hiftory) to be executed at the Gates of his own Palace : all which 
 he fuffer'd (befides many other Indignities) with the higheft Patience and Chri- 
 itian Courage, as became the Greatnefs of the Character he bore. 
 
 Kow I durfl; appeal to your felf, whether there be any thing in all the Con- 
 vention's late Proceedings againft King James that came near this, either in 
 the Original of the Quarrel, the Means of the Profecution, or laftly, in the 
 Ifl'ue and Confequence of the whole Afl^air. 
 
 At- I muft confefs you have given a jufl; Account of the Beginning, Progrefs 
 and Cataftrophe of that unhappy Rebellion, which ended (as moft of them do 
 when they prove fuccefsful) with the Depofition and Murder of the King- 
 And tho I do not deny but there is fome difference between that and the late 
 Expulfion of his Majefty from the Throne, yet it is not fo much as to make it 
 a quite different Cafe, fince you your felf cannot but confefs, that the Iffue of 
 both their Votes have been much the fame \ viz,, the Depofition, or (as you 
 word it) Abdication of the King, and the total Abrogation of his Royal Authority, 
 All the difference I can find between them, is. That in the Cafe of King Charles \. 
 this was done when his Royal Perfon was in their power i but in that of 
 
 A a a a a ths
 
 n^ 
 
 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITlCA. 
 
 the King his Son, it was not voted till after his Departure, or rather his being 
 driven away, fince he could no longer Itay here with Honour or Safety to his 
 Perfon •, and what they would have done had he continued here, I cannot with- 
 out Horrour imagine: but it is well it proved no worfe, and that they had 
 not the opportunity of exprefTing their Malice againft his Perfon as well as his 
 Government. Therefore 1 defire you would now (how me (fince you under- 
 take to juftify all that the Convention has done in relation to the King) why 
 they might not as well have condemn'd him to death (as the Rump Faftion 
 did his Father) as have pafTed that Vote, 'that hy his Breach of the Original Con- 
 traB between the Kivg and People., and by his deferting the Kingdom., he had abdi- 
 cated the Government, and that the Throne was thereby become vacant : fince I 
 always thought, that it had been fufficiently declared for Law by the Statute 
 of the 1 2th of Charles the Second, which attainted the Regicides of his Father, 
 T%at neither the Peers., nor Commons feparately., nor yet both of them together in Par- 
 liament, nor the People collcclively or reprefentatively, have any coercive Power over 
 the Perfon of the King. And certainly this was a fundamental Law of the Land 
 from the very beginning of Kingly Government in this iQand, notwithftanding 
 the contrary had been preached up, and writ for, by the Leaders of the Com- 
 monwealth Faftlon ; and much the like Doftrines have been alfo fpread abroad, 
 and juftified of late in fcditious Pamphlets and Sermons, tho veil'd over with 
 fubtle Diftindions to blind the Eyes of the People. Therefore pray let me fee 
 how you can defend this part of the C-^ntroverfy. 
 
 F, I /hall obferve your Commands i but firft give me leave to premife, that 
 tho I will not juftify the Depofition of Princes, yet I very much doubt the 
 Truth of what you fay, that it was always a fundamental Law of England.^ 
 that the Eftatesof the Kingdom, or Parliament, had no coercive Power overtke 
 Perfons ef their Kings, or could pafs any Judgment on their ABiovs : for that it 
 was not a fundamental Law from the firlt Inftitution of the Government, I 
 think I have already given you feveral Proofs from BraBon, and the Mirror of 
 Jufiices., and fhewn what was looked upon in thofe Times to be the Power of 
 the Eftates of the Kingdom, as to the reftraining the arbitrary and illegal ASliont 
 vf the King himfelf, his Queen, Children, and great Officers of the Crown ; and what 
 the EngUp]' Saxons IVittena Gemots did in relation to their Kings, upon any no- 
 torious Breaches of the fundamental Laws of the Government, or a general 
 Violation of the Liberties and Properties of the People contrary to Law ; as 
 yoa may remember formerly in the Inftances of King Sigebert, and Edwy, and 
 others in the Saxon Times : and that the fame was held lawful, and put in 
 praftice after the Norman Conqueft (as you call it) is as plain from what two 
 feveral Parliaments did in the cafe of two Kings, viz.. Edward and Richard the 
 Second i which Proceedings were alfo juftify'd and confirm'd by the next fab- 
 fequent Parliaments (as you may find in our Statute-Book) by the Afts thereto 
 be feen in the firft Year of Edward the Third, and firll of Henry the Fourth 
 tho I will not juftify thofe Aftions neither, nor affirm that Parliaments have 
 the fame Power at this day, it having been by them difclaini'd by fo many fub- 
 fequent Statutes. ^ 
 
 M. I cannot deny that there are fuch Statutes as thofe you mention ; but if 
 you pleafe more nearly to confider them, you will find that they were rather 
 made to excufe and indemnify the Perfons that h id a hand in rebelling againft", 
 and depofing thofe Princes, than at all to juftify the Anions themfelves ; for 
 in that Statute of the firft of Edward the Third, you will read it is only there 
 enacted and declared, " That none that came over with the King that now is, 
 " and the Queen his Mother, or none other that went with the faid King in 
 *' aid of them, to purfue tiieir Enemies, in which Purfuit the King his Father 
 *' was taken, and put in ward, and yet rtmaincth in ward, ftiall be impeached, 
 *' molefted, or grieved in Perfon, or in Goods, in the King's, or in any other 
 " Court, for the faid Facfs, nor for the Death of any Man, &c. from the Day 
 " of the Arrival of the prefent King, to the Day of his Coronation." And 
 much to the fame efteft is that Aft of Indemnity pafted in the firft of Henry 
 the Fourth, *' That none ftiall be impeached or puniflied that affifted that King 
 " to purfue and take Richard the Second and his Adherents." So that thefe 
 Adts were only Pardons to fuch Offenders, but do no way declare thofe Adions 
 to be legal, or any ways juftifiable by the kiiown Laws of the Land, or fun- 
 damental 
 
 ■>
 
 Dialogue the Fourteenth. j^i 
 
 damectal Conditution of the Government. An(i as for th« Law at prefcnt, 
 you know it is exprtfly declared by the Aft of the 12th of Charles the Second, 
 That not only the Command of the Militia of the Kingdom is bis AfAJefly^s undoubted 
 Right^ but that neither of the two Houfes can pretend to the fame ^ nor can levy any 
 War, ojfenfive or defenftve, agamjt his A<fajefty. So that I think nothing ciii be 
 more plain and exprefs, than that the late Proceedings agaiiift his Majefty have 
 been altogether unjultifiable, and contrary to Law. 
 
 F. I do not deny that what you now fay is in a great part true, and our 
 written Laws do no ways allow any Reliftance, or Imprifonment of the King; 
 but however, there are divers Anions, which, tho not juftifiable by the ftrift 
 Letter of the Law, yet being for the publick Good, and Prefervation bf the 
 Government, and original Conftitution thereof, and in cafes of extreme Necef- 
 ilty, when done indeed, ought to be juftify'd and pardon'd by fubfequent Par- 
 liaments, as 1 have already fufficiently made out: But fince we have fo fully 
 difcourfed of, and, as I thought, fufficiently fettled that point at our ninth 
 Meeting, I fhall fay no more on that Subjcift now. And as to what you fay 
 in relation to the late Proceedings of the Convention againft the King, I have 
 likewife fo fully anfwer'd all that you could alledge to the contrary at our ele- 
 venth Converfation, that I need not here make repetition ; only give me leave 
 to add, That if the two Houfes of Parliament have no power to cenfure, and 
 pafs Judgment upon the notorious illegal Aftions of the King and his Minif- 
 ters, the Inftitutions of thofe great Councils are altogether in vain ; fince it 
 was acknowledged by King Charles the Eirft, in his Anfwer to the Nineteea 
 Propolitions already mention'd, That Parliaments had fujficient Power to refrain 
 Kings from Tyranny : but this is alv/ays to be thus underftood, provided they 
 exercife this Power rightly, and as they ought, for due and weighty Caufesj 
 and not vent their own private Refentments and Revenge upon the King or his 
 Miniftcrs, for flight and trivial Occafions. 
 
 M. Admit I fhould grant it, yet you and your Party would gain little by 
 that, fince the Law ftill fuppofes the King can do no wrong; and all Acts that 
 are illegal are not to be looked upon as his, biit thofe evil Counfellors and 
 Minifters that prefumed to do them, and who are alone to fufier for them, 
 the Perfon of the King being always facred and unpunilhable : and if it hatli 
 at fome times happen'd otherwife in point of faft, it is by no means to be juf- 
 tify'd, or drawn into example. But indeed this Revolution is in one thing 
 very fingular, and without any Example, viz.. That whereas in all former 
 Depofitions of Princes, the Indignation of the People has fallen more feverely 
 on the publick Minifters and Officers, by whom any Adions, fuppofed to be 
 illegal and arbitrary, had been done, than on the Perfon of the King himfelf; 
 as any one that reads the Hiftories of Henry the Third, Edward the Second, 
 zad.{ Richard the Second, may obferve : while in this Revolution that has lately 
 happen'd, the King himfelf hath been almolt the only Sufferer ; and his evil 
 Counfellors, and corrupt Minifters and Judges, have all efcaped fo much as 
 any publick Sentence or Punifhment: which either fliews, that what they had 
 done was jultifiable according to Law, or elfe that the Convention was very 
 partial to thofe Offenders. 
 
 But to conclude, and return to the point in queftion : If the Long Parlia- 
 ment could not legally call King Charles to any account for what he had done 
 contrary to Law (as your felf feems to grant) I defire you to fhew me any 
 fufficient Reafons why it fhiuld be treafonable for the Long Parliament to pafs 
 a Vote, That the King's raifing a Guard at Torky was in order to make war 
 upon the Parliament, and a Breach of the Truft repofed in him, contrary toi 
 his Coronation-Oath, and tending to the Diflblution of the Government: 
 and yet that the Convention's voting. That King James the Second, by the 
 Breach of the Original Contradt between him and his People, and by with- 
 drawing himfelf out of the Kingdom, had abdicated the Government, fhould be 
 looked on as legal, and according to the juft Power of Parliaments. So that 
 you muft acknowledge, that the Long Parliament were invelted with a Power 
 of cenfuring the King and his Aftions, and calling him to an account for them; 
 and if they had, then the Cafe of King Charles the Firit, and King James his 
 Son, will be much alike. But if the Long Parliament had not that Power, 
 neither ought the Convention to have exercifed it over the Adions of the pve- 
 
 A a a a a 2 fcnt
 
 732 
 
 BiBLiOTHEcA Politic A. 
 
 fent King. And pray. Sir, tell me why the Rump Parliament (hould be guilty 
 of Tveafon, for appointing Judges to try and condemn King Charles j and the 
 Convention (hould be innocent, who have as good as depofed King James, by 
 declaring him to have abdicated the Government-, and that the Throne is thereby 
 become vacant: fince I fuppofe, that this Convention, tho of all the Eftates 
 of the Kingdom, meeting and ading without the King's Wrir, hath no more 
 (if fo much) Authority as that fag-end of a Parliament which murder'd King 
 Charles, and yet met at firft by his Writ. 
 
 f. I hope. Sir, then, if I can give a fatisfaftory Anfwer to thefe your lalt 
 Queftions and Objeftions, you will come over to my Opinion. In the firft 
 place I own, and I think you your felf muft grant, that Parjiaments have a 
 Power of impeaching and punifhing fuch evil and corrupt Minilters, as fliall 
 prefume to aft any thing contrary to Magna Charta-, and the known Liberties 
 and Privileges of the Nation, tho they did it by the King's exprefs Commands j 
 lince they are prefum'd .to know the Law, and either (hould have refufed to 
 accept their places upon unjuft and unwarrantable Conditions, or elfe have 
 refign'd them, rather than obey'd the King's illegal Orders. But it is yet a 
 higher Aggravation of the Offence, if (as fomeof our Judges of late) they ac-; 
 cept of thofe Offices on condition to give their Judgment i.i point of Law, only 
 as the Court (liall direft : So that the difference between us barely lies in the 
 true Senfe and Meaning of this Maxim in Law, That the King can do no wrong j 
 or if he do any in his own Perfon, how far he is liable to anfwer for it. J 
 "rant indeed, That if the King never executes any Funftion of theGovern- 
 nient in his own Perfon, he cannot be faid to do any wrong, but only thofe 
 bis Minifters and inferior Officers that aft by fuch Orders: yet what if the 
 Kin" himfelf will aft minifterially, and will take upon him in Perfon to feize 
 thoft that are innocent of every thing but his arbitrary Defigns^ or what if 
 he will himfelf put the Broad Seal to a Pardon of a notorious Enemy to the 
 Government, that ftands impeach'd by the Commons of England •., can any one 
 fay that this is not a doing wrong in his own Perfon ? What if he will tura 
 his Chancellor, Chief Juftices, and other Judges out of their Places, and will 
 not admit of any new ones, but fuch as will facrifice their Confciences, and 
 blindly promife to acl and give Judgments according to whatever he fhall pleafe 
 to fet up for Law ? Or fuppofe he do in his own Perfon fign and iffue out 
 Orders for a {landing Army in a time of Peace, not to defend and preferve, 
 but to enflave the Nation : or fuppofe that being petition'd to, and defired 
 by fome of his Peers, who are ConfiUarii Nati^ to abftain from making fuch 
 notorious Breaches upon the Conftitution, he fhould immediately order under 
 his own hand the Petitioners to be clapt up in the Tower ; can the Governors of 
 that place judge whether the fault thofe Lords ftand committed for be Trea- 
 fon or only High Mifdemeanor ? Or laftly, fuppofe the King fhall either re- 
 fufe to call a Parliament to rcdrefs thefe Grievances \ or if he goes about to 
 do it, ffiall evidently in his own Perfon clofet and corrupt the intended Mem- 
 bers of it what muft be done in fuch cafes, when all other Remedies fail? 
 And how many of thefe Ad? and Breaches upon the Law the late King was ia 
 his own Perfon guilty of, 1 fhall not now particularly enquire into, having al- 
 ready fpoke fufficiently upon thefe Points ? And I wifh you, or any body elfe, 
 could excufe him from thefe perfonal Violations. 1 would farther ask you, what 
 is to be done when he will hearken to no Advice and Remonftrances that fhall 
 be offer'd to him, to make him fenfible that fuch Proceedings (trikeat the very 
 fundamental Conftitution of the Government? I fay, what Courfe fhall the 
 whole Nation, or Parliament, as its Reprefentative, take in fuch cafes where 
 the King will remain incorrigible, and will not retraft what he hath done, or 
 repair thofe Breaches he hath made upon the Laws? 
 
 M. 1 know no other Remedy, but ftill to apply themfelves to him by Peti- 
 tion i and if Prayers and Tears will not do, then to obferve BraHon's Rule, That 
 if the King will not be amended, expe^et Deum ultorem. 
 
 F. Truly I expedted fome fuch fort of Anfwer from you to thefe Queftions : 
 But pray tell me, what if the King is refolved ftill to prove inexorable, and 
 openly to declare by all his Words and Adions, that he will govern arbitra- 
 ily by a ftanding Army, and doth put it in praftice accordingly ; do you al- 
 ow the People no Remedy in that cafe, but only Prayers and Tears ? Foe 
 
 what
 
 733 
 
 Dialogue the Fourteenth. 
 
 what fatisfadion is it to me, my Prince's exi.cftmg the Vengeance of God for 
 the Breach of his Coronation-Oath ? Will that prove any Alleviation of the 
 Subjeds Mifery, that their Prince will be damned in another World, whea 
 perhaps he himfclf may not believe any fuch thing as a Life after this? For 
 he may be told by his Priefts and Jefuits, that it is a commendable and meri- 
 torious Aftion in him to make himfclf abfolute, and to rrample all the Laws of ^ \ 
 his Kingdom under his feet -, fince otherwife he can never fet up the Romifh Re- 
 ligion^ which upon their Principles is the only way toSUvacion, and that it is 
 lawful for him to ofe any means to compafs it. So that unlefs you will fup- 
 pofe all Governments ought to be abfolute and arbitrary, at the Will of the 
 King, 1 do not fee any means left the ijubjefts how to fccure themfelves from 
 the rankcfl: Tyranny. 
 
 M. To deal plainly with you ^ it is ftill my firm and fteady Opinion, That 
 if the worft Cafe which you have here put fhould happen, it is better for the 
 People to rely upon God's Providence, what fhall become of their Perfons, 
 Religion, and Liberties, than to provoke his Wrath by any Rebellion, or Re- 
 fiftance of the King or his Officers : fince I do not think that even the Defence 
 either of our Religion, or of thofe Liberties and Privileges which have been 
 granted by our former Kings to theSubjedsof thisKation, can ever be coun- 
 terballanced by a Rebellion and long Civil War j for bciidcs the prefent Cala- 
 mities which it certainly brings along with it, it commonly ends in the Dj- 
 ftrudlion of the King's Perfon, if not the Expulfion of the Royal Line and Fa- 
 mily \ as we have feen lately in the Flight of the Qijeen with the Infant Prince, 
 which was foUow'd with that of the King : rather than which I think any thing, 
 even Per fecution it felf for Religion, were better to be endured by us, than a 
 Remedy worfe than the Difeafe. 
 
 F. 1 am forry you and I have difconrfed fo long, and fo often about thefe 
 matters, without being able to make each other any whit wifer, and that you 
 are ftill fo obftinate in your firfl Opinions •■, I mult therefore beg your pardoa 
 that i cannot be of your mind, fince our Principles are fo different, you fup- 
 pofing that no Reliftance of a tyrannical illegal Power, if carried on under the !■ 
 
 i«4ame and Authority of a King, can be in any cafe lawful for the People or {■ 
 
 Subjefts, let what will be the Confequence^ whilft 1 (who believe the People 
 were not made orordain'd by God only for Kings to ule them as their Slaves, 
 or mere Brutes) am perfuaded, that for the Prefervation of their natural and 
 civil Liberties and Properties, confer'd on them by the very Conftitution of 
 the Government, not by the mere Grace and Bounty of former Kings, as fome 
 of your Party affirm (and therefore of which the whole People can be the only 
 proper Judges) they may not only take up Ai ms, but drive out fuch a Tyrant 
 that fo invades them, if they are able of themfelves to do it, or elfe may beg 
 the Afiiftance of any other neighbouring Prince, that will be fo generous as to un- 
 dertake their Caufe. Otherwife I can fee no Remedy, but that all Kings, how li- 
 mited foever, may make themfelves not only abfolute Monarchs, but their Peo- 
 ple as abfolute Slaves as thofe in Turky ov Mufovy. And 1 am fo much a Pa- 
 tron of Liberty, that I cannot think any of the Confequences you mention, 
 fuch as a long Civil War, or the Expulfion of a tyrannical Prince, can be 
 worfe than conftant Slavery, Ignorance, and Poverty, which are the certain 
 Confequences of your Hypothefis, of leaving all Princes to difpofe of the E- 
 flates. Lives, and Liberties of all their Subjefts at their pleafure. And tho £ 
 own that War, and the lofs of thoufands of Lives, may happen ia the de- 
 fence of them, yet this State is rather fometimes to be prefer'd (if it cannot 
 be avoided) than the other j as any Man, I think, would, if it were put to 
 his choice, rather have a Fever once in feven Years, and come off' with Life, 
 than languifh under an Ague or Confumption for the like fpaceofTimc, and 
 die at laft j fince that Saying of the Poet is very true, Non efi vivere^ fed vn- 
 lere Hta. And now this Parallel fecms very juft, without making any parti- 
 cular Application of it. 
 
 Bat to return to the matter in hand j to which, what I have juft now faid, 
 has been only preliminary •, 1 (hall as freely own on the other fide, that it may 
 fo happen, that a whole People, or the major part of them, or the Ellates of 
 the Kingdom, or Parliament, or at Icaft the major part of them, may enter- 
 tain unjuft Prejudices againft the King i and by palfing too hard a Cenfure on 
 
 his 
 
 ;>/•
 
 734 
 
 BlBLlOTHECA PoLITlCA. 
 
 Ills Aftions, may, by the Artifices of faftious and ill Men, be drawn into Re- 
 bellion, and to take up Arms againft him without any jufl: Caufe: and in this 
 cafe, ilnce there is no fuperior Power between him and his People, he only caa 
 be Judge, and the Appeal muft then be made to God, and the Confciences of 
 all his good Subjeds, that remain ftill untainted, and will be ready to aflift in 
 maintaining, his juft Rights •■, or he may alfo in fuch cafes implore the Affiftance 
 of fome" neighbour Prince, provided he take care that the Auxiliaries he (hall 
 afford him may not prove fo powerful as to make themfelves Matters of the 
 whole Kingdom and Nation ■■, as we often fmd in Hiftory to have been the Event 
 of fach foreign AlTiftances. 
 
 Thefe things being premifed, I think it not at all difficult to anfwer your 
 Q;ieries : As firlt, why the two Houfes of Parliament could not juftly or legally 
 call K'mgCharles to an account for what he had done contrary to Law ; and 
 fecondly, why it fliould be treafonable for them to pafs a Vote, that the King's 
 raifing a Guard at Tork was in order to make war upon the Parliament, ia 
 breach of his Coronation-Oath, and contrary to the Truft repofed in him. 
 And yet that the Convention's voting that King James the Second, by the 
 Breach of the Original ContraSi^ and by withdrawing himfelf out of this King- 
 dom, had abdicated the Government. 
 
 Kow to anfwer your Queries in order, I fhall let you know, that, in the 
 firlt place, I utterly difavow all coercive Power in one or both Houfes of Parlia- 
 ment, to call the King to an account for any Aftions committed by himfelf, 
 or his fubordinate Minifters or Officers ^ and therefore all the Proceedings of 
 the Rump-Parliameut againft King Charles were abfolutely void and illegal, not 
 only from the Incompetency of the Authority, they being but the fag-end and 
 remainder of the Members of that Parliament, and without any concurrence of 
 the third Eftate, or Peers of England; who (the at that time excluded by 
 force, yet) have always had a joint Power with, if not fuperior to that of the 
 Commons, in all fuch cafes of the higheft importance : but indeed becaufe both 
 Houfes are the King's Subjedfs, and call'd by his Writ, and have fworn Allc^ 
 giance to him, therefore they could not pafs Judgment upon him as a Crimi- 
 nal, fince he was ftill their Sovereign i neither could thty proceed againft him 
 as an Enemy, becaufe by the whole Narrative of thefe Tranfaftions it appears^ 
 that he was unwillingly drawn into that unhappy War, and afted only upon 
 the Defenfive, in maintenance of his juft Right of the Militia, and other Pre- 
 rogatives of the Crown, which a prevailing Faftion in both Houfes would then 
 have deprived him of againft his Confent. 
 
 This being fo, the other part of the Queftion is eafily anfwer'd, why the 
 Convention's Proceedings againft King James fhould be juftifiable, and not thofe 
 of the Rump-Parliament againft his Father, fince the Inftances are by no means 
 parallel i for the Convention did in no wife take upon them to judge or pafs 
 Sentence upon the King, as one accountable to them for his Aftions: for they 
 only gave their Vote or Cenfure upon what he had done, as that which had 
 already divefted him of all Right to the Crown, and in effeft imply'd an ab- 
 folute Abdication of the Government. And 1 have already proved in our for- 
 mer Conveifation, that when a King plainly declares by his Aftions, that he 
 will no longer govern by Law, and refufes to amend the Breaches that have 
 been made by his fubordmate Minifters, he thereby himfelf becomes anfwerable 
 for thofe Mifcarriages. And tho 1 grant his Perfon is ftill unaccountable and 
 unpuniffiable, for want of a fuperior Power to condemn him ^ yet he may fo 
 carry himfelf towards his People, in -vilibly going about by force to fubvert 
 the Religion and Laws, that upon his obftinate Refufal, or wilful putting him- 
 felf out of a Capacity to amend thofe Breaches he himfelf hath made, or at 
 leaft his inferior Minifters by his Order, he may thereby forfeit and lofe the 
 very Crown it felf, and all Right to govern any longer: but ftill (as 1 have 
 formerly faid) this wholly proceeds from his own exorbitant Aftions, and not 
 from any coercive Authority the Parliament can pretend to over his Perfon. 
 Thus for example, if in the State of Nature, a Husband carry himfelf fo cru- 
 elly towards his Wife, as that fhe caa no longer live in fafety with him, ffic 
 may lawfully quit his Bed and Family, and j)rovide for her own fafety fome- 
 where elfe ^ after which, I doubt not but in that ftate the Bond of Matrimony 
 is thereupon diflblved : and this not from any Authority the Wife has over 
 
 the
 
 Dialogue the Fourteenth. jot 
 
 the Perfon of her Husband, but from the great Law of Nature, of Self-Prefer- 
 vation; or elfe it would lie in the power of any Husband to tyrannize, nay to 
 murder his Wife whenever he pleafed, and (he could have no Remedy left to 
 provide for iicr own Safety. The cafe is fo plain between the People and a 
 tyrannical Prince, that I think it needs no farther infifting upon, tfian to apply 
 what I have now faid in general to King jAmes himfelf in particular: And I 
 fhall but lightly touch upon this Head, having at our eleventh Converfation 
 fully proved, that the King's late Afiions and Proceedings, raention'd in the 
 Prince of Oran^e^s Declarations, efpecially that of his afluming to himfelf a 
 Power of difpenfing with all Laws, were Breaches of the OrigintdContraEl between 
 the King and his People : and that there is fuch a Contradf, I think I have fuf- 
 ficiently proved at our tenth Meeting ■■, and if fo, vvhat the King hath done 
 tended to a Diflblution of the Government, and not being vedrefled, gave the 
 People a Right of Refiftance by Force to fuch illegal Judgments and Commands, 
 And tho I grant, fo long as there are any hopes left that the King would defift 
 from, and redrefs thofe Violations, he ought not to fuffer either in his Perfon 
 or Dignity, but only thofe that af&fted him in thofe exorbitant Anions, fince ' 
 the King's Perfon fhould always be facred and unpunifhable ^ yet when he plain- 
 ly declares, that he will not redrefs them, and puts himfelf out of a Capacity of 
 doing it, by leaving the Kingdom without offering any Satisfadion for what 
 he has done, nay, doing his utmoft to leave the Nation ia a ftate of Anarchy 
 and Confulion : if this be not an implicit Ahdication of che Government, when 
 the King thus abfolutely refufes to govern any longei upon thofe Terms and 
 Conditions on which he has received the Crown, 1 know not what can be rec- 
 koned one, unlefs you would have an exprefs Abdication or Renunciation of it, 
 which I fuppofe cannot be expefted in this cafe. And if the Convention of 
 Lords and Commons upon their Meeting have palled their Votes that it was fo, 
 it does not therefore follow that their bare voting fo, can make it io., if in 
 vrere not fo before. However, you mufb own that it is a folemn Declaratioa 
 of the Senfe of the Reprefentatives of all the Eftates of the Kingdom, and' " ■ 
 
 ought to be acquiefced in, and fubmitted to by all the Subjefts of it, unlefs yoa 
 can fhew me better P.eafons to the contrary than you have hitherto done. So 
 that after all your aggravating Exprefllons, this Vote of theirs did not at all 
 touch the Perfon of the late King, nor yet deprive him of his legal Authority, 
 lince he had already done fufficient to forfeit and divefl himfelf of it : And if > 
 lie hath happen'd to be the greateft Sufferer in this Revolution^ and that his 
 evil Counfellors, corrupt Minifters and Judges, with other inferior Oflicers, 
 have efcaped Cenfure and Punifhment, this hath fallen out from the Iniquity 
 of the Times, and the great multitude of Offenders who have been engaged 
 in the fame bad Caufe, and partook of the fame Guilt with the Papifts them- 
 felves: And you know very well in what manner, by the tacit Confent of two' 
 prevailing Faftions, thofe Olfenders came to efcape. But 1 hope the Votes of the 
 Convention will however Hand as a perpetual Landmark and Boundary, to 
 warn all fubordinate Officers for the future not to break in upon the Liberties 
 and Privileges of the Nation, leR a worfc thing befal them. ' 
 
 But to come to your laft Objection: The Incompetency of Authority in the 
 Convention to cenfure the King's Aftions, which becaufe they did not meet 
 upon the King's Writ, you will needs fancy that they had no more Right to tit 
 or aft than the Rump-Parliament, when all the relt of the Members were fe- 
 cluded, and the Houfe of Lords voted ufelefs. This is indeed a great miftake, 
 and which you could not have fallen into, had you confider'd as you ought, that 
 the People and their Reprefentatives, the Eftates of the Kingdom, were before 
 Kings in this Nation, who often owed their Crowns to their Eleftion, as I have 
 already proved at our fifth and twelfth Converfations •, to all which I did not 
 find you had any thing confiderable to return by way of Anfwer : and that up- 
 on all manner of Emergencies and Revolutions of Government, the Eftates of 
 the Kingdom, or Parliament, have always exerted their Authority, cither 
 without any Writ or Summons from the King, or elfe have fat after the 
 Kings who call'd them had refign'd their Crowns, and abdicated the Govern- 
 ment. And to give you Inftances of this, I (hall begin with the great Council 
 of Parliament at Running- Mead, confifting of all the Nobility and People of 
 Englandy in which AUgn* Charta was firft granted : and tho it was not call'd by 
 
 King
 
 736 BiBLIOTHECA PoLITICA. 
 
 Kiagjohn, yet it was by him acknowledged for a lawful AlTembly of the Eftates 
 of the Kingdom, as you may fee in Matt. Paris : and pray alfo confult Matthew 
 of Wefiminfter., and Walfwghams Chronicle ; and you will there find, that upon 
 the Deceafe of King Henry the Third, the Eftates of the Kingdom met in a 
 Great Council at Wcfimlnfier^ by their own Power and Authority, and there {o- 
 lemnly recognized his Son Edward the Firft (who was then, as they fuppofed, in 
 the Holy Land) his Title to the Crown, and order'd him to be proclaim'd King, 
 when as yet they knew not certainly whether he was alive or dead. And when 
 his Son Edward the Second was depofed in Parliament, and had alfo folemnly 
 refign'd his Crown to his Son Edward the Third, the fame Parliament that had 
 depofed the former King, fat and afted without any frefli Summons under the 
 new one, and there palled feveral Statutes, as you find in Rafial or Keehle. And 
 the like happen'd upon the Depofitioa and Refignation of Richard the Second 5 
 the fame Parliament that depofed him fat fome time after under Henry the 
 Fourth, and there were divers Statutes pafTed (as there were alfo in the firit 
 Parliament oi Edward thQThix^) which are accounted good Laws at this day, 
 without the Confirmation of any fubfequent Parliaments, as you may fee like- 
 wife/in the Statute-Book, and Parliament-Rolls themfelves. So that when our 
 Great Council have once met on fuch abfolutely necelTary Occafions, it is not 
 the Authority that calls them, but their own inherent Right and Power from, 
 the Conftitution of the Government, that gives fufficient Sandion to their Pro- 
 ceedings. 1 did, as I remember, at our laft Meeting but one, flightly mention 
 thefe two laft Inftances upon another Occafion j but fince they now ferve for 
 my prefent purpofe, pray pardon me if I take the liberty to put you in mind 
 of them again. 
 
 M. I confefs you have given divers fpecious Inftances of the independent 
 Power of Parliaments upon any great Emergencies and Revolutions of Govern- 
 ment ; but yet I have very much to except againft moft of them. As for the firIt 
 Inftance, of the Great Council at Running-Mead, I have long fince told you my 
 Opinion of it, that it was a riotous and unlawful AfFembly, met there againft: 
 the King's will; and tho I am not for abrogating the Great Charter., fince it has 
 been fo often confirm'd by the voluntary Sanftions of fo many fucceeding Kings, 
 yet I muft freely tell you, I think it was obtain'd by mere Force and Rebellion 
 at firft. Indeed your next Inftance of the Afiembly of Eftates that met to re- 
 cognize £(iip^r<s/ the Firft, is more to your purpofe; but then I pray confider, 
 that this was in a cafe of abfolute Neceflity, in the abfence of the King, and 
 for the publick Peace and Quiet of the Nation, to fettle the Government in 
 good hands till his Majefty's Return. And admit 1 fhould grant fuch a way of 
 proceeding may be good for the doing of a necefliry and lawful Aft ; yet it 
 does not therefore follow that a Convention fiiall have power to make Laws 
 without a King, much lefs to cenfure his Adions, and aftually depofe him. 
 Therefore give me leave to tell you, as you your felf cannot juftify the two 
 Houfes of Parliament in their depofing King Edward and Richard the Second, 
 fo neither can their fitting and afting under their Succefibrs be defended, ac- 
 cording to the ftria Rules and Cuftoms of Parliament \ becaufe they were fum- 
 mon'd by their Writs to meet, confult, and aB with the King that call'd them, 
 and none other; and when he either refign'd the Crown, or deceafed, their 
 Authority was likewife at an end. 
 
 F. I fliall not only anfwer the Objedions you have now brought againft my 
 Inftances from matter of faft, but firtall, 1 hope, confirm them with fuch frefh 
 ones as you will not be able to anfwer. Firft then, as to what you objed a- 
 gainft the Validity of the Great Council at Running-Mead, I think it will not 
 anfwer the end for which you bring it ; fince I have already, in our ninth Con- 
 verfation, fufficiently vindicated the Legality of that Afiembly : And give me 
 leave now to add, that both the Legality of that, and the Charter then gran- 
 ted, were fufiiciently aflerted by King //f»ry the Third's confirming, or rather 
 new granting of it in the firft Year of his Reign, by the Advice of his Uncle 
 William the Marefchal, Earl of Pembroke, and Cuallo the Pope's Legate ; who 
 plainly found, that even thofe Koblemen and Gentlemen that took part with 
 the young King againft Prince Lewis of France, would never be contented till 
 it was done. And tho the fame King Henry often confirmed this Charter, as 
 did alfo his Son Edward the Firft, yet it was not becaufe their firft Confirma- 
 tions
 
 Dialogue the Fourteenth, 737 
 
 tions were not valid and fufficieot, but from the want of their being obfcrved 
 as they ought to have been, by reafon of the frequent Breaches that had been 
 made upon it, either by thofe Kings themfelves, or their evil Counfcllors and 
 corrupt Minifters ; from whence, upon every notorious Violation of it, the 
 Eftates of the Kingdom were not fatisfied till they had, by giving the King 
 frelh Subfidies (as you will find mention'd at the end of thofe Charters) pro- 
 cured new Confirmations of that Charter, as alfo of that of Forcfts \ and thofe 
 often fortified with dreadful Excommunications denounced by the BKhops a- 
 gainfl; all thofe that fhould for the future prcfume to infringe thera : yet all 
 this was fcarce fufficient-, fo prevalent were evil Counfcllors in thofe days (as 
 well as ours) over our Kings, and fo great Temptations did they find often 
 to violate them. • 
 
 As for what you fay in mitigation of my Inftance of the Great Council that 
 met without any Summons from the King, to recognize King Edward the Firft, 
 you have granted as much as I would have j which is, That fuch an AfTembly is 
 jultifiable, when the publick Necejfity and Peace of the Nation require it : Kor do 1 
 my felf maintain or defire any more j bat then I do not give the Eftates of the 
 Kingdom a Power upon every turn to meet, whether the King will or not. 
 Yet certainly, upon fuch great and extraordinary Occafions, they had, and 
 ftill have fuch a Power to alTemble, and ad as a Parliament, and to make Laws 
 too, notwithftanding they were never call'd by the King's Writ at firft. Be- 
 fides the Precedents of the firft of Edward the Third, and firft of Henry the 
 Fourth, already mention'd ; and againft which you have nothing to urge, but 
 the Law and Cuftom of Parliaments at this day •, which does not hold neither, 
 fince even in our own Memory (as I told you once before) the Convention that 
 recall'd King Charles the Second, pafTed the Ad of Oblivion, and made many 
 other Statutes. And tho it is true that they were confirm'd by the following 
 Parliament, yet that thofe Afts had been good without any fuch Confirmation, 
 appears by feveral private Afts which were then pafted, without ever being 
 confirm'd at all, and yet are ftill acknowledged to be good Statutes at this day. 
 
 And that this independent Power of the Great Council of the Eftates of the 
 Nation, is not peculiar to England^ but has alfo formerly been in ufe in other 
 neighbouring Kingdoms, whofe Princes are now looked upon as abfolute Mo- 
 narch s •, 1 have already proved * from feveral Inftances both in France, Spain,'^ yid- Dia- 
 and other Countries : as in particular that Great Afiembly which met upon the '"5"* "• 
 Death of King Charles the Fair, to determine to whom the Right of the 
 Crown then belonged, whether to our Edward the Third, or Philip Count of 
 Valois, who both laid claim to it; and upon folemn hearing of the Commif- 
 miflioners of both the Competitors, the Eftates adjudged the Crown to the lat- 
 ter as right Heir, by virtue of the Snlique Law, tho further removed in Blood 
 than King Edward from the King that laft deceafed. The like Decifion 1 alfo 
 t^d you the Eftates of the Kingdom of Caftile made between the pretended 
 Daughter of Henry the Impotent, King of Caftile^ and his Sifter Ifjbell.i, who 
 was afterwards married to Ferdinand King oi Aragon, when upon a iblemti 
 hearing of the whole matter, the Eftates adjudged the Crown to the Princefs 
 Jfahellay and fet afide a Daughter the Queen had by a Favourite, as Illegitimate. 
 And I have again mention'd this piece of Hiftory, becaufe it comes nearcft to 
 the prefentCafe, concerning the Prince of IVales-, for who fhall judge of his 
 Legitimacy, if there appear any thing fufficient againft the Reality of his being 
 born of the late Queen, but the Parliament, or Great Council of the Nation? 
 which I am fure you cannot as yet accufe of any Partiality in this Affair. 
 
 M. I am fatisfied, from the Authorities you have brought, as well as the 
 Reafon of the thing. That in cafe the Title to the Crown is any way difputa- 
 ble, that the Great Council of Eftates ought to judge of it, in all Kingdoms 
 where there are any fuch Aflemblies. But 1 think the Cafe of this young Prince's 
 Legitimacy to be fo clear and indifputable, that there can be no juft occalion 
 for any fuch Trial. However, if there fhould appear any fuch Neccflity, I 
 fuppofe the King and Queen, his Parents, would not be agairtft the putting the 
 Decifion of this Matter to a Free Parliament, cnnfifting ot thofe of the true 
 Church of England, and not of Whigs and Fanaticks. And as for the Power of 
 the Eftates to meet on other neceflary Occations, fuch as recognii,ing their 
 lawful Prince, I fhall not oppofe that neither ^ tho 1 do not thereby allow them 
 
 Bbbbb an
 
 yoS BiBLIOTHECA PoLlTlCA. 
 
 an unlimited Power of depofing Kings, or of putting the Crown on what Head 
 they pleafe, to the prejudice of the right Heirs by Blood. 
 
 F. I am glad you and 1 are fo far agreed in the main i tho I cannot but ob« 
 ferve, that you are under a very great Miftake, in limiting the Power of the 
 Eftatcs of any Kingdom, only to the beftowing of the Crown on thofe you call 
 the Ri^ht Heirs: for pray tell me, who can better judge of this than they ? And 
 might^not the Eftates of France^ if they had fo pleafed, have adjudged the Crown 
 to Kir.g Edward, as well as to Philip of Galois; and had not then all the Sub- 
 jefts of that Kingdom been obliged to acknowledge him, notwithftanding their 
 pretended Sali^ue Law? But the Eftates of the Kingdom, or Parliament in Eng- 
 Und, have a higher Powers for it is enafted by the Statute of the nth of 
 Henry the Seventh (which I have already cited, tho on another account) That 
 no one whatever, who pall ferve the King jor the time being in his Perfon., or JhaS 
 yield him true uitlegiance for the fame, cither by ferving him in his Wars, or elfe- 
 Tohere, pall fufer at>y Jttainder or Forfeiture for fo doing. Where you may eafily 
 take notice, that the Intent of this Statute is to indemnify the Subjects of Eng' 
 land, who fliall alTift and ferve the King for the time b^ing (let his Title be 
 what it will.) Mow how can the Subjefts of this Kingdom diftinguifiior judge 
 who is lawful King, or has the belt Title to the Crown, but by the Judgment and 
 Recognition of their Reprefentatives, the Eftates of the K' .^dom? Nor is there 
 any difierence in this Cafe between an Aft made by a King de Jure, and one that 
 is only fo de FaElo; for you caii'c deiiy that King Henry Vll. before his Marriage 
 with the Princefs Eliz,abeth, was any other, and after her Death he could be no 
 better: and' upon your Principles likewife, Qiieen Elizabeth her felf had no 
 more than a Parliamentary Title i and yet Ihe made an Aft in the thirteenth 
 year of her Reign, That the Kiiigv)r Oueen, with the Confent and Authority 
 of Parliament, might limit and alt • rhe Succeftion of the Crown as they 
 thought fit ; which Aft I have prov'ci . o you, at our laft Meeting but one, to be 
 ftill in force : and 1 now repeat it, to itrrefh your Memory, and let you fee thaS 
 this Revolution, and the prefent Limitation of the Crown, is juftify'd by 
 both thofe Statutes i and does not only differ in the Original and Profecutioa 
 of the Quarrel, from the Civjl War begun and carry'd on by the Long Parlia- 
 ment, bat alfo in the Iflue of it-, that ending, not only with the Depofitioa 
 and Murder of the King, and the fetting up of a Commonwealth, but with the 
 ExpuLion of the whole Royal Line, and the Deftruftion of the Church and E- 
 piftopal Government ; whereas it is now (God be thank'd) quite otherwife: 
 fox tho King J<?»ifj be dedar'd uncapable to govern, yet the Convention has 
 thought fit to place the Crown on the Heads of his Son-in-law and Daughter, 
 whom they look'd upon to have moft Right to it. And as for the Church of 
 England, all things remain in the fame State as they were in King Charles'i 
 Reign, and 1 hope will continue fo, or rather be leform'd^r the better: and 
 therelore I think I have fufficiently juftify'd the prefent Revolution from your 
 Objeftions, and fhewn you, That an old Cavalier, or true Son of the Churro 
 of England, may very well approve and comply with this prefent Change ; and 
 yet at the fame time keep the 30th of January without any Hypocrifyj and 
 may alfo ftill maintain, that the cutting olF King Ci?<j>/«'s Head was a horrid 
 Murder and Treafon in thofe that were guilty of it. » 
 
 M. As for the Conclufion of your Speech, I wholly a^- 2 with you, but not 
 in the Premifcs : for tho the Crimes the Nation is guilty of in one Cafe, are 
 not fo horridly cruel and barbarr^.s as in the other-, yet certainly no good 
 Subjeft can juftify the taking up Arms againft the King upon any pretence 
 whatfoever, much lefs prefume to declare. That he hath violated (I \novo not 
 what) Original ContraEl, and that the Throne thereby is become vacant ; and then 
 placing any one therein, but him whofc Right it is : fince I look upon the Oath of 
 Allegiance of perpetual Obligation upon all thofe that have taken it, not only 
 to his prefent Majefty, but the Heirs of his Body begotten ; fo that you 
 may keep the Thirtieth of January as much as you pleafe : yet I doubt you 
 cannot excufe thofe of your Party that have been tbe Contrivers and Abet- 
 tors of this Revolution, from much the like Ctho I will not fay the very 
 fame) Crime, with that of the Rump-Parliament. And as to what you fay 
 concerning thit prefent fiourilhing Condition of the Church, and your Hopes of 
 the farther Reformation of it, I wilh 1 could fee it i tho I cannot now exped it, 
 
 ^ as
 
 Dialogue the Fourteenth, y^p 
 
 as things are like to go ; fince fomc of her Members have, by the taking up 
 Arms, and joining with the Prince of Orange, given the Enemies of our Reli- 
 gion a great advantage over them. And what will become of the Church, when 
 the Archbifliop of Canterbury., and all other confcientious Bilhopsand Clergymen, 
 fhall be deprived for not taking the Oath to the prefent Government, 1 dread 
 to think j for I can forefee nothing but a moft fearful Scbifm, like to be the 
 Confequence of that Aft. 
 
 F. 1 thought I had fufficiently proved in our former Converfations, that tak- 
 ing up Arms in defence of our Religion and Civil Liberties, when no other Re- 
 medy could prevail, was not unlawful, according to our Conftitution. Secondly, 
 That there is fuch a thing as an Original ContraEl, however ignorant you are 
 pleafed to make your felf of it. Thirdly, That by the Abdication, or Forfei- 
 ture of King James (call it which you pleafe) the rhro.ie did really become va- 
 cant \ and that it is legally filled by their prefent Majcfties. That the Oath of 
 Allegiance is of perpetual Obligation, I alfo grants but it is ftill on condition, 
 that the King Ihall likewife truly keep and perform that part of theContraft 
 contain'd in his Coronation-Oath, without going about to alter aud invade our 
 Religion and i-,ivil Liberties by an armed Force, and arbitrary Pov/er : and if 
 this were not fo, wc fliould owe it wholly to the King's mere Favour and Good- 
 will, if he did not make us all Papifis, nay Turks and Slaves, whenever he had 
 a mind to it. Thcfe are indeed the Principles I have all along maintain'd, and 
 I hope I fhall never have occation to be afliamed of them , therefore fince it now 
 grows late, and that I find it impofTible to make a Convert of you, and bring 
 you over to my Opinion, I will bid you good-night, and part as much your 
 Friend as before : for I am fatisfy'd of your Sincerity, and that it is only Preju- 
 dice, or a miftaken Zeal, and too fcrupulous a Confcience, that hinders you 
 from coming over to our fide. 
 
 M. I thank you for your kind Thoughts of rae ; and in Return can only 
 tell you, that I think your Error proceeds from much the fame Caufe? as you 
 fuppofe mine does, only I wifh I could add that of a too fcrupulous Confcience : 
 however I am obliged to you for the Benefit of this Evening's Converfation, in 
 which I muft own I have received a great deal of light in many things which I 
 was before ignorant of 5 and fo 1 take my leave, and Ihall continue your real 
 Friend and Servant. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 ^\^^^^^ 
 
 Bbbb 2
 
 s&dSu as« I 
 
 81 ^§. i3± is?- ^i s^ ^fe 
 
 
 ^mwmm^^mmmii':fmT^&m¥jm^m^^^^^immd'^^mm^ 
 
 An Alphabetical 
 
 INDEX 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 Chief Matters contained in this 
 
 BOOK; which alfo, explaining the Old 
 Terms relating to our Conftitution, may ferve 
 inftead of a G l o s s ar y. 
 
 ABbeflcs reprcfented in Parlia- 
 ment, p. 280,327 
 Abbot, ^rchbi/hopy againji 
 j^rbitrary Power. 5 
 Abbots, how chofcn antiently. 257 
 ".'..^on> their Numbers in Parliament came 
 to be lejfen^d. 397 
 Bound to appear in Parliament by their 
 Tenures, tho they held not in Capite. 
 
 402, 4i8 
 Abdication of King James II. jujlifyd. 
 
 570, &c. 
 The di^erent Senfes of the Word, and 
 the Convention's Senfc of it oa volun- 
 tary in him., jufiifyd. 60 1 
 It devolved the Government upon the 
 Nation's Keprefentatives. 645 
 Abel'i Defire to Cain, Gen. 4. 7. not 
 meant of Cain'i Alfolute Power over 
 him. I 3, &c. 
 Nor of his Hereditary Right to Govern- 
 ment. 53,54 
 . 77;c place wrong tranflated. ib. 
 Abjuration-Oath <i«tafe(/. 689,&c. 
 Ab'jur''d the prefent, but not the future 
 Right of the Rival to the King in be- 
 ing. 6p3 
 
 Abraham made War and Peace, a^ 
 Mafler of an independent Family. 
 
 26 
 
 Abfolute Monarch! don't treat their Sub- 
 
 jeeis like Children. 81, 83, 85, &c, 
 
 ^re only Maflers of Slaves, or great 
 
 Work- Howfcs. 125, (See 
 
 Adam not univerfal Monarch. 5), 6cc. 
 
 H'vs Power Oeconomial. ib. & 10, 1 1, 
 
 12,14,15,34 
 
 Why he did not puni/Jj Cain for mur» 
 
 dering Abel. i 5^29 
 
 AdamV Marital and Paternal Power, not 
 
 the Origin of Civil Government ; the 
 
 yihfurdities of thd Affirmative, 17, 
 
 i8,5cc. 
 Bk Commijfton for Dominioni^ not pe- 
 culiar to himj'clf, but in general to 
 Mankind. 28,29 
 
 Other Arguments for h'vs Abfolute Power 
 anfwer'd. ib. &. 55, &c. 
 
 Alfred^ Laws made by Confent of Parlia- 
 ment. 2 J 3 
 His Will about the Succe/Jioii. 520 
 Aldermen of feveral forts antiently. 258, 
 
 266, &c. 287 
 Alii de Regno, who. 297,404 
 
 Alii Incols, who. 399 
 
 Alii I.aici, who. 321,335 
 
 Alii
 
 An Alphabetical Index. 
 
 Alii Univerfi, who. 35i,373 
 
 Allegiance, what. 6$2.,&<c. 
 
 Due to a King de fado, and is reci- 
 
 pocal with Protection. 68 1 — 688 
 Allegiance, natural^ what, and whether 
 
 it has any Tie upon Confcience. ib. 
 Alodarii, who. ^SPi^yi 
 
 Ambition and turbulent Humours of {ri- 
 
 vate Afetiy not fo dangerous to a 
 
 Nation as Tyranny. 132, &:c. 
 
 St. Ambrofe defended by the People a- 
 
 gainjl the Emperor. loz 
 
 Ar\g\i, from whence. 250 
 
 Avegto-TnvH KricTiSy 1 Pet- 2. 13, 14. what. 
 
 179 
 Antiquiores Regni, who. 31 1 
 
 Arbitrary Power cncourag'd, when. 4,5 
 Not God^s Ordinance. 77,1 1 6 
 
 Mifchievous. ib. 
 
 Archbifliop of Canterbury and other 
 Bifhops antiently cbofen in Parlia- 
 ment. 410,411 
 De/jre the Prince of Orange to take the 
 Government upon him. 5 74 
 Aragon, its Laws of Succeffion. 68 
 Its Kings limited. 504 
 Ariftocracy among the Jews before Kings. 
 
 6p,7o 
 Ariftotle'i King. 92 
 
 Arms defenfive jujlify'd. 7, 8, 460, 4<5 1, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Arnifeus for Refiflance of Kings, and in 
 
 what Cafes. 499 
 
 Arthur Duke of Britany not made King 
 
 of England, tho next Heir. 604, 
 
 605 612 
 
 Murdered by h'vs Vncle King John. 612 
 Articles of the Church of England not 
 for Pafjive Obedience. 204 
 
 Aflbcialion by Lords and Bifhops at Lon- 
 don, to fland by the Prince of O- 
 range, 575 
 
 Athanafius for defenfive Arms. 20 1 
 
 Attainders in Parliament againfl Here- 
 ditary Kings. 658 
 Auguftus made abfolute by the Romans. 
 
 92 
 
 Authority, legale given and taken away 
 
 by Law. 669 
 
 B. 
 
 BAbylas, a Bifhop, fhut the Church- 
 Boors againfl the Emperor. 201 
 Banneret, antient, what. 389 
 
 Barnftaple fent Members to Parliament 
 in Athelftan'i time. 43 5 
 
 A plain Proof that we bad a Houfe of 
 Commons before the Conquefl. ib. 
 Baronagium fometimes fignifyd all the 
 Eflates of Parliament. 3 54 
 
 Baronagium Anglice, Regis, fuum, ter- 
 
 TX fuoe, What .^ 3 1 0,3 1 1 ,40(J 
 
 Barones Comicatus not Tenants in ca- 
 
 pite. 53<5 
 
 Minores, What .^ 31 i,3i2,3ip,3S4 
 
 Barones here before the Normans. 275 
 
 What they were. 284—310 
 
 Barons by Writ., their Origin. 329 
 
 Barons, Peers, when calPd to Parliament. 
 
 367,&c. 
 Baron- Court. 534 
 
 Birth, a fuppofltitious One. 568 
 
 Birthright did not entitle to Civil Go.> 
 vernmtnt^ but to PrieJlbooJ^ among 
 the Patriarchs. ^2,63 
 
 Bifhops /Jt in Parliament by Right of their 
 Baronies. 377 
 
 T}}fy and abbots obliged to do Knights 
 Service by William I. 531,532 
 
 Formerly deprived by King and Parlia- 
 ment, from xthom they dtrive their 
 Sets and Jurifdiilions. 689,694, 
 
 695, £cc. 
 Thh Deprivation allowed by Canon 2. 
 
 ib. 
 
 Some of them judged of^ and difobey'd 
 
 James IldV Cow/m.Wj. 462, &e. 
 
 562 
 
 This juflify^d. 599 
 
 They did not think him the fole Legif- 
 
 lator. ' 467 
 
 Some of them treacherous to K. W. III. 
 
 642 
 Bifhopricks, their Origin in England. 
 
 69^,696 
 Bilhops Sees, not capable antiently, as 
 fuch, of fending A4tmhers to Parlia^ 
 ment. 429 
 
 Bleding^mn to Jacob wa^ only a double 
 Portion of h'vs Fatber^s Eflate. 62 
 Bockland, nhat. 533 
 
 Bod in, his wrong Notion of filial Obe- 
 dience, 38 
 And of our Conftitution. 499 
 Bodies Natural and Political^ how they 
 differ. 581 
 Boors in Sweden had their Deputys in 
 Parliament. 439 
 Boroughs had Rcprefcntatives in our Saxon 
 Councils. 270, Sec. 
 And fince, even tho they did not hold 
 in capite. 4' 5 — 422 
 How tnany antiently fcnt Ademhers to 
 Parliament •, Reafons why fo many 
 new ones made in one Reign, and fo 
 few in another. 27 
 Ti)eir fending Members did not depend 
 on the Sheriffs Writs, for they were 
 fent to their own Magi fir ates. Such 
 as were malicioufly charged by She. 
 riffs, bad Redrefs in Parliament. 
 
 Some
 
 An Alphabetical Index. 
 
 Some great ones obtain'd temporary 
 
 Exemptions ^ others fent Members 
 
 by Prefcriptioti. Mr. Prynn'j mif- 
 
 takes about this matter. 428 — 435 
 
 Bradon and Fleta not for the yibfolute 
 
 Power of our Kings, 1 1 5 
 
 Their Definition of our Lam. 2i7,&c. 
 
 Own the Peoples fhare in the LegiJIature. 
 
 218,233 
 
 The Maxim, Quod Principi placet, 
 
 Legis habet vigorem, explained, ib. 
 
 Their Opinion of the King's Power and 
 
 Refifiance to him. 500 — 509 
 
 TfcejV true Meaning vindicated by other 
 
 Quotations from them. 5 1 3 
 
 Brill, a fmall Town in the Netherlands, 
 
 firfl revolted from the Spaniards. 
 
 114,483 
 BurgefTes, none els&ed but fuch as were 
 free of^ or a&ually reftded in Bo- 
 roughs or CitieSj before Henry the 
 VUIth's time. 433 
 
 C. 
 
 CAin forfeited h'vs Right of Sacceffton \ 
 his Sons no Hereditary Monarchs. 
 
 Calvia not for PafTivt Obedience. 209 
 
 Canterbury Proomce., a diftinCl E(.cle- 
 
 fiaftieal Body jrom that of Ycrk. 
 
 Caracalla'i Tyrawwy. 114 
 
 Caftile, its Laws of Succefjion. 67 
 
 Callles and Forts in England antimdy 
 defended by Tenures. 4^0 
 
 Cavaliers were not for making Chixli.^ I. 
 arbitrary, 7c J 
 
 'King Charles I. mifled by falfe Principles. 
 
 90 
 Charged by the Parliament with firfl be- 
 ginning the War, 484. 
 His Violation of the Laws fo great., that 
 bad he perfijledj he mi "be hiVe been 
 dethron^dy but he rtj,efi'd Griev- 
 ances. 701,707 
 Not fo favourable to Papifis as J. II. 
 
 703 
 parliament demands the Militia from 
 him. ib. 
 
 Presbyterians not for ruining him and 
 the Monarchy. ib. 
 
 Thofe who tocl^ Arms for him did not 
 believe him to be irrvfijlible^ nor de- 
 fign to make him arbitrary, ']c6 
 
 Controverfy betwixt him and the Par- 
 liament j dijfer'd from that betwixt 
 James II. and the Convention. 70<5 
 Remonfirance of the Commons. 707 
 Parliament's Proceedings upon the Talk 
 of his Defign to bring in foreign 
 Troops. 708 
 
 His Attempt to feize the five Members^ 
 with their Proceedings and his upon 
 it- 708 — 710 
 
 Bifhops and Popifh Lords Tvithdraw from 
 the Houfe •, then the Lords joind the 
 Commons in demanding the Militia. 
 
 JBJJiJops protefi cgain/l the Proceedings 
 of the Houfe, and are imprifun'd for 
 it- ib. 
 
 Petitions from the Country againfl them 
 and the Popifh Lords. ib. 
 
 Lords and Commons petition the King 
 about the Militia of the Tower •, hts 
 Anfwer, and their Proceedings upon 
 it. 712 
 
 He accompanys the ^ecn and his 
 Daughter in their way to Holland. 
 
 ib. 
 
 Refufes the Parliament's Petitions for 
 fettling the Militia ; upon which they 
 vote the Kingdom to be put in a pof- 
 ture of Defence, 713 
 
 Petitions from the Country about the 
 Danger from Popery and Slavery, ib. 
 
 TToc Parliamfnt''s Declaration to the 
 fame purpofe., with th i" Demands, 
 and his Anfwer and Declaration \ 
 with his Reafons for going to York. 
 
 713— 7i<3^ 
 
 His McfTa^e to both Houfes. 7 1 5 
 
 The ?arl:.imfnt vote their Ordinance 
 for defence of the King to be accord- 
 irg tc/ Law, and the King^s Com- 
 trtinds for the Lieutenancy to' he il- 
 legal. ib„ 
 
 He raijes Guards at Yor\:.,, and de- 
 mands Hull, but wai yefui'd), 715 
 
 His Difigns in that Demand. ib. 
 
 His ConduS in that matter dibated, 
 nith bis Propofals about ft tt ling the 
 Militia. lb. 
 
 Proclaims Hotham a Traitor, fur de- 
 nying him Entrance into Hull, and 
 demands Jufiice of the Parliaoient. 
 
 ib. 
 
 They jitflify Kotham, command their 
 Ordin tnce about the Militia to be 
 put in execution, iho the King de- 
 clared againfl it ; upon which he rai- 
 fed more Guards at York, which the 
 Parliament condemned. 718 
 
 They nfiffl on the King's Mcffage, pre- 
 pare for War, fi:nt him a Petition, 
 charge him n'jfb Breach of Promife, 
 and puhlifh a third Remonfirance. 
 
 719 
 
 Many of the chief Nobility and Gentry 
 went to him at York. The Par- 
 liament fent bun nineteen Propofi- 
 iions, and go on with their Prepara- 
 tions for War. 720,721 
 
 The
 
 An Alphabetical Index. 
 
 Tlie King fends out CommiJJions of Ar- 
 ray. The ParliameKt declares them 
 illegal. -ji\ 
 
 And ijfues fever al Declarations. ib. 
 
 Skirmifhes betmxt the King's Parties 
 and theirs. 722 
 
 He mifcarries in the Deftgn to heficge 
 Hul], and the Parliament make them- 
 felves A'fajlers of the Flett^ and feize 
 fame of the King's Ships. ib. 
 
 Fote the raifing of an Army. 'jii 
 
 Petition the King to return^ which he 
 refufes. 724 
 
 The King anfwcrs their Petition, and 
 makes new Offers^ which they rejeil. 
 
 ib. & 725 
 
 Papers publifh'd on loth fides. 726 
 
 The Parliament can^t he caWd Rebels 
 or Traitors^ tho the King declared 'em 
 fa. 726,727 
 
 They puhlifh a counter Declaration^ and 
 take feveral Places, The King ereOs 
 his Standard at Nottingham, fends 
 • a Meffage to the Houfesfor a Treaty, 
 
 which they refiis'dy unlefs he would 
 recal h'i/s Declarations ., which made 
 them Traitor Sy and return to the Par- 
 liamenty which he refus'd. 727,728 
 
 Treaties with him mifcarry^ and why, 
 
 729 
 
 King Charles I. own''d our Government to 
 
 he a mix'd Monarchy. 24 1 
 
 That the Parliament has a Power to 
 reflrain Tyranny. 4<; i 
 
 That the Law was the Meafure of his 
 Power. 465 
 
 And that hU Power of the Militia was 
 from the Law. ^66 
 
 Relation of the Beginning, Progrefs, 
 and Jffue of the War againft htm. 
 
 6p3,&c. 
 
 Proceedings againft him not jujlify'd by 
 thofe of the Convention againfl J. II. 
 
 ib. 
 King Charles II. by his AH: of Oblivion^ 
 pardond thofe that. fought by hi/s Fa- 
 therms and his own Commtffion, as 
 well as thofe that fought againfl them. 
 
 453 
 The Affs of the i ^th of his Reign, Cap. 
 
 6. and of the i4(fc. Cap. 3. about 
 the Militia, and the Vnlawfulnefs 
 of Refinance in any Cafes whatever, 
 never intended to fct up an Arbitrary 
 Power. 4j5 
 
 TIjo thofe Ails renounce coercive, they 
 did not renounce dtfenjive Power. 
 
 473 
 
 The fame Parliament opposed his dif- 
 peyfing Power and flanding Army. 
 
 474 
 
 Charters, thofe caWd Great not the King't 
 Conccfftons, but affirmative of the 
 Common Law, and were ratif/d by 
 the Suffrages of the People, tUnfore 
 caWd Statutes. . 136,328 
 
 Tfcrtf 0/ Henry I. 517,^47 
 
 And thofe of Stephen and King John 
 confirmed the Peoples Liberties. 517 
 Chefter, County Palatine, had a Parlia- 
 ment of its own, which tax'd them. 
 
 160,110 
 
 Children not under abfolute Subjtilion to 
 
 Parents. SsA^- 
 
 May ufe Self-defence againfl them. 
 
 39,&C. 
 Objections anfwer''d. 42, &c. 
 
 Their Jlavifh State by fame of the Ro- 
 man Laws. 88,&c. 
 Chimney- Mony illegally coUtSed by James 
 II. and Lord Rochelter'j arbitrary 
 Orders, 600 
 Chreftus mentioned by Sueton in the Reign 
 of Claudius, not meant of our Sa- 
 viour. 1 80 
 Chrift did not alter the Nature of Civil 
 Government, nor take away the Peo- 
 pies Right of Self defence. 1 57 
 His InjunHions to Sovereigns and Sub- 
 jciis, no Warrant for Tyranny and 
 Arbitrary Power. 158,159 
 Hvs ordering Tribute to he paid to CiC- 
 far, no Warrant for fuch a Power. 
 
 I do, I(Jl 
 
 Hu commanding Peter to put up his 
 
 Sword, no Argument againfl Re/if' 
 
 tame. 162,161 
 
 True Reafons of that Rebuke, ib. & 164, 
 
 How far his Sufferings are a Pattern 
 
 for Imitation. i6j,&cc. 
 
 Chriftianity not the only eflablifh'd Reli- 
 
 gion in Conftantine'j time. 1 70 
 
 St. Chryfoftom defended by the People 
 
 againfl the Emperor. 202 
 
 His Opinion of Non-Reftflance. i82,&c. 
 
 Lord Churchil'i Letter why he left King 
 
 James. 567 
 
 Cities and Boroughs had Reprefentatives 
 
 in our Saxon Councils. 27o,&c. 
 
 Thofe in foreign parts that did not hold 
 
 in capite, fent Members to Dyets. 
 
 439 
 C'ml Government defined. 125 
 
 Inconfiflent with Tyranny. ib. 
 
 Civil Power ordain d by God for the Peo- 
 ples Good. 104 
 In what fenfe derived from God, and 
 in what from the People. 555, &c. 
 
 559 
 
 Not now confer d by God on Princes im. 
 
 mediately, but by the People. 560 
 Clarendon 
 
 <^ I
 
 An Alphabetical Index. 
 
 Clarendbn, Earl of. hit Opinion of the 
 
 Reafon why Princes gave good Laws 
 
 and Privileges to thir Subjcils. 84 
 
 Conjuted. 85 
 
 fJis Opinion 0/ i Sam. 8. 18. t25 
 
 Claudius, an Account of his Governmcyit. 
 
 180 
 
 Clergy's quitting their DoSrines of Paf- 
 
 jive-Obedience and Non-Refifiance^ 
 
 one of the Caufes of King James'j 
 
 going away. 2., & 3 
 
 Clergy fuccceded to Heathen Prtc/ls in 
 
 our Parliaments, is^i393j &C. 
 
 Clergy inferiour^ opprefs^d by James J J. 
 
 600 
 Their Temporaries fciz.\l, and their 
 Perfons put out of the King's Pro- 
 tellion. 402 
 
 Clergy infer ionr, antiently in Parliament. 
 397 — 399. +CI 
 But not thefe three or four hundred 
 rears. 398 
 
 Not taxable by the King or Pope without 
 their own Confent. 398 
 
 Never tax' d without the Confent of their 
 Procurators in Convocation^ till the 
 time of Charles U. ib. 
 
 Since which they have had Fotcs fo/ 
 Knights of Shires , Difference be- 
 twixt their Summons to Convocation 
 and Parliament. 400 
 
 'Agreed that the King fhould be excom^ 
 tnunicatedy if he broke the Charter. 
 
 505 
 
 Clergy infcriour^ how they loft their 
 
 Right of coming to Parliament. 4C0, 
 
 &c. 
 Clerici terras habentes. 322, 324 
 
 Clerus in Parliament^ who. 310, 312, 
 
 393, 397i403, &c. 
 
 Clofe-Rolls in the Reign of King John 
 and King Henry Ul. moji of them 
 lofi. ^-jz 
 
 Coercive Power difown^d by the i ith of 
 Charles II. bow to be underjlood. 
 
 459 
 Lord Coke'f Definition of a Parlia- 
 ment^ and a Legiflative Powir. 
 
 218 
 u4pproves the reftjling of 'Edward 1. 
 
 ... 449 
 
 Colloquium, aKd not a Parliament in 
 
 tbc iZthof Edward/. 38:, &c 
 
 The like that of Edward /i/- fltWind- 
 
 for. 387 
 
 Several Councils of this kind in that 
 
 Reign. 388 
 
 Comites, Peers^ in what fenfe the King^s 
 
 Companions. . 246, 254 
 
 Com;nendatii, who. 176 
 
 Commi(Iions//ieg«J are void and may be 
 
 refifled. 460, 464, 473 
 
 Thofe by colour of Law^ or Opinion of 
 the judges^ vaftly different. 4*9 
 Conimillions, Military, to difpofjifs a 
 Man illegally^ may be rejijled^ tho 
 headed by the King. 47 1 
 
 Common Council was among the Jews, 
 when fudges were wanting, 72, &c. 
 Commons of England by Knights^ Ci- 
 tiz.ens^ and Burgejfes^ whether one 
 of the three Eftates before the ^gtb 
 of Henry ///. or the iSth of Ed- 
 ward /. from p. 265. to the end of 
 the eighth Dialogue. 27 3, 275, &c. 
 Before and after the Conqueft. 282 — . 
 285,293, 295 — ^—298, 30:!, Ike. 
 
 313, 337, &c. 341 351,380, 
 
 399- 403, &t. 407,410 415, 
 
 417 435,438, &c. 
 
 Commons, in King John's Parliament at 
 
 MarJbridge. 378, &c. 
 
 fJave always been Members of Parli- 
 
 ament fmce the Conquefi as well as 
 
 before. 390 
 
 Their Antiquity in Parliament. 391 
 
 Have a Right by prefcription to be 
 
 fummon'd to Parliament. 4:14, 
 
 6fc. 
 
 Tbey petition dUcnry V. afferting their 
 
 antient Right ^ that no Law be made 
 
 without them. 419 
 
 The fame aOow'd by the King and 
 
 Lords. 420 
 
 A Itke Petition to Edward /I. agreed 
 
 to by the King and Lords. ibid. 
 
 Their Protiflatton to Edward III. Ri- 
 
 chard //. and Henry If^. 420 
 
 Commonwealths, the 0/preffion in them 
 
 not comparable to that in abfolute 
 
 Monarchies. 82 
 
 Their Origin. 97 
 
 Commonwealths may be deflroy'^d by 
 
 their own Subjeffs, if Kings only be 
 
 Jure Divino. 99 
 
 Tbey^ as wiU as Kings^ derive their 
 
 Authority from God. 557 
 
 Commune Concilium, ipfcaf. 312,316' 
 
 Communitas Anglix, or Populus, the 
 
 whole Parliament. 274, &c. 287, 
 
 290 — 298 
 
 Sometimes means the Commons only., 
 
 from 298 303 
 
 Communitas, La Commune, and La 
 
 Communalte taken differently. 340 
 
 But when mentioned after Comites, Ba- 
 
 roncs, or Proceres, always ftgni- 
 
 fies the Commons. 341 — 3 5 1 , 379, 
 
 41 1, &c. 
 
 Conge d' Elire to cbufe a Bifhop, can't be 
 
 refus'd. 4 1 1 
 
 Conquefi. • unjufi., gives m Right to the 
 
 Conqueror. 87,552 
 
 Ccc c c 
 
 Con-
 
 An Alphabetical Index. 
 
 ConquelV, tho ]uji^ over a free People^ 
 
 gives no Right voithoHt their Con' 
 
 fent. S59 
 
 Conquefts in Europe, few of them by ab- 
 
 folute Monarchs. i 24 
 
 How Con({Uejis were divided in England. 
 
 270 
 Vn'juji^ when they may be lawfully en- 
 joyed by the ConqMroy's i-Jtirs. 519 
 CoDfpiracy againfi William I. fcy Nor- 
 mans andEngV\[ii- 552 
 G)nftables may refijl the King's Officers^ 
 when they exceed their Commijfion. 
 
 470 
 Convention and Parliament did not differ 
 at firji-^ and fettled the Crown with- 
 out Summons from Kings. 64.6 
 May become lawful Parliaments, tho 
 not fummon^d by Kin£s Writs. 647 
 Convention at the Revolution in 1688. 
 jufltf/d. 583^735 
 Debates in it. 584 
 Uad no reafon to enquire what wws be- 
 come of King James, nor to receive 
 hvs Letters. 585 
 Their Declarations ]ufiify'*d. 597, 600 
 And their Meeting without the King^s 
 Summons. 6 1 p 
 They neither could not were oblig'd to 
 enquire into the Pretender's Birth. 
 
 Their voting the Throne -vacant., jul}i- 
 f/d. 632,<J33 
 
 They exercised no more power in crown- 
 ing King William and ^een Ma- 
 ry, than others had done. 642 
 Convocations of fever al forts. 393 
 That 0/1610. for Divine Sight of 
 Monarchy and arbitrary Power. 5 
 That of 1640. condemned by Parlia- 
 ment. 5, 204 
 Their Decrees not binding till confi>m d 
 by King and Parliament.^ and even 
 then don't bind but as agreeable to 
 Scripture. 6 
 Copyholders, fl«t/e«t/y Villani. 369 
 Cornwal, moji of its Boroughs hold of 
 its Earl., yet fend Members to Par- 
 liament. 415 
 Coronation- Oath made void by Filmer. 
 
 The ant tent one explained, 514 
 
 Councils, greatj called by Kings to do 
 
 Parliamentary Bufinefs., a Stretch of 
 
 Prerogative. 235 
 
 Councils, great., two forts of them. 313, 
 
 That tr. the gth of William i. a Par- 
 
 liame.a, and not a Synod, 407 
 
 Goncllium, or Curia Regi":, what. 315, 
 
 317, 320, &c. 332, &c. 
 
 The different Stile of them. ib. 
 
 Councils of Tenants in capite, 'o«/y 
 fometimes caWd on occa/ion of IVar.^ 
 
 &c. 3Q7 
 
 Councils, General or Provincial, none 
 
 met without the States of the Realm 
 
 till after Henry /• 204 
 
 Count I U. Great and Privy, confounded 
 
 by Writers. 234 
 
 County- Court, formerly con/iderable. 534 
 Com t of Ty thing or Lath. 55^ 
 
 Contumiei , or cujlomary Laws of ^or- 
 
 mandy derived from England. 543, 
 
 &c. 
 Cowel'x Interpreter for arbitrary Power. 
 
 Crown of England does not pwge aS 
 Defers. 51 
 
 Woi partly Hereditary., partly Elec- 
 tive., till Edward 7. and even Jiwe 
 it has been in the power of the Par- 
 liament to declare who was lawjul 
 King. 671 
 
 Hereditary, tho it don't go always to 
 the next in Blood. 673 
 
 Tho not now Ele&ive, is Jim held b^ 
 the Original Contrail. 509, 514 
 
 Crimes, not punifh'd by Death in Rome, 
 nor in England for a time. 5^8 
 
 Crtielty and Tyranny, no part of a Fa- 
 ther's or Prince's Prerogative. 3 5 
 
 Curia Baronum, w Parliament, may 
 curb the King, 215 
 
 Curia Regis, tpfc^f- 255,257 
 
 Gnlloms, illegally exaCied by James //. 
 
 601; 
 
 D. 
 
 DAnes <»Hc/ Swedes tiU of latereferv'd 
 to themfelves a Power to eleli Kings 
 and dethrone Tyrants. 443 
 
 David did not think a defenftve War a- 
 gainfl Saul unlawful. 145, &c. 
 
 Decennaries, or Tythings, a Danilh and 
 Saxon Law. 548, 6cc. 
 
 Declarations of Kings in Council for re- 
 inforcing Laws, miflaken for mak- 
 ing Laws by their own Authority. 
 
 233 
 
 Declarations againfl Ke/ijlance in 14 
 
 Car. II. ca\i. 3. explained. 457, 
 
 450, &c. 474 
 
 Declaration for Liberty of Confcience by 
 
 James //. illegal. 598 
 
 The Deftgn of it. 6^6 
 
 Declaration by the Prince of Orange 
 
 juflify d. 640, &c. 
 
 Deeds, fealing of them derived from 
 
 the Normans. 533 
 
 Denmark, its Kings formerly depofabie 
 
 for Tyranny, 215 
 
 Defpo-
 
 Ah Alphabetical Index. 
 
 Defpotical Power, what. 78 
 
 Not the Rule of Govtrnment. ib. 
 
 Not fafc for Princes^ nor lov'd by 
 
 Subjects. 87 
 
 Dethronement of Princes., when laxoful. 
 
 531 
 
 That of Edward 11 and Richard //. 
 never condemned by Parliament. 
 
 445 
 
 Diets, German, hoiv conjlituted. 2.66 
 
 Difpenfing Power taught by Filrner a- 
 
 gam^ Lave. 90,91,485,589,590, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Jnjlances of it in the Cafe of Sheriffs 
 
 and Judges., &c. anfwer''d. 595 
 
 600 
 
 Diflimulation taught by Filrner. 94 
 
 Divine Right pretended to^ /hakes the 
 
 Thrones of all Kings. 94 
 
 Divifion of the Earth after the Difper/ion 
 
 at Babel, no Plea for Hereditary 
 
 Afonarchs, or Patriarchal Govern' 
 
 ment. 57, &C. 
 
 Difference of Chronologers about the 
 
 time of that Difperfion. ib. 
 
 The Peoples following Leaders of their 
 
 own Language then^ no jirgument 
 
 for Hereditary Princes^ or paternal 
 
 Rule., tfhich it broke into pieces. 59, 
 
 &c. 
 Divites Plebis, Parliament-tnen. 294 
 Dominion not founded on Birth-Right. 
 
 61 
 
 Domitiah, hit way of governing. 180 
 
 Doorafday-Book proves., that a great 
 
 many Englifh retained their Honours 
 
 and Ejlates after the Conqueji. 527, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Drencher, or Drenger, a fort of Te. 
 
 nants. 531 
 
 Durham, County Palatine., lad its own 
 
 Parliament that tax'd^em. 3^0,370 
 
 E. 
 
 EArldoms, Hereditary^ none before 
 William/. 258 
 
 Ihey had place in Parliament virtute 
 Officii. ib. 
 
 Eaft-Angles, their Kingdom continued till 
 after the Ditics. 252 
 
 Ecclefiaftical Matters treated of in great 
 Councils or Parliaments in the Saxons 
 time. The King could confirm no 
 Canons till fo approved. 394 
 
 Edelingi, Noblemen. i-j6 
 
 Edward the Confeffois Law for limiting 
 Kings, 508 
 
 Vindicated to be genuine. 51 i,&:c. 
 Edward the Firfl's Title own'd by Parlia- 
 ment in h'vi abfence. 6 1 8 
 Elefled. <5i9 
 
 Edward /. allotrs the Parliament's DecU' 
 ration to the Pope, that they would not 
 fi'ffer h.m to comfy with the De- 
 mands of the See of Rome. 44S 
 Hit Parliament would not meet at hvs 
 Summons ttll he coyifi>m^d Magna 
 Charta, and confefs'd Im Mifma- 
 nagemint with Tears , and the Lords 
 would not fuffer the Taxes to he le- 
 vy''d, becaufe imposed without their 
 Confcnt. 448,&:c. 
 
 Edward II. when Lieutenant to h'vs Fa- 
 ther, was forced by Arms to call 
 a Parliament., and confirm Magna 
 Charta, &c. 449 
 
 Chofen after his Father s Death. 619 
 Forfeited by Parliament. 449,604,<Ji8, 
 
 Sec. 
 A Vacancy at his Death. 620 
 
 Edward ///. chofen by Parliament. 604 
 He intended to repeal the 1 ph and zotb 
 of hvs Reign without a Parliament., 
 but could not. 235 
 
 Edward IV. Earl of March, hvs ri^ory 
 and claiming the Crown. 623 
 
 His Jrticles againfi Henry VJ. ib. 
 Over aw' d the Parliiment. ib. 
 
 Dethroned and rcfior'd. 624 
 
 His Marriage declared void, and h'vs 
 Children Baflards. 61^ 
 
 Edward V. bow ruined. 625 
 
 Egbert the Wcfl- Saxon King, not abfo- 
 lute, but left the other Kingdoms 
 their own Laws. 252 
 
 H'vs Oath at hvs Ele&ion. 254 
 
 Elder Brothers fcaw no Divine Hereditary 
 Right. 52 
 
 Eleanor, Hereditary Princefs of England, 
 fet aftde. 6 \ 4 
 
 Eleftions of Parliament- Men, when treat' 
 ing for them began. 433 
 
 Emperor, that Title no fign of abfolute 
 Power. 2I4,&C. 
 
 Good ones ownd themfelves to be bound 
 by Law. 92 
 
 England, fo named in King Egbert'* 
 time by confent of Parliament. 2j2 
 Englefherie, what. 533 
 
 Introduced by the Danes. ib. 
 
 Englifli Earls, Barons, and Gentlemen of 
 Eflatcsy continued after the Conque/l, 
 528,<;30,53i 
 They w(re fo many, that William Ru- 
 fus defeated the Plots of the Nor- 
 mans agatnfl him by their Affijlance. 
 
 528 
 Englifli, why difarm'd by William /. 
 
 548 
 
 Why they rebelled againfi him. 550 
 
 EngliHi have always afftrted their Right 
 
 to refifl Tyrants. 443, &C, 
 
 Englifh
 
 An Alphabetical Index. 
 
 Englifti CoHjlitutm, what, j6i 
 
 The Titles of their antient Kings no 
 froof of y^bfulute Power. 2 1 5 
 
 Engliftj liadon not trilling to make war 
 againji the Scots for Charles I. 704 
 Equals may limit one another. 24 1 
 
 Ellates, three^ very amient in other Coun- 
 tries. 437A'C- 
 In jomc places there are four, and in 
 others five. 43 8 
 Eve, a Sharer in Adam'i CommiJJion for 
 Dominion. 28,6:0. 
 She muft., in cafe of h'vs Death, have 
 been univerfal Queen, if Generation 
 gives Title to Civil Government, j i 
 'E|«(rix, Rom.13. what. hVi 
 How it differs from i^w<x./^\;. ib. & 
 
 i/3,&c. 
 
 It ought to be rendred ^Authorities. 172 
 
 Tyrants cant be the acai ^^amai here 
 
 meant., which ought to he tranflated 
 
 jujl Authorities or Powers. 173—182 
 
 F. 
 
 FAthers, Filmer maies them ahfolute 
 Tyrants over their Children. 88 
 Feudal Laws,' wfcdf. 542 
 
 Fideles, Commons in Parliament. 278,&c. 
 
 ^ '4 n; ' 322AC. 
 Fifth Command m Plea for Monarchy. 
 
 80 
 Filial Obedience and Subjeifion, what. 
 
 io,&c.i8 
 Particularly among the Jews and Ro- 
 mans. i5),&c. 
 'j4nd other Nations, ib. & 23 — 36,&c. 
 Filmer, 5/V Robert, bis Paternal or Pa- 
 triarchal Scheme makes Kings Ty- 
 rants, and People Slaves. 88,&:c. 
 His Inconfijlencies. 945&C- 
 Shakes the Titles of aU Kings now in 
 being. ib. 
 Folckland, what. 533 
 Forfeiture had been a more proper Word 
 for King James than jihdication ; 
 Reafons why the Comtmns chofe the 
 latter, 60 1 
 toTttkne's Defcription of a Tyrant. 216 
 He afferts the Peoples fhare in the Le- 
 gijlature. , 218 
 France, in refpeii of Men akd the King^s 
 Revenue, exceeds England ten to 
 one. <58o 
 Frank Almoign, mofl of the Clergy held 
 by it. 395 
 Freeborough, or Ty thing- Court. 534 
 Freeholders, by any Tenure, antiently ca- 
 pable of eleBing, or being eleEled 
 Parliament- Men. 305 
 Who they were. ib. 3 o6,&; 3 69 
 
 Freeholders not the Tenants in capitc 
 only firjl after the Corqutf}, but fuch 
 m had a jree BJlate 0} Inheritance. 
 
 307 
 Mofl of 'em held not of the King. 3 1 8, 
 
 327 
 
 Freeholders came all to the Parliament 
 in the Saxons times, but being too 
 numerous, were afterwards rtprefen- 
 ted by Knights of the Shires. 359 
 j4ll of hm Lle&ors, till rtfhain'd ta 
 40 s. Freehold per ann. by the Sta- 
 tutes of Henrys ir. & FI. All of 
 ''em Suitors to- the County Courts in 
 the time of William the Conqueror, 
 and tili'reflrain'd by the faid Statutes, 
 Were alfo called Barons and Thanes 
 before the Conquejt. ^•^s 
 
 Freemen >m William the Firjl^s time, not 
 «tf Normans oc French. 53'^,&c. 
 
 Free Quarter in time vf Peace, Theft. 
 
 French, our Law-Books being writ in that 
 Language, no Badge of the Conquffl t 
 the French Tongue common among 
 thofe of Quality, and in Deeds and 
 Charters in the Confeffor's time^ who 
 had been long i|» -Normandy. 540, 
 .,' : .\.' .. &c. 
 
 French Gentry had Votes in Parliament, 
 tho_ they did not hold of the King. 
 
 439 
 
 Frilings, oi^ Freemen, who. 537 
 
 Members of the Great Council or Par-* 
 
 liament. 266 
 
 G. 
 
 GAvel-kind, a Soccage-Tenure. 301 
 Gentleman and Nobleman, an- 
 tiently who. 259 
 St. Germain, in hisDodor and Student, 
 afjerts the PeopWs fhare in the Le- 
 gj/lature. ■ 218 
 Glanville, Lord Chief Juflice, his Defi- 
 nition of our Lavps. 217 
 / Afferts the Peoples fhare in our Legif- 
 lature. 238 
 Gnofticks againfl Government. 98, 1 39 
 Government, Civil, proceeded from A- 
 dam'j Fall, being needlefs before. 8 
 It was at fir ft in Fathers and Maflers of 
 Families, and afterwards by u^gree- 
 ment lodged in one or more hands . 9 
 Whether Ariflocracy or Monarchy was 
 firfi, not e.ify to be known, ib. 
 TheEndofitdefign'dbyCod. ib. & 
 
 580 
 Its effential Properties, 10 
 
 Its Origin. 48,96 
 
 Govern-
 
 An Alphabetical Index. 
 
 Government, it: Difference from natural 
 Government. 47,&C- 
 
 If doubtful^ yet to be fubmitted to, ac- 
 cording to tilmer. 9^. 
 Why call'd an human Ordinance. 98 
 When it becomes Tyranny. 577,580 
 Governors ceafe to be fuch when thty ix- 
 ceed the lavpful Bounds of their Power. 
 
 3' 
 
 May lofe their Forcer nithout any Aii 
 of the Party governed. 5o5 
 
 Grants may he defended againfl the Cran- 
 ter, Royal as well a.i others, 468 
 
 Grantz, Grandees or Magnates, inclu- 
 ded Commoners. 3 1 3,348. 
 
 Grotius'i Opinion of filial Obedience. 37 
 Of Rcfiflance. 108,509 
 
 Guards, none in England till Henry VII. 
 got the Teomen eflablifh'd by j4{1 of 
 Parliament . 459 
 
 rt. 
 
 HArold, King^ ufur^ed the Crown. 
 5'9 
 Dr. Harfnet'j Sermon for Arbitrary Power. 
 
 4 
 
 Headborougli, what. 534 
 
 Heirs fuppos'd to a Crown, fct aftde for 
 
 violent Prcfumptions of Jmpoflure. 
 
 531 
 Heirs fuccejjive did not tale the Title of 
 Kings till crown'd. 60^ 
 
 Hengift the Saxon not made King till 
 eight Tears after his Arrival in Eng- 
 land. 249,251 
 Henry 1. fucceeded by Parliamentary Au- 
 thority. 227,6o4,5cc. 
 Henry II. declared Heir by Parliament 
 preferably to hi/s Mother^ tho fhe did 
 not furrender to him. 609,&c. 
 Hii Charter granted in Parliament. 
 
 127 
 Agreed that his Barons might rcfifl him 
 if he did not hep the Peace with Phi- 
 lip of France. 444 
 The Throne vacant after his Death., till 
 King Kic\\diiA wa& eleCied. 610 
 Henry III. not proclaim'd immediately 
 after his Fathcr''s Death, and why. 
 
 604 
 Came to the Crown by Eledion. 613 
 Had no Hereditary Right. 614 
 
 Hii illegUl Taxes blam'd by himfelf. 
 
 358 
 
 Pardon' d by Statute thofc who took Arms 
 
 for him, oi well as thofs who reftfled 
 
 him. 453 
 
 The Prefaces to his Charter and Laws 
 
 no proof of his being the fole Lcgif- 
 
 lator. 228,&C. 
 
 His Win. 613 
 
 Henry the WiWs Claim to the Crown. 6io 
 
 Elected by Parliammt. 6z t 
 
 Henry V. and VI. fucceeded by an A3 
 
 of Parliament made in Henry IVth'i 
 
 time. 611 
 
 Henry VI. made a Cypher by his Queen 
 
 and hir Favourites. 621 
 
 The Caufes of his Misfortunes. 451, 
 
 d22 
 Dethroned. 623 
 
 Kcflor''d. 624 
 
 Dethron'd again and murdered. ib. 
 
 Attainted. 658 
 
 The Ail attainting him after his Death 
 repealed by Henry Vll- ib. 
 
 Henry Vllth'i C/aw. 6:5,&c. 
 
 Had no Hereditary^ but a Parliamen- 
 tary Right to him and his Heirs, be- 
 fore he marry d Lady Elizabeth. 
 
 627,554 
 
 The I \th of his Reign about Allegiance 
 
 to a King in pojjejfion, Jlill in force. 
 
 His Mother had no Right of Succejfwn. 
 
 ib. 
 
 Pardons thofe who took Arms with him 
 
 againji the Vfurper. 553 
 
 Henry Vll Ith'iS«caj$f;o«. 627 
 
 He alters the Laws of it feveral times. 
 
 ib. 
 
 His WiU^ to fet aftde the Scots Line, 
 
 void. 6 19 
 
 He owns the Parliament's [hare in the 
 
 Legijlature. 239 
 
 Heptarchy, their firfl Kings chofcn and 
 
 depos'd by the People. 251 
 
 Hxredes and Hxreditamentum, what. 
 
 Hereditary Right no fundamental Lam 
 of England. 506,507,619,630, 
 
 658 
 Hereditary Right in the Saxons time, 
 and in France, what. 531 
 
 Hereditary Right, tho claimed ftnce Ed- 
 ward I. yet Parliaments chofc whom 
 they pleas' d. 6 1 9 
 
 Firjl fettled here by Edward the IVth'f 
 Parliament, and reversed by that of 
 Henry VI. 670 
 
 Is derived only from Law. 467 
 
 The Dangers and Abfurdities of it in 
 the Pretender's Cafe. 634,^3 5 
 
 Church of Rome againfl it in cafe of a 
 different Religion. 635 
 
 Hereditary Title and Legal Authority 
 may be feparated. 669 
 
 Hereditary Title to our Crown came by 
 Law ; the firfl King, and the Law 
 that made him fo, began together. 
 
 675 
 Heretoches and Thanes chofe by the 
 
 County Court. 269 
 
 D d d d d Hero-
 
 An Alphabetical Index. 
 
 Herod ian'i lyranny. ' "4 
 
 High-Comtnilfion by James II. illegal. 
 
 6co 
 Homage and Fealty J'vporn to a Prince does 
 not make him immediately King., for 
 it wai fwurn to the next Heir for' 
 tnerly before the Death of the Pof- 
 fejfor. 6i6,6cc. 
 
 uiiid before EleSion they were only caWd 
 Dominus, or Dornina Anglix, or 
 Dux Ncrmanniae ■-, as appears by 
 Richard 1. and Maud, and John 
 T^Mite c/ Normandy. <5i7 
 
 Homily of Obedience, and againfl wil- 
 Jul Rebellion, not for Non-Refiflance 
 in all Cafes. 206,207 
 
 How thofe Homilies are to be underflood 
 and valued. ib. 
 
 Homines fni, whit. 309,&:c. 
 
 Hooker'j Opinion of Government. 96 
 Hugh Le Spencer banifh'd by King and 
 Parliament. 404 
 
 Hundred-Court, what. 534,535,549 
 Husband's Power over the Wije in an in- 
 dependent Family. 5 
 
 JAcob'i Slefji'ng, Gen. 27. 29. no Ar- 
 gument for Monarchy. di,&c. 
 James 1. h'vs Title. 628,&c. 
 
 How faid to be by the Law of God., and 
 yet Parliamentary. ib. & 6^0 
 
 Hvs jiO of Recognition. 633 
 
 He and his Parliament own, that our 
 Fundamental Laws fupport Preroga- 
 tive and Property. 481 
 James II. hvs Reafons for retiring into 
 France. 2 
 
 Why deferted by h'vs Relations. ib. 
 
 Few of hvs Army deferted. ib. 
 
 Number of h'vs and the Prince of O- 
 range'j Armies. ib. 
 
 Provocations given by him to the People 
 of England and the Prince of O- 
 range. i->'i-,^5^i 
 
 Reafons that difgufled his Army. ib. 
 
 His League with France, ib. &5(J3,&c. 
 
 Difference betwixt hvs Cafe and that of 
 Charles 1. 732,&c. 
 
 Reafons why he refused the French King''s 
 Offers of JJJiflance. $64,578 
 
 His Tyranny. 566 580 
 
 His ill Conduit after he left h'vs Army. 
 5<^95570>&c.579 
 
 H'ls own Abdication. 570 
 
 His Removal from London, and Re- 
 turn. 571 
 
 His Retreat from Rochefter. ib. 
 
 His fending nw.ty the Queen and Pre- 
 tender, and his Orders to disband the 
 Army. ib. 
 
 James II. the real Caufe of his Retreat 
 from Salisbury, and leaving Eng- 
 land. J73 
 
 He chafe rather to trujl France than bis 
 own People. 574 
 
 He had an Opportumty to treat with the 
 Prince of Orange. S7j5$79 
 
 His Perjury and Treachery. 576 
 
 No Treaty with him to be depended on. 
 
 578,582 
 
 Had been long embatk'd in the Int'rejis 
 of France. ib. 
 
 He prorhifed on Oath to follow the Q^ueen 
 to France. 580 
 
 He withdrew by Advice of the Papifls^ 
 that he might return with a Force to 
 conqtxr us. 58*5 
 
 His Promifes in his Letters. 5 87 
 
 He endeavoured to fubvert our Conjli- 
 tution. ib, & 588 
 
 His modell'tng Corporations, and his dif- 
 penfmg Power. 5 89 — 5 93,&:c. 
 
 He was Author of mofi of the Grie- 
 vances complain'' d of by the Conven- 
 tion. 60a 
 
 "The refjfling and dethroning of him juf- 
 tifyd, and Ob'jeQtons againfl it an~ 
 fwcr'd. 44o,6fc. 
 
 The Danger that mufl have attended 
 his Refloration by French and Irifli. 
 
 678,&c. 
 
 The jufl Caufes the Nation had to reftfl 
 his difpenfing Power. 4S5,6cc: 
 
 His High-Commiffion. 487 
 
 His er effing Mafs-Houfes., proteQing 
 Priejls, making Jefutts Privy.Coun- 
 feUoYs, turning out Proteflant Judges 
 and Juflices, and putting in Poptfb, 
 
 448,&c. 
 
 His turning out Magiflrates that would 
 not agree to repeal the Penal Laws^ 
 and hts hindring free Eleilions of Par- 
 liament-Men. ib. 
 
 His revoking Charters of Corporations. 
 
 490 
 
 His Male- Adminiflration greater than 
 that of Charles II. ib. & 491 
 
 His turning out Proteflants, and put- 
 ting in Papifls in Ireland. ib. 
 
 His illegal Toleration in Scotland, ib. 
 
 Apologies for him anfwer''d. 492, 6cc. 
 
 tits fianding Army with Popifh Offi- 
 cers to maintain bis Male-Admtni- 
 flration. 493 
 
 Tl}efe things could not be redrefs^d but 
 by Arms. ib. 
 
 His Defign to model both Houfes to bis 
 mind. 494 
 
 His Cruelty. ib. 
 
 His Tyranny. 495 
 
 Encouraged by the DoQrine of Pajftve 
 Obedience. ib. 
 
 James
 
 An Alphabetical Index. 
 
 James II. forfeited his Crown. ib. 
 
 Jane Orey, Quctn^ never recognized by 
 Parltapnetit, therefore tbofe who took 
 part with her could not have the Benefit 
 of the \ith of Henry Vll. in favour 
 of a King de fad^o. 673 
 
 Jiews might have refijlcd thofe ordnd to 
 cut them off\ withont Ahafuerus'i 
 Decree to empower them to re/ijl. 
 
 '5' 
 Imperial Laws for Non-Refiflance^ an- 
 
 fwer^d. 106,107 
 
 Imployments, publick_, ought to be con- 
 
 fer^d on none but thofe who are known 
 
 to be true Friends to the Government. 
 
 689 
 ./ind that fwear to its being lawful. 
 
 <5pi,&c. 
 Incolse, in Parliament, who. 405 
 
 Indeinnity'i ^fls of it in Henry III. Ed- 
 ward 1. Edward III. and Henry 
 IV's time, did never call Refijlance 
 made to thofe Princes^ Rebellion or 
 Treafon. 452 
 
 Ingenuus, a Freeman or Freeholder. 369, 
 
 537 
 Ingulphus, his Edition of our antient Laws 
 only a Compend. 5 r t 
 
 Injury, private, done by the Prince^ mu[i 
 not be reftjled to the Damage of the 
 Puilick. 112,127 
 
 King John'j Charter granted in Parlia- 
 ment. 227 
 Reafons why 'tis faid to he of his mere 
 Good will. ib. 
 It confirmed mofl of our antient Laws. 
 
 228 
 
 He rcftgn'd h'vs Crown to the Pope in 
 
 a great Council of Tenants in capite; 
 
 . 334 
 
 Uis arbitrary Taxes and Perfidioufnefs. 
 
 3SS 
 He and his Son ta^':n by Simon Mont- 
 fort, and the Barons are oblig'd to 
 agree to their Terms, 313-,il^ 
 
 He WOA elected by Parliament. 604, 
 
 6\ 2,6 1 3 
 
 He aUow'*d the People to refi/i and dif- 
 
 trefs htm if he broke the Charter. 
 
 44 5 Ac 
 
 77;e like Agreement was a^iprov^d by the 
 
 King of France, and Henry 111, of 
 
 England. 447 
 
 Objeflions againft it anfwcr'd. 44S 
 
 The Parliament approvd it. ib. 
 
 He is condemned in France for the 
 
 Murder of his Nephew Arthur, and 
 
 detbroii'd in Eu^land /or his Tyranny. 
 
 445,yo',6'» 
 
 He abdicated his Right, and the Throne 
 
 WOA vacant after his Death, 6 1 2 
 
 Jofephus'i /Authority for the Government 
 
 before the Flood, not warranted by 
 
 Mofes. 54 
 
 His K^x>] of the Patriarchs explain d. 
 
 Ifaac, his not reftfting Abraham, whe;t 
 he vent to facrijice him, conftdcr\i. 
 
 40 
 
 Ifraelites, the reafon why Jeremy, Cap. 
 
 29. ver. 7. orders them to pray for 
 
 and fcek for the Peace of the Land 
 
 whither they were carried. 149 &c. 
 
 Judah'i reafon for condemning Im Dau^h- 
 
 ter-in law Thamar to death. i5,&:e. 
 
 Judge, one certain and infallible, not 
 
 more nece/Jary in Controver/ies of 
 
 State than of Religion. i 30, 1 94 
 
 Judges of the Ifraelites not imfjflible. 
 
 140 
 
 The Reafons of the firiEl Obedience paid 
 
 to them. i|j_ 
 
 Judges among the Saxons hid no P'ote in 
 
 making Laws. 268 
 
 Judges, their unjufl Judgments may be 
 
 difobey'd, tho not rejified. 469 
 
 They themfelves may be punifh'd., and 
 
 their Judgments revers'd. ib. 
 
 Judges, their Opinion about the difpenfing 
 
 Power in Henry Vllth's time., c^nji- 
 
 dcr'd. 59^ 
 
 Judges, Coke and Herbert, miftaken. 
 
 ib. 
 
 Judges, honeji ones turn\l out by King 
 
 James II. and others put in durante 
 
 beneplacito. gor 
 
 Difference betwixt the Opinion of Judges 
 
 about Sbip-Mony m Charles the Wh's 
 
 time, and of thofe about the difpen- 
 
 fing Power in James the Hd's time. 
 
 judgments, moral as well as natural^ 
 may be remov'^d by human Means. 
 
 1 87 
 
 Julian the ^pojlate, fuppos'd to be kiU'd 
 by a Chrijlian, who is commended for 
 it by So7.omen. 201 
 
 Jura Sanguinis nullo delid^o dirimi pof- 
 funt, that Maxim explained. 39,(S:c. 
 
 Jurifdidion, Spiritual and Temporal, how 
 deriv'd from the King. 245 
 
 Juries of Englilhmen to try Titles to 
 EJlates after the Conquift. 538, &C. 
 
 Jus ad rem, and Jus in re, the Diffe- 
 rence betwixt them. 674 
 
 K. 
 
 Kingdoms, Patrimonial, Hereditary, 
 andTelhmentary, what. 63,65 
 None of them prefcrib'd by the Laws of 
 God or Nature. ib. 
 
 Kiug-
 
 An Alphabetical Index. 
 
 Kingcjoms, Tatrin.onial^ may be aliena- 
 tcd by the Prince, but others not. 
 
 128 
 Kingdoms c/cnwii /cow Goths and Ger- 
 mans, founded on Compails with 
 their Kings. 1^4 
 
 Kings (of Ifraci; not irrefiftible. 142 
 None can derive Title or Power from 
 Adam or Noah. 75 
 
 Nor frcm God now, but mediante Po- 
 pulo. 242,674 
 
 The Aljurdities of the contrary Doc- 
 trine, ib. &675 
 King"; of England, none had that Title 
 before they took the Coronation-Oath 
 r;« Edward I. 588,615 
 Md tho they aded in publick .affairs, 
 did not do it Oi Sovereigns. 6 1 6,&c. 
 Kings of England not abfolute, but for- 
 feitable. 498,50 i.&c. 
 How they may forfeit their jiuthority. 
 
 557,5<Ji 
 Had no Tower to call to Parliament fuch 
 Commons as they pleafed, nor of for- 
 bidding whom they pleafed to be cho- 
 fen. 387,&C. 
 
 Half of our Kings almofi ftnce the 
 Conquefl not next in Blood., yet owni'd 
 to be lawful. 661, 658 
 
 Kings de Fafto and de Jure, when that 
 DiflinCHon firfl began. 630,657 
 They who had a Parliamentary Title 
 always judged lawful. 630,656 
 All the Kings of the Houfe of Lancaftcr 
 declared Kings de Fafto, yet their 
 Titles, Laws and Grants good, and 
 Tfeafon againfl them punifhable. 655, 
 
 &c. 672 
 
 kings de FaQo can have no y^uthority 
 
 from the tacit Confent of the Kings 
 
 de Jure, but from Poffejfton, other - 
 
 wife we transfer the Allegiance of 
 
 the Subje&., and ?nake Obedience 
 
 to Kings de Fadto lawful, which is 
 
 contrary to Tory Principles. 658,&c. 
 
 Kings, the Maxim that they can do no 
 
 Wrong, explain d. Til 
 
 They have no Authority antecedent to, 
 
 or fuperior to Law. 467 
 
 In what cafes they may be dethroned. 
 
 498. 50f 
 
 /Ind in which the People may be Judges^ 
 
 according to Royalffls. 500 
 
 Our good Kings own^d themfelves bound 
 
 by Law. 92,&:c. 
 
 Contrary to Filmtr'^ Doflrine, who 
 
 makes them both Judges aud Parties. 
 
 89,&c. 
 
 Kings not the fole fupreme Legislative 
 
 Power. 214 — 237 
 
 Their illegal Commands may be judged 
 
 of, and difobefd by the People. 562 
 
 Kings liable to Law as well as others. 
 
 468 
 
 Could condemn no great Man without 
 
 a Legal Tryal in Parliament. 227 
 
 Their Power originally from the People., 
 
 but the Power of inferior Courts from 
 
 the Prince. 246 
 
 Thetr taking Arms againji their Sub- 
 
 jcils, and the Subjeffs taking Armt 
 
 againfi them, equally contrary to Law. 
 
 460 
 Infianccs of their barbarous Vfage of 
 Loyal Subje{Is. 461 
 
 They have no Authority againfl Law 
 themfelves., and can give none to 
 others. 464 
 
 Jf as Jingle Perfons, they may be re- 
 fijied, 06 Royalifis own, in Robberies^ 
 Rapes and Murders ; they may be as 
 well reftfied when heading Numbers 
 to do fuch things. 470 
 
 Inflames of it approved by Kings and 
 Parliaments. ib. 
 
 Kings, tho unjuflly dethroned, ought not 
 to be reJior''d, if the rejioring them 
 haz.ard the Nation more than the 
 want of them, or tend to fubvert Re- 
 ligion and Liberty. 6'jS 
 King's Council in Parliament confounded 
 with the Houfe of Lords. 255 
 I Kings 16. 7. tran/lated wrong, for BasL- 
 fiia did not kill Jeroboam, but Na- 
 dab his Son by God's Command. 
 I Kings 15. 29. 14P 
 Knights Fee, what. 28S 
 number of them in England about the 
 time of the Conquefl 6o2\<^. of which 
 the Church had 28015. 526 
 Knights Service, ipfcat. 355,542 
 William I. did not grant aUtte Lands 
 of England to hold by that Tenure. 
 
 301 
 
 It WOA htre before the Conquefl by the 
 
 Banes or Normans. 542 
 
 No fiavifh Tenure. j^j.^ 
 
 Knights of Shires, often caWd Magnates. 
 
 301 
 EleCied by Prefcription. 435 
 
 L. 
 
 LAdy faid to he fent with a Me f age 
 by King James II. to fome Bifhops 
 for an Accommodation, but they re- 
 fund it. 581 
 Lambard afferts the People's /hare in the 
 Legi/lature. 235 
 Lands dtfpos'd of by the Prince after Con- 
 quefl, mayn^t be taken away by him., 
 much lefs tbofe poffefs'd by a free 
 
 PiO^le. _I2I,&C. 
 
 Lan«
 
 An Alphabetical Index. 
 
 Lanfrank, ^rchbi/ho;^ chjftn in Parlia- 
 ment. ' 410 
 Laud, ylrchlifljop, for Arbitrary Power. 
 
 Law of God and Nature, the only Rule of 
 human ACiions. 2 1 ,&c. 
 
 Law of Nations., what. 20,&c. 
 
 Cannot oblige contrary to Scripture., Na- 
 ture and Reafon. ib. 
 
 Law of Nature and Nations., different. 
 
 63 &c. 
 
 Law, Mi flakes about it., and a&ing con- 
 trary to it, very different. 4.66 
 
 Laws that take, away Life for Crimes 
 which do not defer ve it by the Law 
 of Nature, juftijy it. 46,&c. 
 
 Laws, I iltner teaches Kin^s how to elude 
 or annul them., and fets Kings above 
 Laws. 90,&c. 
 
 Laws, the Subflance of ours not altered 
 by William I- tho the way of plead- 
 ing and judicial Proceedings was 
 much changed. 533 
 
 His firfl Laves were in Latin, and his 
 Penal Laws in French, that his 
 French and Norman Subjeils might 
 know them \ but they were firfl pro- 
 claim' d in Englilh, and hit Charters 
 were in Latin or Saxon. 540 
 
 His Laws made by Authority of Par- 
 liament. That of Coverfew no 
 Badge of Slavery. 548 
 
 Laws, why they ruH in the King's Name. 
 
 226,1$Z 
 
 None made withotit Parliaments. ib. 
 
 People have ai good a Right tothimas 
 
 to their common Air. 482 
 
 They who place Kings above them, are 
 
 Traitors, (Pipers, and Pefls. ib. 
 
 Laws in force made by Parliaments, tho 
 
 not fummon'd by Ki»gs Writs. 648, 
 
 &c. 673 
 Lavtfs fiill in force, tho made by the Par- 
 liaments of fuch Kings as are called 
 Vfurpers. 649,671 
 
 Lazzi, Slaves. 276 
 
 I. egalcs homines, ipfco. 537 
 
 Legibus folucus, how to be underfiood of 
 Emperors. 92 
 
 LegiHative Power decl.tfd by King, Lords 
 and Commons, to be in the Prince and 
 Parliament, and that they are joint 
 Dgiflators. 220 
 
 Lewis XIV. of trance, his Memorial to 
 the Pope, that he deftgnd to extir- 
 pate Herefy in England, Holland, 
 &c. 3 
 
 His League with King James I', for that 
 end. ib. & 64i,&c. 
 
 Lej: Rcgia, what. 513 
 
 Liberi Homines, who. 308,522, & 
 
 3<5i>, 537 
 
 Liberi tenentcs, Freeholders. 300,352, 
 
 354,3'59 
 
 Liberty and Property due to Subjiffs by 
 
 the Law of Nature. 84 
 
 Liberties and Rights fundamental, th.n 
 
 may be defended by Arms. 479,^:0. 
 
 Ligeance, /(■_ga/, what. 524. 
 
 IVkre and by whom to be taken. 6^3, 
 
 <588 
 
 Limitations of Royal Power not by the 
 
 ^ mere Grace of cur Kings. 463 
 
 Limited Monarchy the bifl Government. 
 
 83 
 
 Not inconfijhnt with the King's being 
 
 fupreme. 242 
 
 Lollards, an A[i againfl them without 
 
 Confent of the Commons, annulled. 
 
 4:0 
 
 London and other Cities arbitrarily tax'd 
 
 by the King. 356,357 
 
 They oppoff tt. 3^^ 
 
 Its Bifhop fufpended illegally by James 
 
 "• 600 
 
 Lords and Commons, their Affent to Laws 
 
 much older than the Reigns of Henrv 
 
 y\.andy\\. 23^ 
 
 Lucifer, Bifhop of CigViar I, thought that 
 
 an Apoflate Emperor might be put to 
 
 death. 200 
 
 M. . 
 
 MAccabees, their Refifiance jufUfy^d. 
 1 40, r 5 1 ,&c. 
 They did not aff by particular Precept 
 or Revelation. 1 53,&c. 
 
 Macedonius, the Bifhop, opposed by the 
 Orthodox, tho fupported by the Em- 
 peror. 202 
 Magdalen College in Oxon opprefs'd by 
 James II. 600 
 Magpa Charta made by King and Par. 
 liament. 398 
 Only diclaratory of our fundamental 
 Laws, 223, &c. 468 
 Thofe of Edward I. and Henry ill. 
 materially the fame. 33 ',349 
 Not extorted from A'»m^ John by force, 
 
 '3<J 
 
 Difpens d with by Popes. 637 
 
 Magnates fignify not only great Lords, but 
 
 Gentlemen. 267 
 
 And Commons in Parliament. 282, 6cc. 
 
 AndCitiuns and Atagiflrates. 284 
 
 And the whole Parliament. 292, &c. 
 
 3 > 2, 379,403 
 Malcolm Canmorc never Proprietor of 
 
 all the Lands in Scotland. 1 24 
 
 Malefici, other evil Doers bcjides Here- 
 ticks. 512 
 Minimcnm,. the Orthodox there rcftfl the 
 Arian Emperor's Soldiers. 202 
 E e e e e Man-
 
 An Alphabetical Indent, 
 
 Manwaring'i Sermon for Arbitrary Povper. 
 
 4 
 
 Mailers of indeptndent Families, their 
 
 Power. 24,&C. 
 
 They are the only Covernows in a State 
 
 of Nature. 3° 
 
 When they may he lawfully refifled. 
 
 3i,&c. 
 
 Maud, the Emprefs., did not take the Title 
 
 of Cucen of England, and why. 
 
 "^ 6o+,6o8 
 
 Maximus ajftfted againfl Gratian the 
 
 Emperor by the Britifll Cbriflians. 201 
 
 Mercatores, Burgejjes in Parliament. 
 
 404 
 
 Mercia, a Kingdom., continued till the 
 
 coming in of the Danes. 254 
 
 Milites, Knights of Shires., &c. 30o,&c. 
 
 352'.354 
 
 Militia not reduc'^d into flanding Troops 
 
 till the Spanilh Invafion. 459 
 
 Mingrelia, Tyranny of its King- 119 
 
 Mirror of Juftices limits the Power of 
 
 Kings. 502,508 
 
 The Book vindicated. y 1 1 
 
 Miflipat, or the Manner of the King., 
 
 I Sam. 8. 6, 19, 20. explained. 1 41 , 
 
 &c. 
 Mobs at the Revolution. 582 
 
 Modus ccnendi Parliaraentum, its Anti- 
 quity. 270,405 
 Monarchy not the only Government ap- 
 pointed by God. 17,19 
 'Arguments for it confuted. yo,&c. 
 
 96, Sec. 
 
 Its long Continuance in the World., no 
 
 Argument, 60 
 
 Not founded on Paternal Power. 50^ 
 
 87 
 
 Monarchy, univerfal, Filmer /or if. 93 
 
 Shakes the Titles of all Princes, ib. 
 
 &94 
 Monarchies, mix^d., Titles to them de- 
 terminable only by Parliament. <J45 
 Injlanccs of them. 241 
 
 Nature of them. 242,&c. 
 
 Moral Duties., the Obligations of them 
 to be judged of at they more or lefs 
 conduce to the Hurt or Happinefs of 
 Mankind. 678 
 
 Mofes, Jofhua, and the Judges not pro- 
 perly Kings. 69 
 Nor arbitrary Rulers^ according to their 
 own pleafure. 7o,&c. 
 Murder firft puni/hable by any of the Kin- 
 dred of the Perfons /lain, Gen. 4. 14. 
 and fir fi rejlraindtothe Magijlrate, 
 by Gen. 9. 6. i 5,27 
 Puiiifliabk by the Law of Nature. 45 
 Mycele Sy«0(/j, what. 271 
 
 N. 
 
 NAtural Power differs ffym Civil. 
 47,&C. 
 Negative ydce., the Parliament has it 
 upon Bills proposed by the King. 236 
 Neio, an Account of his Government. 
 
 i8o,&c. 
 
 Nerva'j Government. 180 
 
 New Teftamenc Inflames for Monarchy 
 
 confuted. 97,&c. 
 
 Noah'j feven Precepts. I'j 5kC. 
 
 He was not made Vniverfal Monat ch j 
 
 the Blefftng granted., Gen. 9. 1,2. 
 
 common to him with h'u Children. 
 
 54,&c. 
 H'vs tint Sons of equal Power. 55 
 
 The Rabbin'i Story of h'vs Diflribution 
 of Government among h'vs Sons, fa- 
 bulous. i5, & 57 
 Nobilicas Anglix, the whole Parliament. 
 
 299,325 
 
 Nobility and Gentry in other Countries 
 
 are reckon d hut ai one Eflate. 439 
 
 Nobles in foreign Countries., and among 
 
 our Saxon AnceflorSy included all 
 
 Gentlemen and chief Magtflrates. 
 
 265,275 
 j4nd Commons in Parliament. 253, 
 
 330,337 
 
 Non-Refiflance DoiJrine does not better 
 
 the Condition of Sub'^eOst 87 
 
 Hot the Dodrine of the Gofpel., or of 
 
 the Primitive Church., nor the conflant 
 
 Do&rine of the Reformed Church of 
 
 England. 1 55 
 
 No effential Right of Sovereign Power. 
 
 i5i 
 Normans, many Noblemen and Gentle- 
 men in England before the Conquefl., 
 and aUow''d the Privileges of tng- 
 liflimen by William I. 527 
 
 Nullum tempus occurrit Regi, how ex- 
 plain'd by Filmer. 94 
 
 O. 
 
 OAth to the King and h'vs Heirs, firfi 
 in Edward Ill's time. 94 
 
 Oath of Allegiance fworn only to the King., 
 and not to his Heirs till the time of 
 Henry IV. 525 
 
 How it binds. 244 
 
 That to K. William and SU Mary very 
 modefl. <^5o,<5S3 
 
 Oath of Fidelity in William Ill's time. 
 
 593 
 Jntim oath of Homage. ib. 
 
 Oaths,
 
 An Alphabetical Index. 
 
 Oaths, Filmei'i Loclrine huxo to elude 
 them. 91.&C. 
 
 They may he lavfuUy taken to a ICw£ 
 in pojj'ejfton. 65 1 .6 52,6^4 
 
 ObjeiJwn from the prior Oath of Al- 
 legiance to Kiytg James 11. and his 
 Heirs^ anfmr'd. ib. 653,&c.664, 
 681 688 
 Oaths to lawful Kings and lawful Heirs 
 firfl made in the times of Oueen Eli- 
 zabeth and King James I. 693 
 Oaths to the State, their Expediency. 687 
 j4nd their Antiquity here. 658,&C. 
 Omnes de Regno in Parliament., who? 
 
 35^,354 
 Omnes alii de Regno, ib. 355,376, 
 
 397 
 
 Opti mates ftgmfies not only Lords, but 
 
 Gentlemen. 267 
 
 Commons in Parliament, Magijlrates 
 
 and Citizens. 283 
 
 Orange, Prince, bis Conduit, and that of 
 
 the Dutch towards James II. jufliffd. 
 
 563,&c-S^S>5<59Ac.572,576,&c. 
 Heads of his Declaration. j6^ 
 
 His Demands of the King. 559 
 
 He and Princefs Mary juflly plac''d on 
 the Throne. 637 
 
 Parallel Inflances, 638 
 
 Deliverer of the Nation. 6.^1 
 
 Original Contrad between King and Peo- 
 ple., prov'd. 507,&c. 5i4,587,&c. 
 Bifhop Overall'i Convocation- Book for Di- 
 vine Right of Monarchy and Arbitrary 
 Power. ^ 
 
 Hot appointed by King or Parliament. 
 
 6 
 
 P. 
 
 PAlatine, a Magijlrate appointed to 
 curb Kings. 255 
 
 Pardons may be reje&edf tbo not altered 
 by Parliament. 236 
 
 Pardons granted by Kings to thofe who 
 fought for., oi well Oi againjt them. 
 
 453,653 
 
 Parliaments the King''s Creatures, and he 
 
 makes Laws without them, according 
 
 roFilmer. 92 
 
 Can't alter fundamental Laws. 1 3 z 
 
 King can't call what Commoners he 
 
 pkafcs. 367 
 
 The Peoples Right to them- 507 
 
 Not fubjiii to the King in matters of 
 
 Legiflature. 238 
 
 Have a Power to determine what fhall 
 
 be Treafon, he fides what is fpecify'd 
 
 in the 251^ of Edward III. 239 
 
 JFhy the time of its Meeting was afcer- 
 
 tain'd. 243,245 
 
 Parliaments met originally without the 
 King's Sumnions. 24 5,&:c. 
 
 Said to be antiently only the King's 
 Court-Baron. 185 
 
 DcAy'd. 191,36 J 
 
 yill the Ejlates meant by the Words Co- 
 mites and Barones, and fometimcs 
 by Magnates. 292 
 
 Aientiond ai making Laws, tho the 
 King be not named. 236 
 
 As old 06 our Government, and not the 
 Grants of our Sa.\on Kings ; the like 
 in other Nations. 2^4,&c.435,&c. 
 
 Inferior Clergy antiently prefent in them. 
 
 393,&c. 
 
 Met without Convocations, and vice 
 verfa. 395 
 
 Believ'd the reftfting and dethroning of 
 Kings lawful in cafe of Tyranny. 
 
 455 
 j4ffembled at the Death of Kings to 
 
 determine the Succeffion, without Sum- 
 mons from the Succejfors. 6t9 
 
 Ajfert their Tower of Eleiiion and De- 
 poftion. 621,616 
 
 Their Declaration of Edward IVth's 
 Right, forc'd and unjujl. 624 
 
 And repeal'd by another Parliament. 
 
 624 
 
 Their Declarations, when contrary to 
 Scripture, the Law of Nature^ and 
 to Hijlory., not to be regarded. 630, 
 
 631 
 
 EiWd the Throne upon Dcpofitions, and 
 Forfeitures, and Deaths, m they plea- 
 fed, without Regard to Hereditary 
 Right. 638,643 
 
 Their Power not diffolv'd at the Revo- 
 lution, tho King James the lid's was. 
 
 643, Sec. 
 
 Ti)ey are the only proper fudges of Suc- 
 cejfion without Kings. 645,&c.65o, 
 
 675,689 
 
 Ttiey are good, tho not call'd by the 
 King''sl4/rit. 648,672,&c.735 
 
 They mufl be fubmitted to, tho they judge 
 wrong. 661,669 
 
 Inflances of their different Determina- 
 tions fubmitted (0. 663,5tc. 
 
 Their Coercive Power over Kings, 730, 
 
 Their Power to impeach Afiniflers. 732, 
 
 T\}cy are a fundamental part of Go- 
 vernment, and not from the Conccf- 
 fions of Kings. 1 r 4 
 
 Parliaments held exclufo Clero, and 
 why. 402 
 
 CalPd Synodus magna. 409 
 
 Not antiently call'd, or diffolv'd at the 
 pleafure of Kings. 44 5 
 
 ParlJS-
 
 An Alphabetical Index. 
 
 Failiaments in Cliavles lid's time declare 
 
 againfi all armed Force in time of 
 
 Peace, except the Militia. 459 
 
 They cant give away the Peoples Rights. 
 
 473 
 
 Parliament, the lafi of Pvichard 11. de- 
 
 clar''d illegal. 649 
 
 Parliament's Proceeditigs againfi King 
 
 Charles 1. 702 — 729 
 
 Partus fequiturVentrem,fy/)ia/M'£f. 1 1,1 5 
 
 Quicquid ex me, &: uxore mea naf- 
 
 citur, in poieftatc mea eft, the like. 
 
 ib. & 33 
 
 •Pafiive Obedience and Non-Keftftance., 
 
 Texts urgd lor it out of the New 
 
 Tefiarmm., explain d and anfwer'J, 
 
 159 — 183 
 
 Out of theOldTcfiament. 138 — 152, 
 
 Tif adual Difobedicme. 4^5 
 
 Not the antiem Doiirine of the Church 
 
 of England. 4 
 
 Wrong founded. 2 1 i 
 
 Condemn'd by Parliament, hy Bilfon and 
 
 Hooker. ib. 
 
 The firfi Maintainen of that Doffrine. 
 
 4 Ac 
 
 ''Tis mere Nonfenfe. 31 
 
 Encouraged James lid's Tyranny. 1 37 
 Condemn'd thofe who refiu d to read his 
 Declaration. i6t 
 
 Patcrtial and Patriarchal Power not abfo- 
 lute. I o,&c. 
 
 The Nature of it. I2,&c.2 4 
 
 Ceafes when Children fet up other Fa- 
 milies. 1 5 
 Nature of it in independent Families, 
 
 24,&C. 
 
 The Ahfurdity of making it perpetual. 
 
 6o,&c. 74,&;c. 
 Paternal, Majlerly., and Regal Power., 
 
 not the fame Terms. 75 ^6 
 
 Patriarchs not Monarchs. 54 
 
 Peerage, its Rife. 259 
 
 People, the ObjeSion that they mufl not 
 
 be both fudge and Party^ anfwer''d. 
 
 r 12 — i30,&c. 
 
 People have a Right to defend themfelves 
 
 againjl Arbitrary Power., as well as 
 
 Princes have to defend themfelves a- 
 
 gainFt Rebellion. 457 
 
 May judge without a Parliament when 
 
 their Rights are violated. 5o5,&c. 
 
 People not made for Kings, but Kings 
 
 for the People. 472 
 
 They may be without Kings, hut Kings 
 
 can t be without them. ib. 
 
 They are capable to judge when Liberty 
 
 is invadid. 482 
 
 'Jif not more unjufl in them to be Judge 
 
 and Party both, than for the King. ib. 
 
 Philip the Fair, King of France, allowed 
 
 the Declaration of his Eflates, that 
 
 they would refijl him if he comply^d 
 
 \xiih the Pope's Vfurpations. 448 
 
 Pleas and Judgments in French do not 
 
 prove that all our Lawyers and Judges 
 
 were French. 533 
 
 Th.ft Language only uCd in the Courts 
 
 at Weftminfter-Hall. 534 
 
 Where not a twentieth part of Caufes 
 
 weretry'>d. $35^538,540 
 
 ?hhs in Parliament, vho. 395,402, 
 
 404, &c. 
 
 Poland, King of it accountable to the 
 
 States. 562 
 
 Depo fable for Tyranny. 21 s,5 -4 
 
 Pope, Letter to him from the Baronage 
 
 of England agatnfl his ExaOwns. 
 
 292, &c. 
 
 His contradiiJory Bulls in cafe of King 
 
 John and the Barons. 445 
 
 The Abjuration of his Temporal and 
 
 Spiritual Right over England, as old 
 
 as fmce King John'i time. 693 
 
 Forbids the Cltrgy''s pnying Taxes to 
 
 Temporal Princes without his Confent. 
 
 402 
 Popilh Princes inconfijient with the End 
 of our Conflitutton. 63 5,&c.<547 
 Populus, who. 393 
 
 Populus fignifies Lords a/i weU as Com- 
 mons. 30i,335',&c. 
 Sometimes the Government only. 351, 
 
 403,&c. 
 
 .i^nd at other times both. 405 
 
 Populus in the Saxon and Roman Coun- 
 
 cil and Parliament Sy what. 273 — 
 
 300 
 Portugal, King of, dethron'd for Rapes 
 and Murders. 459 
 
 Portuguefe Succcfjion. 6^ 
 
 Portuguefe and Sicilians fpeedily refcued 
 themfelves from Tyranny. 1 90 
 
 Power of Life and Death, &-C. not de- 
 rived to Sovereigns from God's Com- 
 mijfion to Adam and Noah, as uni- 
 •vcrfal Monarchs, from Gen. 1.27,28. 
 and Gen. 9. 6. 25,27,28,45 
 
 In what cafes a Man hat Power over his 
 own Life. 45 A^- 
 
 Power, Natural and Civil, different. 47 
 Power, Oeconomick and Civil, how they 
 differ. 1 88 
 
 Power, none irrefiftible but that of God. 
 
 48 
 Powers in being ought to be fubmitted to. 
 
 Prerogative advanced above Law by Fil- 
 
 mer. 9^ 
 
 Oten^d by King James and ^/w^-Charlcs 
 
 to be fupportedby Law. 5'? 3 
 
 PresDy-
 
 An Alphabetical Index. 
 
 Presbyterians not for ruining Charles I. 
 
 and the Monarchy. 703,&c. 
 
 Concur' d toitb Monk to reflore Ch. II. 
 
 704 
 Prefcription, what. 42i,&c. 
 
 Pretender, Caufes of fufpeOing k'u Birth. 
 
 567,&c. 631 
 
 Witneffes of his Birth infufficient. 568 
 
 Injlances of the like Cafes in fu^pofed 
 
 Heirs to Crowns. 631 
 
 fJis Birth could not be enc^uir'd into by 
 
 the Convention, nor were they or 
 
 King ^'iWxdiVCL obliged to it. 6^1^ 
 
 641 
 
 Primates fignifies Commons as weU as 
 
 Lords. 282,394 
 
 Primitive Chriftians not the letter lu'd 
 
 by Tyrants for difclaiming Refiflance. 
 
 137 
 
 Ibe, Difference betwixt their Cafe and 
 
 ours, OA to Rejijiance. 1 69,&C. 1 9 f, 
 
 &C. 
 
 Infiances of their Re/ifiance. 19^ 
 
 202 
 Primogeniture not a Divine Title for 
 
 Govtrnment. 57 62 
 
 Paffages from Greek and Roman Hif- 
 
 tory, &C. anfwer'd. 63, &c. 
 
 Prince'i Perfon not to he prefer'*d to the 
 
 Safety of the Nation. 472 
 
 Princeps and Principes ftgnify not only 
 
 Princes, but other chief Men, as Al- 
 
 dermen,Parliament- Men,andThanes. 
 
 268,28 i,&c.394 
 
 Princes of the Tribes not petty Kings. 72 
 
 Princes and Ataflers, how they differ. 115 
 
 Have no Commijfion from God to per- 
 
 fecute. 1 68 
 
 Hfs Perfon and Power diflinguifh'd. 
 
 17+ 
 
 Princes may defend thofe of their own 
 
 Religion th.it ar: fubjeCl to others. 
 
 564 
 And likewife the Subjeffs of other Prin- 
 ces when opprefs'd. 555 
 They may be limited by the Original 
 ConJiitutioH. 241 
 Principes diverfi & univerfi, & univerfi 
 ordinis, who. 407, &c. 
 Principi quod placet, Legis liabet po- 
 teilatem, explained. 5 1 3 
 Proceres fignifies not only Lords, but Ma- 
 gtflrates of Cities. 267 
 So th.tt when we find Proceres, Opti- 
 mates, & Principes, in our Great 
 Councils, it i/s not meant that aJl 
 were Princes, Lords, or great Men, 
 
 ib. 
 
 But alfo Parliament- Men. 282, &c. 
 
 310,32+, 339,353,394>403 
 
 Property, the Deftme of it one of the 
 
 chief Ends of Ci vtl Government, 48 
 
 Property not divided by Noah'x Autho- 
 rity^ or that of hvs Sons a/s Monarchs. 
 
 99AC' 
 Not diflinguifh'd in fame parts 0/ Ame- 
 rica and Africa. 48 
 Ceoi'd with the Proprietor in the State 
 of Nature. 53 
 Divided into Natural and Civil. loi 
 Not to be taken away by Kings. 1 1 5, 
 
 120 —12$ 
 
 Property in Crowns and other Poffeffions 
 depends upon the Laws of Countries, 
 and not on the Law of God and Na- 
 ture. 66g 
 Provincia, what. 409 
 PufFendorf'j Opinion of Reftflance. 108, 
 
 S02,5'7 
 Of a limited King. ib, 
 
 <i 
 
 QUeen Elizabeth, the Tjtfc of her 
 Reign, cap. i. fl ill good, and im- 
 powers the Sovereign and Parliament 
 to fettle and limit the Succejfion. 
 
 649 
 
 Qjieen Elizabeth'; and Queen Mary'j beft 
 
 Titles by Ad of Parliament. 628, 
 
 &c. 648 
 
 R. 
 
 XVEbellion againfi William T. <;38 
 
 Regency proposed by James the lid's 
 
 Friends at the Revolution, inconftf- 
 
 tent, unfafe, andimpraSlicable. 633, 
 
 &c. 
 Regnum abfolutum & politicum, how 
 they differ. %6i 
 
 Religion eftabltfh'd. Alteration of it by 
 abfolute Power, a good Caufe of Re- 
 finance. 117,127 
 May be defended, tho not propagated 
 by Force. 167 
 Can't be propagated by fuffcring Go- 
 vernors to root it out when fettled by 
 Law, othcrwife Chri/l^s Laws had 
 been more burdenfome than thofe of 
 Mofes. 1 63 
 Refiftance, the true Senfe of the Oaths and 
 Statutes in Charles lid's time about 
 it. 577 
 Texts for it. 1 48,&c. 
 Refiftance of Princes, when lawful. 1 08, 
 ii3,&c. 124, &c. 2 1 2, 468, &c. 87, 
 "^35S<^'Ac.7j3,&c. I 26, &c. 192, 
 
 &c. 
 Now limited. 104 
 
 Objeffions anfwer'd. ioy,5cc. 
 
 Allow'dby Royalifls. io5,io8 
 
 It differs from calling Princes to a ju- 
 dicial Account. > 07 
 Fffff Re-
 
 An Alphabetical Index. 
 
 Refiftance, the fuppofed Jnconvenkncies of 
 it anfwer^d. i30,&c. i J5,&c.i89, 
 
 &c,i94 
 Refiftance of infupportahk "Tyranny pre- 
 ferves the End of Government better 
 than Non-Refiflance. IS9 
 
 Refiftance, or /hutting up of mad Prin' 
 ces, jujlif/d by the Law of Nature^ 
 tho there be no municipal Law for it. 
 
 1 74i&^c. 
 Injlances of it in France and Portugal. 
 
 ib. 
 
 Difference betwixt that of a Nation or 
 
 Majority, and private Perfom. 1 82, 
 
 212,483 
 
 Refiftance for Self-defence a Right of 
 
 Nature, and not forbid^ but allovu'd 
 
 by Scripture. 195,&C. 
 
 Dr. Falkner'x Opinion about it. 210 
 
 It has not always ended in the Murder 
 
 and Depo/ition of Kings, but oftner 
 
 to the contrary. 455 
 
 Refiftance thought lawful by Parliament, 
 
 notwithjlanding the z^tb of Edw. 111. 
 
 453 
 Lawful in defence of the Conjlitution. 
 
 472,473 
 
 By what Numbers. ib. 
 
 Revolt from Jeroboam jujlify^d. 142, 
 
 &c. 
 Revolution jufiifyd. 4,$55,&c.576 
 King Richard 1. h'vs illegal Taxes oppos'd. 
 
 358 
 Not owrCd to be King till crown'd. 
 
 6io,&c. 
 The Throne vacant at h'vs Death. ib. 
 King Richard II. does by Statute juflify 
 tbofe who took Arms againji him for 
 the Safety of the Realm. 453 
 
 Took the Proceedings againfl Edward 
 II. out of the Parliament- Rolls, fear- 
 ing it would be his own Cafe. 455 
 Deftroy'd an anticnt Law, allowing the 
 Reftflance of Tyrants, and feveral 
 other Records touching the Govern- 
 ment, ib. 
 jirticlcs againfl him. 481 
 He was reftfled. 450,&c. 
 His Arbitrary Reign. 481,649 
 His Depo/ition. 62C,&c. 
 Proceedings againji him not repealed by 
 I Edward IV. 624 
 King Richard 111. how he came to the 
 Crown, Parliament declares his Right. 
 
 625,&c. 
 Eleaed. ib. 
 
 Why attainted. 658 
 
 H'vs Laws put in force. 664. 
 
 Richard Duke 0/ York, his Claim again/i 
 Henry VI. 621 
 
 Parliament forced to own it. <522 
 
 The Terms. 658 
 
 Richard Duke of York, his Perjury and 
 
 Rebellion. - ibj 
 
 KiTd. 623 
 
 Rights, legal, may be feparated from the 
 
 Perfons, but natural Rights not. 645 
 
 Robbery by Order of the King o/s unlaw-. 
 
 ful Oi by others. 469 
 
 Roberc Duke of Normandy, why he did 
 
 not call himfelf King of England. 
 
 604,607 
 
 Ht claimed the Crown, hut as fomefay 
 
 accepted a Pen/ion in/lead of it from 
 
 William Rufus. 5q,5,&c. 
 
 Reafons why he woi rtjeQcd by the Eng- 
 
 lifli. 607 
 
 Romans put none to death without a fair 
 
 Tryal. 164 
 
 Romans, chap. 13. explained. 97, &c. 
 
 170 182 
 
 Roman Senate^s Declaration againfl Nero 
 a«d Maximus, to be Enemies to 
 Mankind. ^ 107 
 
 Running-Mead, the jiffembly there of 
 Common Council of all the Freemen 
 of England, and own'd to he a law- 
 ful Parliament. 326,7^6 
 
 MagOd ChaxU ratify'd there, 327 
 
 VJAC dM^ Soc, what. 258 
 
 Salique Law 7nade by Confent of the 
 
 People. 68 
 
 Sanderfon, Bi/hop, for Arbitrary Power. 
 
 His Arguments anfwer^d. 7 
 
 His Opinion of the End of Government. 
 
 16,580 
 
 How far he is for fuhmitting to, and 
 
 concurring with a King de Fafto. 
 
 659 
 
 Sapientes, or \\/ites, fgni/ies wife, difcreet 
 
 Men, Senators, and Members of the 
 
 Houfe of Commons. 268 
 
 Saxon Great Councils, of whom made up, 
 
 26s 
 Saxon Laws confirm' d hy William I. 549, 
 
 Saxon and Gothick Princes, not abfolutCy 
 but limited. The firfi Saxon Gene- 
 rals here not Kings when they came, 
 
 248,&C. 
 
 And when made fo, had great Councils 
 or Parliaments. ib. 
 
 Their way of living. ib. 
 
 Saxons, when firfi mentioned, 249 
 
 Their way 0/ Government Jlill among 
 US. 25o,2<j8 
 
 Their Princes here not abfolute. 251 
 
 Who were qualify^d to be Members of 
 their Great Councils. 259 
 
 Saxons
 
 An Alphabetical Index. 
 
 Saxons referv''d to themfelves the Power 
 
 of ekUing and dethroning Kings tn 
 
 all the Heptarchy. 443 
 
 Schifm occafion^d hy depriving the Non- 
 
 jurant Bi/hopSj conffder^d. 6^^^&cc. 
 Scotland, Letters to the Pope from the 
 
 parliament of England, about the 
 
 Homage claimed for it. 295, &c. 
 Scots Laws of Succejfton. 61^ &c. 
 
 Scots Parliaments formerly of the fame 
 
 Conjlitution mth that of England. 
 
 352 — -365, 402, 405 
 
 ScotiOl Line^ Favourers of Popery and 
 
 Tyranny. 647 
 
 Scutum, or Knights Fee. , 298 
 
 Scutage or Efcuage. 3 1 5 
 
 How levyd. ib. & 315 
 
 Selden'f wrong Notion of Adam'^ Power. 
 
 29 
 He ajferts the People's Share in the Le- 
 
 giflature. 233 
 
 Self-Defence refervd hy the People in all 
 
 limited Aionarchies^ otherwife thcre^s 
 
 no Difference of Monarchies. 473 
 Senate of Rome bad no power when St. 
 
 Paul wrote. 98 
 
 Senators included Nobles and Commons. 
 
 1-J6 
 Seneca'i Opinion of Property, 1 2 1 
 
 Senlores, Commoners. 3 1 1 
 
 Serjcantry, Grand and Petit. 255,317, 
 
 &c. 
 Sermons for arbitrary Power burnt by Or- 
 
 der of Parliament. 4 
 
 Servientes, who. 308 
 
 Servus Dei, in ourantient Laws^ fignifies 
 
 the Clergy. 512 
 
 Sheriffs may reftji the King's Officers 
 
 ailing beyond their Commijfion. 
 
 470 
 Sibthorp'j Sermon for arbitrary Power. 
 
 4 
 Sigebert, King of the Weft-Saxons, de- 
 throned for Tyranny by the Great 
 Councils. /^.^z 
 
 Sirnames, few tis'd at the time of the 
 Conquefl., but by Normans of Qua- 
 Itty. 529 
 
 Slaves, or Servants, their obedience en^ 
 join'd by Peter, i Pet. 2. 18. and 
 Paul, Eph. 6. 5. and Col. 3.22. 
 114, &c. 119, &c. 
 The Difference betwixt them and Sub- 
 jeBs. 115, 181 
 
 Soc, Soccage and Socna, fuch as held of 
 Lords. 288, 290, 30 r 
 
 Socmen, Freeholders, ib. 302, 307, 531 
 Societys, Independent, have a power of 
 determining aU Civil Controverftes 
 within themfelves. 66^.^ 6'jj^ 
 
 Spencers, their Male-Adminiflration and 
 
 Punifhmcnt. 450 
 
 Stephen, eleUed King by Parliament. 
 
 604, 609 
 
 He and h'vs Party perjured. 60S 
 
 Hit Agreement with Henry 11. 609 
 
 Subjefts, their Happinefs preferable to the 
 
 Honour and Advantage of the Prince. 
 
 1(5 
 
 Succeflion, different Determinations a- 
 
 bout it in Parliament. 67 r 
 
 SuccefTion, Teflamcn^^ry, not valid, till 
 
 confirmed by Parliament. 504,605, 
 
 5i 5, <5cc. 
 Freq^uently alter' d by Wtmy V \\\. 6z-j 
 Always regulated hy Parliament. 630 
 And fubjffl to their Limitations. 6^^.^ 
 A'o Succijfinn to Crowns by Divine Right 
 from the Law of Cod or Nature. 
 
 SO 
 
 Succeflion, tejiamentary., of the Saxon 
 
 Kings, what. 520 
 
 Succelfion, not fo certain by Teftament 
 
 as by Inheritance. 55 
 
 SuccclTion, municipal of the Jews, no 
 
 Rule for Government. 66 
 
 Hereditary far from being certain, ib. 
 
 &57 
 
 Different Cufloms about it. ib. 
 
 SuccefTion of Daughters^ much difputed. 
 
 57 
 SuccefTion, the Laws of it not made mere- 
 ly by the Will of the Prince, but by 
 the Confent of the People. 68, &c. 
 279, &c. 549 
 Ours at firft Eleflivc. 508 
 
 Suitors to the Hundred and County- 
 Courts, all Englifhmen in William 
 I's time. 535 
 
 Superiour Lords, not irreftflible or ahfo- 
 lute over their Homagers. 351 
 
 And may forfeit. 525, &c. 
 
 Supremacy ncover''d by Henry VUl. the 
 anticnt Right of tibe Crown. 205 
 Supreme Power conveyed now by the Peo- 
 pWs Confent. 1 04 
 
 Cant be arbitrary or irreftflible, be~ 
 caufe God never gave fuch Power. 
 
 Ill, 1 15 
 
 Swedes, formerly referv''d a Power to ekS 
 
 and dethrone Kings. 443 
 
 Synods, Earls and Barons vote in them. 
 
 408 
 
 T 
 
 Axes, the impofing of them when a 
 
 Caufe of Refinance, and wheh not. 
 
 118, 119, 14+ 
 
 Taxes,
 
 An Alphabetical Index. 
 
 TTaxes, not to he im^oi'd but by Parlia- 
 ment. 320, 330, 339» 35'5i 357> 
 
 370 
 Taxes, illegal, occaftond the Revolt of 
 the Barons. 357 
 
 Tenants A^e/«f. 35^ 
 
 Not taxable by thofe in capite. 319 
 Feudatory. 3 2 S 
 
 Tenants of the King's antient Demefne^ 
 formerly tax'd by bimfelf^ and there- 
 fore not by Parliament , but when 
 opprefs'd by the King, were relieved 
 by Parliament. 358, &c. 
 
 Tenants in capite could not tax thofe 
 who held of them. S^o 
 
 When they ceas'd to make a difiinif 
 Council. i^j 
 
 The Force and Strength of the Nation 
 lay not in their bands. 37° 
 
 Not the only Freemen in William the 
 I's time. 537 
 
 Their Number then. 39^ 
 
 Tenants in Capite, others in Parliament 
 befides them. 285, 337 
 
 Lejfer ones, when caTd to it. ib. 
 
 How many in William the Firm's time. 
 
 287 
 
 Of fever al forts. 2.90 
 
 Some of them not Tenants in capite, 
 
 yet were in Parliament. 291, 312, 
 
 342 
 Tenants that hold of fome Honour or 
 Caflle. 318,328 
 
 Of antient Demefne. 3 1 8 
 
 Tenure in capite, introduc''d by William 
 the Norman. 43S 
 
 Telt againfl Refiftance, and altering no- 
 thing in Church or State, rejtis'd 
 by the Lords in Charles U's P.^rlia- 
 ment. 474 
 
 Teftaments, none in the State of Nature, 
 and why. 65 
 
 Thanes, what ; feveral forts. 258, &c. 
 
 257 
 Some of them Members of the Houfe of 
 Commons. ib. 
 
 Inferior fort. 271, 289, 536' 
 
 Thsbean Legion, their Story fufpicioas, 
 but if true, no Argument for Non- 
 Refiftance. 198 
 
 Throne often vacant, tiU filTd by Par- 
 liament. 604,5 1 5 
 Supposed to be vacant by our Law till 
 the next Succeffor was eleded and 
 crowned. 604,517 
 Jnjlances in England, Scotland, and 
 •France, 631,643 
 That of England declared eight times 
 vacant fince the Conquejl. 662 
 Tiberius fubverted the Roman Common- 
 wealth. 98 
 
 Time beyond Memory, what. 425,8cc. 
 Tories ready to join the ireach and Pa- 
 
 pifls fur James II. 576 
 
 Treafon againjl the Realm as weU as a- 
 
 gainft the King. 239 
 
 The Form of Indi&ments for it no 
 
 Proof to the contrary. ib. 
 
 Treafonable Anions, in flridnefs of 
 
 Law, receive Pardon of courfe, if 
 
 done for the Nation's Security. 45li 
 
 &c. 
 Tribes of Ifrael chofe Leaders and Kings. 
 
 72,74 
 Trinoda Neceflitas, what. 307 
 
 Troops that deferted King James 11. at 
 Sarum jujlijy'd. 567 
 
 Troops Standing, the King could keep 
 none antiently, except againfl a Re- 
 bellion, Invafion,or for foreign War. 
 
 459 
 Thofe for foreign Wars were to embark 
 
 in a Month after their firfl Mujler. 
 
 460 
 
 Trull lodged in a Prince does not take a- 
 
 way the People's Right of Appeal in 
 
 cafe of Tyranny. 1 09 , &c. 
 
 Abfolute and arbitrary Trufi deflroys 
 
 Society, and therefore never fuppos'd 
 
 to be given. No Man has power to 
 
 murder himfelf or another, and tberC" 
 
 fore can't convey any Truft to it 
 
 Prince, hut what Nature gave the 
 
 Conveyer for the Prefervation of 
 
 himfelf and others. 1 1 o, &C. 
 
 Trial by Combats, no Badge of Norman 
 
 Slavery. 548 • 
 
 TyxTLuny, not God's Ordinance. 35 
 
 Overturned the prjt Monarchies. 97 
 
 Tyranny 0/ Caligula, Hero, and a King 
 
 of Pegu. 105, &c. 
 
 Tyranny dtffolves Government, and malts 
 
 the People free. 1 1 0, 2 1 2, 501 
 
 'Tis Robbery. 125,136 
 
 Worfe than a War to recover Liberty, 
 
 475, &c« 
 
 Tyrants, little Difference betwixt them. 
 
 Madmen and Fools, fo that they 
 
 are equally unfit for Government. 
 
 175 
 
 And the one k as eafy to be judged of as 
 
 the other, 176 
 
 Tyrant, King JamesV Definition of one. 
 
 89, lOJ 
 Gives the People a Rule to judge by. 
 
 21 
 
 A foreign' one preferable to a dome flick 
 
 one. 134, &C. 
 
 Tyrants, reft/ling of them not reftjliflg 
 
 the Ordinance of God, even tho fent 
 
 by him as Plagues. i85,&c. 
 
 U.
 
 An Alphabetical Index. 
 
 u. 
 
 VAcancy of the Tyrone, the Conven- 
 tion's Declaration of it juftify'd. 
 
 587 
 Valcntinian, afterttards Em^eror^ flruck 
 '■ y' ]\i\\zvCs Heathen Prieft. 201 
 
 ■VafTalH, who. 278 
 
 Vavafor, njfoaf. 210,271,289,328 
 l^illarii. 323, &c. 
 
 Vinclicix contra Tyrannos quoted. 106 
 Unaccountable, not the fame with Ine- 
 .•■- fiffible. 464 
 
 Uncle, according to the Saxon Latt>^ com- 
 monly fucceeded to Govt/nment be- 
 fore the NephetP. 6 1 2 
 UniVerfities independent of all Ecckftaf- 
 ' tical JurifdiiHony but that of their 
 ■ Chancdlor and f^icech.jncellor. 6g<^ 
 Univerlitas Anglic, f/e Parliament. 28/ 
 Baronagii. . "292, &c. 297, 337> &c. 
 Voltintiers hai/e a Right in their Princes 
 Conquejls. 123 
 Urbs did not always here ftgnify a Bi/hop's 
 See. 408 
 Ulher, ^rcbbi/hop, againft Rejijlance. 5, 
 
 Hk ObjeOions anfwer'^d- 7 
 
 Ufurpers, Filmer will have them fub- 
 
 mitted to ajs fathers. 94 
 
 Grotius fays they have a good Title a- 
 
 gainfi the right Heirs after the third 
 
 Generation- 95 
 
 Have as good a Title as the bejl of 
 
 Kings, if the Titles of the latter be 
 
 not deriv'd from Law. 457 
 
 Vulgus, in great Councils., who. 403, 
 
 405, &c. 
 
 W. 
 
 WAges {or Knights of Shires., how 
 antient. 423, Sec. 
 
 Wall'd Towns did not Oifuchfend A/em- 
 bers to Parliament. 429 
 Wales, fome of its Princes condemned in 
 Parliament. 414 
 War and Peace adv'u^d by Parliament. 
 
 413, 517 
 War cau/lefs, by the Prince and hi/s Sub- 
 
 jfffj, diffolves Government. i r i 
 
 Waidftiips here before the Conqucjl, tho 
 
 with fome Difference., but no Badge 
 
 of Slavery. 543 
 
 Weftminfter- Abby, its Charter confirmed 
 
 by WilJiam 1. in Parliament. 394 
 William I. renounced h'vs Conqueft by hit 
 
 Coronation-Oath. 467, &c, 5i6,<Scc. 
 
 550 
 ./Ind by confirming the Saxon Lams. 
 
 551, &c. 
 
 William I, the many Forfeitures in hb 
 time prove that he adcd by Law. 551, 
 
 &:c. 
 
 He nor his Succefors never altered the 
 
 Legiflative Power. 5 1 7 
 
 He did not divide mojl of the Lands of 
 
 England to be held of him in capite. 
 
 3'8 
 
 Could not without legal Trial take away 
 Englilh Mens Honours and Efl.Ues. 
 
 530 
 
 // he did., it was contrary to his^ Coro- 
 nationOath. ' ib. 
 
 Proofs for his fuppos^d Conquefls an- 
 fwer'd. 518 524 
 
 Hts Claim from Edward the Confef- 
 for->smil. 5ip,&C. 
 
 Hewaseleaed. 52i,&C. 
 
 His outlandifh Followers did not make 
 him ahfolute :, or themfclves, and the 
 Englifli who purchased from them, 
 or held under them. Slaves. 523 
 
 He took away the L nds of a great ma- 
 ny of the Englilh Nobility and Gen- 
 ^U- ib. 
 
 Not abfolute in Normandy. 525 
 
 Oath never taken to him by the Englilh 
 a.'i a Conqueror, but as Heir to the 
 Confeffor. ^2,5 
 
 He did not tale away fo many EJlates 
 from the Englilh, as is commonly 
 faid; many Englilh £ar/x and Ba- 
 rons in hts time. 527 
 
 yind particularly wkn Voomfday-Book 
 was made. 528 
 
 Counties faid to be given by him to 
 Normans, means only the Lieu- 
 tenancy or Government of them. 
 
 527 
 He did not turn out the Tenants of 
 
 Churchmen,whowere Barons, Knights, 
 
 &c. tho the Church had then near 
 
 half the Knights Fees in England. 
 
 525,&c. 
 
 Hvs Tejiamcnt for the Succejflon ap- 
 proved by Parliament. 606 
 
 Had his Title to Normandy from the 
 Confcnt of the States. 607 
 
 He and his Succefors had not the fole 
 Legiflative Power. 2 2 5 , d'c. 
 
 Whether he acquired an abfolute Power 
 for himfclf and his Heirs. 498*' 
 
 Prov'd he did not. 5 1 5 
 
 He was clciled. ib. 5 1 7, 52 1 
 
 CalPd a Tyrant by fome, but a jiijl Prince 
 by others ; his Seveiity to the Eng- 
 lilh proceeded from their Rebellions. 
 
 f. ,. ^ 530,539, 54^ 
 
 Vr hvs own Tyranny. ib; 
 
 Endeavour'' d to extirpate the Englilh 
 Tongue. 544, 
 
 <^' g g g S 
 
 Wil.
 
 An Alphabetical Index. 
 
 William I. A Claufe in Im Magna Char- 
 ta, jreein^ the People from arbitrary 
 Taxes. it)* 
 
 Jnjiamei aUedg' d of bis arbitrary Power. 
 5+^1 54^^547 
 ]S!o Proofs of hi/s being a Conqueror^ 
 but of b'vs Perjury to the Normans as 
 wcH <wEng,li(h. Confpracy againfi 
 him the Caufe of not putting Eng- 
 li(h in Pofls afterwards^ tbo obliged 
 by hit Oath to treat them at well a^ 
 ,t/;e French- Si<^i54<5 
 He had not the fole Legiflative Power., 
 nor Right to tax the People at plea- 
 furc. 223, &c. 547 
 William Rufus did not fucceed by Inhe- 
 ritanccy but by Authority of Parlia- 
 ment. 6o4.,6o<S,&c. 
 William III. ObjcOiom again fl hvs Coun- 
 try and Religion anfwer'd. 639 
 James ll's Obfiinacy forced him to ac- 
 cept the Crown. 640 
 King'WWWd.xn'i Modtfly in not tahng 
 it by virtue of his Conquejl over 
 King James ««^ fcis Party, 06 Wil- 
 liam the Conqueror., and Henry VII. 
 &c. did, when they fubdu'd their 
 Emmies. 641 -- 646,687 
 ObjeBions againft \m 'Title from the 
 prior Right 0/ the Ptinceffes Mary 
 and Anne, and from the Oath of 
 jillegiance to King James and h'vs 
 Heirs \ from want of the Confcnt of 
 the King in being, and from the 
 jiit of Recognition of K. James 1. 
 64+ 673 
 
 William Bifhop of Ely, Richard I*s 
 y.cegerent, deposd for Tyranny, 
 
 444, &C. 
 
 William Warren, Earl of Surrey, his 
 brave Anfwer againjl arbitrary Taxes, 
 
 543 
 
 Wites and Wittena ftgnify Wife Men^ 
 Senators, or Members of the Hvufe 
 of Commons. 261, 268, &c. 
 
 Wittena Gemoots, trfcat. 271 
 
 Wives, their SuhjiOion neither abfolute 
 nor irrevocable. 33 
 
 Wives and Children may judge of the 
 Commands of Hmbands and Fathers^ 
 and in fome Cafes difobey. 30 
 
 Woman'5 Defire to her Husband^ Gen. 
 3. 16. not to be underflood of his 
 Defpotical Power over her. 1 1 , &c. 
 
 World ar fiffl given to Mankind in com- 
 mon. ioi,&c. 
 
 Writs of Summons and Parliament-Rolls 
 till the 23rf or x-yth of Edward I. 
 loft, and thofe produc'd by Br. Brady 
 in the 6th and 2th of King John, 
 only Summons to a great Council 
 of Tenants in capite. 371 
 
 Y. 
 
 YEomen peculiar to England, and 
 their Privileges. 439 
 
 York, tts Province a diflind Eccleftafti- 
 cal Body from that of Canterbury. 
 
 69y,&c. 
 
 FINIS.
 
 BOO K,S Printed for Daniel Browne at Exetei'-Change h) the Strandj 
 Andrew Bell /// Cornliil, John Darby />/ Bartholomew-CIofe, Ar- 
 thur Bettfvvorth i» Pater-nofter-Row, John Pemberton i» Fleet- 
 ftreet, Charles Rivington m St. Paul'i Church yard, John Hooke 
 ift Fleetilreet, R. Cruttendcn d»d T. Cox in Cheapfide, Jer. Battley 
 i» Pater-noftcr-Row, and Edward Symon in Cornhil. 
 
 INgenious and diverting Letters of a Lady's Tra- 
 vels into Spain. Defcribing the Devotions, 
 Nunneries, Humour, Cuftoms, Laws, Militia, 
 Trade, Diet, and Recreations of that People. In- 
 termix'd with great Variety of modern Adventures, 
 and furprizing Accidents ; being the trucft and bed 
 Remarks extant on that Court and Country. The 
 Eighth Edition. With the Addition of a Letter of 
 the State of Spnin, as it was in the Year 1700. By 
 an Englijlj Gentleman. In Three Parts. 
 
 The Conipleat Mealurer ; or, the v, hole Art of 
 Meafuring. In two Parts. The Fiift Part teach- 
 ing Decimal Arithmetick, with the Extraiftion of 
 the Square and Cube Roots. And alfo the Mul- 
 tiplication of Feet and Inches, commonly called 
 Crofs-Multiplication. The Second Part teaching 
 to meafure all Sorts of Superficies and Solids, by 
 Decimals, by Crofs Multiplication, and by Scale 
 and Compades. Alfo the Works of feveral Arti- 
 ficers relating to Building ; and the Meafuring of 
 Board and Timber, fhewing the common Errors. 
 And fome praftical Qucftions. Very ufeful for 
 all Tradefmen, efpecially Carpenters, Bricklayers, 
 Plaifterers, Painters, Joyners, Glafiers, Mafons, 
 Cc. By William Hawney, Philomath. Recom- 
 mended by the Reverend Dr. Jjhn //arris, F.R.S. 
 
 The whole Works of that excellent praftical 
 Phyfician, Dr. Thomas Sydenham : Wheiein not 
 only the Hiftory and Cures of acute Difeafes are 
 treated of, after a new and accurate Method j but 
 alfo the fliorteft and fafeft way of curing moft 
 Chronical Difeafes. The Seventh Edition : Cor- 
 refted from the Original Latin, by 'John Pechey, 
 M. D. of the College of Phyflcians in London. 
 
 A Didertation concerning the Punifhment of 
 Anibafladors, who tranfgrefs the Laws of the 
 Countries whore they refide ; founded upon the 
 Judgment of the celebrated Hugo Grotius j clear'd 
 from many Objeftions, and exemplify'd with va- 
 rious Arguments and Authorities, both Anticnt and 
 Modern. Written originally in Latin by the 
 learned Dr. Richard Zouch, fometime Profeflbr of 
 the Civil Law in the UniverlTty of Oxford, Done 
 into Englilh, with the Addition of a Preface, con- 
 cerning the Occafion of writing this Treatife. By 
 jD.J. Gent. 
 
 The Manner of Raifing, Ordering, and Im- 
 proving Foreft-Trees : With Direftions how to 
 plant, make, and keep Woods, Walks, Avenues, 
 Lawns, Hedges, (^c. Alfo Rules and Tables, 
 fhewing how the ingenious Planter may meafure 
 fuperficial Figures, divide Woods or Land, and 
 meafure Timber and other folid Bodies, either by 
 Arithmetick or Geometry : With the Ufes of that 
 excellent Line, the Line of Numbers, by feveral 
 new Examples ; and many other Rules, ufeful for 
 mod Men. llluftrated with Figures, proper for 
 Avenues, Walks, and Lawns, vc. By Mofes 
 Cook, Gardiner to the Earl of Ijfex at Cajhioberry. 
 The Second Edition, very much Correfted. 
 
 The Secret Hiftory of Whit halt, (rom the Re- 
 ftoration of King Charles 11. to the Year i6g6. 
 writ at the Rcqucl\ of a noble Lord, and convey'd 
 to him in Letters, by . late Secretary-In- 
 
 terpreter to the Mirquifs of Louvois, who by 
 that means had the Pcrufal of all the private 
 Minutes between KngLtnd and France for ma- 
 ny years. The whole confiding of Secret Me- 
 moirs, which have hitherto lain conccal'd, as not 
 
 being difcoverable by any other Hand, Publifh'd 
 from the Original Papers. Together with the 
 Tragical Hiftory of the if «4r/i, from the firftRife 
 of that Family, in tho Year io58, to the Death of 
 her late Majelly Queen Anne, and the Extinftion 
 of the Name. In Two Parts. By D. Jones Gent. 
 The Second Edition correfted. 
 
 Contemplations of the State of Man in this Life, 
 and in that which is to come. By Jeremy Tay- 
 lor, D. D. and late Lord Bifhop of Down and 
 Connor. The Eighth tilition. 
 
 All the Hiftories and Novels written by the late 
 ingenious Mrs. Behn, intire in one Volume, viz., 
 1, The Hiftory of Oroonoko ; or, the Royal Slave. 
 Written by the Command of King Charles thi 
 Second. 2. The Fair Jilt; or. Prince rj)-^«;». 
 3. Agnes de Caftro ; or, the Force of generous 
 Love. 4, The LoverV Watch ; or the Art of 
 making Love : Being Rules for CourtQiip for e- 
 very Hour of the Day and Night. ■;. The Ladies 
 Looking-Glafs to urcfs thcnifelves by ; or the 
 whole Art of charnting all Mankind. 6. The 
 Lucky Miftake. 7. Memoirs of the Court of the 
 King of JJ<j»Mra. 8. The Nun, or, the Perjur'd 
 Beauty. 9. The Adventure of the Black Lady. 
 Together with the Hiftory of the Life and Me- 
 moirs of Mrs. Behn. By one of the Fair Sex. 
 Intermix'd with pleafant Love-Letters that pafs'd 
 betwixt her and Minheer Van Bruin, a Dutch Mer- 
 chant ; with her Charafter of the Country and 
 Lover : And her Love-Letters to a Gentleman in 
 England. The Sixth Edition Correfted. 
 
 Hamlet, Prince of Denmark : A Tragedy. 
 Written by William Sbakefpcar. Printed in i a", 
 of a very fine Paper and Elzevir Letter, ^f;^ In 
 this Edition Care lus been taken to correct the 
 many Errors which efcap'd in former Editions; 
 and likewife to diftinguidi thofc Parts of the Play, 
 by inverted Comma's, which are left out in the 
 Afting, 
 
 Libliotheca PoUtica : or an liiquiiy into thean- 
 tient Conftitution of the Englijli Government, In 
 fourteen Dialogues, In which all the Ari'uments 
 for and .igainft the late Revolution are fully confi- 
 der'd. By James Tyrrcl Efq; 
 
 There is in the Prefs, and will be publifh'd 
 with all Expedition, 
 
 A Journy to the Levant, made by the particu- 
 lar Command of the late French King", contain- 
 ing the antient and modern Hiftory of feveral 
 Hlandsof the Archipelago, of Conjlantinople, the 
 Coafts of the Black Sea, Armenia, Georgia, the 
 Frontiers of Perfia and Ajia Minor. With Plans 
 of the moft confiderable Towns and Places, an 
 Account of the Genius, Manners, Commerce and 
 Religion of the feveral Inhabitants; and the Ex- 
 plication of Medals and other antient Monuments. 
 Embellifli'd with Defcriptions of a great number 
 of rare Plants and various Animals, curioufly en» 
 grav'd upon Copper Plates, and feveral Obfer- 
 vations relating to natural Philofophy and polite 
 Literature, Ky M. I'iiion de iournefort, Coun- 
 fellor of the King, Penfionary Academician of 
 the Royal Academy ol' Sciences, Dortor iit 
 Phyfick of the Faculty of Pans, ProfefTor in Bo- 
 tany of the King's Garden, and Reader and Pro- 
 fellor in Phyfick of the College Royal.
 
 University of Calllomia 
 UTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 lilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 
 Return this material to the library 
 from wtilcli It was borrowed. 
 
 J/5V 
 
 D 000 747 644 3
 
 
 \>